Atlanta Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 24, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 125 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

ATLANTA PAPER COMPANY 125
As to objection No. 2: As the Regional Director had decided to
conduct the election by mail ballots instead of manually it appears
that he mailed all parties a letter enclosing an amended notice of
election, which gave the date the ballots would be opened and counted.
The Intervenor concedes that it received the letter but alleges that
the amended notice was not, as indicated in the letter, enclosed. The
Regional Director reports that his office record indicates that all
parties were sent the amended notice. Prior to the election, the
Intervenor made no protests or requests for the amended notice and
first raised the matter in its objections. In view of the foregoing and
as all of the employees in the unit cast valid ballots, we find that the
alleged failure of the Intervenor to receive a copy of the amended
notice did not affect the voting procedure or prejudice the Intervenor
in any manner.
Accordingly, in agreement with the Regional Director's recom-
mendation we hereby overrule the Intervenor's objection No. 2.
As the tally shows that the Petitioner received a majority of the
valid ballots cast, we. shall certify the Petitioner as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Union,
Local 584, IBT, Ind., as the collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate.]
Atlanta Paper Company and Mead Atlanta Paper Company and
Ted Moore and International Printing Pressmen and Assist-
ants' Union of North America , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 10-CA-
2895 and 10-CA-2938. July 24, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 12, 1958, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above consolidated proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the
Act, 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. Thereafter the Respondent and the Gen-
eral Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs
in support.
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 Rodgers, Jenkins, and
Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
121 NLRB No. 25.
126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report,' the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, except that the Order herein
shall be directed against Atlanta Paper Company as-well as its alter
ego Mead Atlanta Paper Company?
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board orders that the Respondent Atlanta Paper Company
and Mead Atlanta Paper Company, Atlanta, Georgia, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in and adherence to Atlanta
Printing Specialties and Paper Products Union #527, International
Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees, by
discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any
other manner- discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment, or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their own and other
employees' union membership, interests, and activities in a manner
constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(c) Threatening employees with discharge, the closing of the
plant, the withdrawal of existing employee benefits, and any other
reprisals, in the event of continued union activity or the selection of
the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, as their
collective-bargaining representative.
(d) Preparing, distributing, or soliciting employee signatures to
form letters revoking the employees' union membership and authoriza-
tion for the above-named union or any other union to represent them.
(e) 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 Atlanta Printing Specialties
and Paper Products Union #527, International Printing Pressmen
and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities
1 We correct a minor error in the Intermediate Report : the name "Knight" is used in-
stead of "Jakes" in the last sentence of the next to last paragraph of Section III, B, 1,
dealing with union activities of Moore.
2 Although the Atlanta Paner Company as a Georgia corporation has ceased operations,
its liability continues for obligations incurred during its existence, including unfair labor
practices committed by it See Section 22-1874 of the Code of Georgia Annotated.
'ATLANTA PAPER COMPANY 127
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the
extent that such right may be affected` by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of -employment,
as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Ted Moore immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole
for any loss of earnings he may,have suffered by reason of the dis-
crimination against him in the manner set forth in the section of the
Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll" records, social-
security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of back pay due
under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its plant at Atlanta, Georgia, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto marked "Appendix A." 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 authorized representative, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted, and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60)
consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps have
been taken in compliance.
The complaint herein, insofar as it alleges that Respondent engaged
in unfair labor practices by terminating the 'employment of John
E. Williams, is hereby dismissed.
S In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Ap-
peals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words, "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order "
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in and adherence to
Atlanta Printing Specialties and Paper Products Union #527,
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North
128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our
employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of our
employees, or in any other manner discriminating against them
in, regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term
or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT'interrogate our employees concerning their own
and other employees' union membership, interests, and activities
in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in
violation of Section 8'(a), (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge, the clos-
ing of the plant, the withdrawal of existing employee benefits,
or with any other reprisals, in the event of continued union
activity or the selection of the above-named Union or any other
labor organization, as their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL 13OT prepare, distribute, or solicit employee signatures
to, form letters revoking the employees' union membership and
authorization for the above-named Union or any other union
to represent them.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organ-
ization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-
named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all such activities except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment, as ' authorized
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Ted Moore immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and
make him whole for loss of pay suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination against him.
All our employees are free to become, or to refrain from becoming,
members of the above-named Union, or any other labor organization,
except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement
in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
ATLANTA PAPER COMPANY AND MEAD
ATLANTA PAPER COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By---=--------------------------- ------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
ATLANTA PAPER COMPANY 129
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Ted Moore, an individual, and by International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Tenth
Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued a consolidated complaint, dated August 23,
1957, against Atlanta Paper Company, herein called the Respondent. With respect
to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges that:
(1) certain named agents and representatives of the Respondent engaged in specified
acts of interference, restraint, and coercion; (2) employees Ted Moore and John
E. Williams were discharged because of their union membership and activities;
and (3) by the foregoing conduct, the Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
In its duly filed answer, as subsequently amended, the Respondent admits the alle-
gations pertaining to its operations and the termination of employment of Ted
Moore and John E. Williams, but denies the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held on December 3, 4, 17, and 18, 1957,
inclusive, at Atlanta, Georgia. At the opening of the hearing the General Counsel
moved to amend the complaint to add Mead Atlanta Paper Company as a Respondent.
The parties stipulated concerning the relationship between Atlanta -Paper Company
and Mead Atlanta Paper Company, and that copies of the charges and consolidated
complaint had been served upon Mead Atlanta Paper Company. Counsel of
record appearing for Mead Atlanta Paper Company, who was also appearing for
Atlanta Paper Company, objected to the amendment on the ground that no charges
had been filed against Mead Atlanta Paper Company and that therefore the issuance
of a complaint against it was barred by Section 10 (b) of the Act.' I granted the
General Counsel's motion. Counsel has renewed his objection and has reargued
his position in his brief. In view of my finding in section I of this Report (infra)
that Mead Atlanta Paper Company is the alter ego or a continuation of Atlanta
Paper Company, no new charges are required to be filed against Mead Atlanta
Paper Company and there is therefore no 10 (b) issue in the case. I accordingly
affirm my ruling in this respect. During the hearing, Respondent Mead Atlanta
Paper Company filed an answer in which it denied the commission of any unfair
labor practices.
All parties were represented at the hearing, and afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses , to introduce relevant evidence, to
present oral argument at the close of the hearing, and thereafter to file briefs as
well as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Subsequent to the hearing,
the General Counsel and the Respondents filed briefs which I have fully considered.
Upon the entire record 2 in the case , and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS AND RELATIONSHIP OF THE RESPONDENTS -
Respondent Atlanta Paper Company is and has been a Georgia corporation, with
its principal office and place of business at Atlanta, Georgia, where it engaged in the
manufacture and sale of paper products. During the calendar year of 1956, which
period is representative of all times material herein, it sold and shipped products,
valued in excess of $100,000, directly to customers located outside the State of
Georgia; during the same period it received materials and supplies, valued in excess
of $1,000,000, directly from points outside the State of Georgia.
On April 8, 1957, an Ohio corporation was formed under the name of Atlanta
Paper Company. On or about May 6, 1957, Atlanta Paper Company, the Ohio
corporation, acquired and became the transferee of all the assets of Atlanta Paper
I This section provides in pertinent part that "no complaint shall issue based upon any
unfair labor practice occurring more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charges
with the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the person against whom such
charge is made."
aI hereby note and correct the following inconsequential but obvious typographical
errors in the typewritten transcript of the testimony: On page 47 , line 5, "Parott" Is
corrected to read "Totherow " ; on page 318 , line 8, "Trial Examiner" is corrected to read
"The Witness" ; on page 348 , line 10 , "1957" is corrected to read "1956."
487926--59-vol. 121-10
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Company, the Georgia corporation. Thereafter, the Ohio corporation continued,
without interruption, the same operations as the Georgia corporation at the same
place and location with substantially the same employees, supervisors, and officers.
The record discloses that there was no interruption nor change in operations and
no change in employment conditions or status of employees and supervisors; that
the Ohio corporation continued to fulfill orders contracted for by the Georgia
corporation with the same employees who worked under the direction and control
of the same officials and supervisors; and that the employees retained the seniority
acquired while employed by the Georgia corporation for purposes of determining
the amount of paid vacations, Christmas bonuses, and retirement benefits. On
August 1, 1957, the Ohio corporation merely changed its name to Mead Atlanta
Paper Company.
Upon the above undisputed facts, I find that Respondent Mead Atlanta Paper
Company is but the alter ego or continuation of Respondent Atlanta Paper Company,
the Georgia corporation,3 and that both Respondents are engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act for the purposes of the Board's assertion of jurisdiction
in this proceeding.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the record shows, and I find, that International Pressmen
and Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, and Atlanta Printing Specialties
and Paper Products Union #527, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants'
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein jointly called the Union, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Superintendent Buford Jakes
Buford Jakes is, and at all times material herein was, the night superintendent in
charge of plant 1, which contained the departments under Foremen Roy Stone,
Tom Watson, James Carver, Clayton Duncan, Russell Trotter, and Edward Deacon.
About the middle of March 1957, each foreman instructed a group of his employees
during working hours to go to Jakes' office where each group, in the presence of its
respective foreman, was separately addressed by Jakes about the employees organizing
in a union. Thus Foreman Stone admitted that he had 7 crews, each consisting
of 6 employees; that he had ordered 1 crew at a time to report to Jakes' office during
working hours; and that he was present in Jakes' office with each crew when Jakes
addressed them with respect to a union. Jakes admitted that during working hours
over a period of 2 nights, he spoke to about 12 separate groups, totaling about 175
employees, in the presence of their respective foreman. The testimony is in dispute
with respect to some of the statements made by Jakes at these meetings in his office.
Ten witnesses testified for the General Counsel about these meetings. According
to their composite testimony, the following occurred: Jakes had in his hand a letter
from a Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers' union, addressed to the employees,
which he stated had been turned over to him by one of the employees. Jakes stated
that similar letters were mailed to some of the employees and that those who had
not received one, would probably get one. He read the names on the letterhead and
indicated that none were from Atlanta but all were outsiders. He then read the
letter and made some comments about its contents. During the course of the meeting
Jakes stated that: if a union came into the plant, the existing bonuses, paid vacations
and holidays, overtime and rest periods would be cut off; the credit union, where the
employees were able to borrow money without an indorser, would be closed; the
Company would no longer contribute half the amount towards the insurance plan
but that the employees would have to pay all of it; if a machine broke down, the
Company would no longer find other work for the employees to enable them to
make a full night but would send them home; the Company would no longer bail
an employee out of jail as it had done in the past; and all company accommodations
and favors to the employees, such as a recreation club, loans from the personnel
office, gas coupons to purchase gas at a reduced rate, and grill tokens enabling an
employee to eat at the grill on credit until payday, would be cut out entirely. -
Towards the end of the meeting, he told the employees that they had a right to
vote for a union if they wanted to but that the employees would be the loser and not
3See e g, Dickey v. N L R. B, 217 F 2d 652, 653 (C A. 6), enforcing in this re-
spect 108 NLRB 561, 562 (footnote 1) ; Ozark Hardwood Company, 119 NLRB 1130
ATLANTA PAPER 'COMPANY 131
the Company because, before the Company would let a union come in, they would
close down. He also asked the employees to bring him any letters that they might
receive from a union.
fakes and Foreman Stone were the only witnesses who testified for the Respondents
with respect to what transpired at these meetings. Jakes admitted discussing the
contents of the letter from the Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers' union, which
an employee had turned over to him. He also admitted enumerating to the employees
all the benefits they were then receiving, as detailed in the preceding paragraph. He
testified that he then asked the employees what more they could ask for, and told
them that "we know we have these things, as it is; we do not know what we will
have, should the Union come in. We might still have them all; but we don't
know, . that's a guess." Stone testified that after reviewing the existing employee
benefits, Jakes asked the employees if they thought they would continue to receive
them if a union should come in? Both fakes and Stone denied that Jakes stated at
any of the meetings that if a union came in, the Company would take away any
of the benefits.
Under all the circumstances, including the demeanor of the witnesses while testis
fying and the admissions of Jakes and Stone hereinabove set forth, I credit the
testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses and find that at these meetings Jakes
made the statements attributed to him , as previously set forth.
2. Foreman James Carver
Employee Lorene Smallwood testified that in March 1957, her foreman, James
Carver, called about 20 of the employees on the second shift into Buford Jakes'
office during working hours. While Mr. Jakes was talking on the telephone, Carver
told the employees that fakes wanted to know what they thought about the union.
Smallwood asked what the initiation fees and dues would be if the union came in.
When Carver asked if anyone knew, one employee stated he had to pay a $25 initiation
fee and $5 a month dues. Carver told the employees that if the union came into the
plant, the existing practice of giving the employees loan vouchers, grill tokens, and
bonuses would be "strictly cut out," and that if their machine would break down
they would no longer be permitted to "kill time" until the end of their shift but
would be sent home immediately. About that time, fakes finished his conversation on
the telephone, and told the employees that he "had nothing further to say; Carver
has said it all."
About a week after this meeting, according to the further testimony of Smallwood,
Carver approached her while she was working at her machine and asked if she had
received any letters from the Union. When she replied in the affirmative, Carver
asked if she would bring them in. Smallwood promised to do so and a few days
later gave him a few letters. On 4 or 5 occasions thereafter, Carver asked Small-
wood, while she was working, if she had received any other union letters, and urged
her to bring those in too.
Jakes testified that he remembered the occasion when Foreman Carver brought
his crew to his office for one of these meetings but denied that he ever heard Carver
tell the employees that the Company would take away bonuses or any other benefits if
the Union came in. He admitted however that during part of the time that Carver
was talking to the employees, he (lakes) was talking on the telephone in an adjoining
room. Moreover, Carver did not deny having made the statements and engaged in
the conduct attributed to him by Smallwood. Under all the circumstances, I credit
the testimony of Lorene Smallwood and find that Foreman Carver made the state-
ments and engaged in the conduct' hereinabove set forth.
3. Foreman Roy Stone
Roy Stone was the foreman in the gluing department of plant No. 1. Ted Moore
testified that in the early part of March 1957, his foreman, Roy Stone, accused him
of talking about the Union, and that Stone stated that he had heard that employee
Roy Campbell and Ted Moore had been talking about the Union in the smoking area.
Moore denied the charge and replied that he had heard nothing about it. According
to Moore's further testimony, about a week before his discharge on March 29, 1957,
while Stone was helping him fix the stacker on Moore's machine, Stone again stated
that he had heard that Moore had been in the, restroom passing out union cards.
Moore again denied the charge.
Employee Thomas Bedwell testified that the next day after the meeting in fakes'
office, his foreman, Roy Stone, walked up to his machine while he was at work and
asked if Bedwell knew anything about Moore working for the Union. Bedwell re-
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plied in the negtive. Stone then stated that he heard Moore had been passing out
union cards in the restroom and that if he found that out, he was going to fire him.
Employee Charles Ray Campbell testified that about a week after the March 15
meeting in Jakes' office, his foreman , Roy Stone, asked him if he saw Ted Moore
passing out union cards in the bathroom . When Campbell replied in the negative,
Stone stated that word from a different department had reached Stone that Moore
was passing out union cards in the bathroom . Stone also asked if Ed Coffin , another
operator on Campbell 's shift , had anything to do with the Union "that way." Camp-
bell told him , "no sir."
Employee Robert Willis , Jr., testified that in the latter part of March 1957, his
foreman , Roy Stone , called him away from his machine to Stone's desk and asked
him if Miss Nancy and Miss Becky, who worked in his crew , had asked Willis anything
about the Union . When Willis replied in the negative , Stone told him to look him
in the eye to see if he was lying, and then told him to go back to work.
About April 1, according to Willis' further testimony , Stone again called him away
from his machine while at work , and asked him if he had joined the Union . Willis
replied that he had not , that "I didn 't want to mess around with that because I wanted
to keep my job." Stone told him that the best thing he could do to keep his job was
not to mess around with it.
Willis further testified that about April 10, Stone again called him away while
working at his machine and asked him if he had joined the Union. When Willis
replied in the' negative, Stone again told him to look him in the eye to see if he
was lying and then told him to go back to work.
Employee Mahlan Avery testified that early in March 1957 his foreman, Roy
Stone, approached him while he was working at his machine and asked him if he
had received a letter from the Union. Avery replied that he had not. On two
subsequent occasions , a few days apart , Stone asked Avery the same questions and
received the same answer . On the last occasion Stone accused Avery of lying to
him about not having received a union letter. Avery asked if Stone had ever
caught him in a lie before and Stone replied that he had,not.
Avery further testified that a few days after the March 15 meeting in Jakes'
office, he was working on a machine with employee Walther Pratt and saw Pratt
give a union letter to Foreman Stone. Stone then asked Avery for his letter.
When Avery replied that he had not received one, Stone again accused Avery of
lying.
Foreman Roy Stone admitted that he had heard that a union was organizing
during the month of March 1957 . He denied having spoken to Robert Willis in
the manner hereinabove set forth . He did not deny having talked to, nor having
made the statements attributed to him by, Moore, Bedwell, Campbell , and Avery.
Under all the circumstances , I credit the testimony of Moore , Bedwell , Campbell,
Willis, Jr., and Avery, and find that Foreman Stone engaged in the conduct and
made the statements hereinabove set forth.
4. Foreman Joe Mass
Joe Mass was the foreman of the cutting department on the second shift in plant
No. 2, in charge of about 35 employees . During working hours in the latter part
of February or early part of March 1957 , Foreman Mass approached Frances
Riggs, an employee in that department for almost 8 years, and asked if she had
received a letter from the Union. Mrs. Riggs stated that she had not. About the
middle of March , Mass spoke to Mrs. Riggs again during working hours, while
the latter was in the aisle behind her machine . Mrs. Weeks , employed in the
same department for about 10 years, was also present . Mass asked Mrs. Riggs
if she had received a letter from the Union . Mrs. Riggs replied in the negative.
Mass asked if she was sure , pointing out that Mrs . Riggs was usually in on every-
thing that goes on around there and that almost all the old employees had received
union letters . Mrs. Riggs replied that as far as she knew, she had not received
one but that she would check again . Mass then asked Mrs. Weeks if she had
received any union letters. Mrs. Weeks replied that she had recently moved, that
she was still getting her mail at her old address, and that she had not been back
to-her old address lately to see about mail. Mass told her to check and that if
she had received any union letters, she should turn them in to Mr. Brooks' office.
He told them to be sure to turn the union letters in to the office because otherwise
they would figure that Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Weeks had signed union cards and
sent them back to the Union. Mrs. Weeks stated that if she had received one,
she would sign it and send it back to the union because they had been unsuccessful
in getting a raise for almost a year and maybe the union would help them get a
raise. Mass pointed out that they were both old hands and that they had been
ATLANTA PAPER. COMPANY 133
there long enough to know better than to sign a union card . He told them that
if the union came into the plant , they would not get anymore paid holidays,
overtime would be cut out, that they would be sent home when work ran out
during their shift instead of continuing the present practice of finding work for
them to get a full night's pay, and that all existing privileges , including the credit
union and rest periods, would be cut out.
The foregoing reflects the testimony of Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Weeks. Mass
admitted talking about the Union to Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Weeks , separately, but
denied talking to them together . He denied telling them that the Company would
take away any employee benefits or privileges if the Union came in. He admitted
telling them that if they received a union letter or card , they could turn them
in to the office if they wished to do so . He further admitted making the same
statements during the months of March and April to the employees in his depart-
ment, in individual conversations . He also stated that he told Mrs. Weeks and
Mrs. Riggs that they knew what benefits they already had with the Company but
that union shops had their own rules which might result in doing away with some
of the benefits . Under all the circumstances , I credit the testimony of Frances
Riggs and Doris Weeks and find that Foreman Mass engaged in the conduct and
made the statements which they attributed to him, as hereinabove set forth.
5. Foreman Ollie Canady
Harry Jiles was employed as an ink toner on the second and third shifts in plant
No. 1. His foreman on the third shift was Ollie Canady. About the end of March
'1957, Jiles asked Foreman Canady during working hours what he thought about
the Union . Canady replied that he hoped it never came to a secret vote, that he
did not see how the Company could help the employees if the Union got in, and
that the Company would take away the existing employee benefits , such as the
credit union , the gas coupons , the bonuses , and the loan vouchers , if the Union
got in.4
6. Foreman Willard Petty
Willard Petty was the foreman of the corrugated finishing department in plant
No. 1. About the middle of March 1957, the assistant foreman of the department
called about 15 employees into Foreman Petty's office. Petty urged the employees
not to join the Union and stated, among other things , that if the employees joined
the Union , Mr. Harris , Respondents ' president , would shut the door as he did once
before.
The foregoing is based on the testimony of Pomp L. Pascall , an employee in the
corrugated department at that time . Petty admitted talking about the Union to
all the employees in his department during March and April, in groups of about 6
or 9. He testified that these meetings lasted about 10 or 15 minutes , and that he
told the employees that the Company was already giving them everything anyone
could want and that he did not see where a union could help them in any way. He
denied telling any employees that if they_ joined the Union, Mr. Harris would close
the plant down as he did once before. Under all the circumstances , I credit the
testimony of employee Pascall and find that Petty made the statements attributed
to him.
7. Foreman Joe Connor
Joe Connor was the foreman in the cutting department . During the last 2 weeks
in March 1957 , Foreman Connor spoke to a group of 5 employees during working
hours. Connor was the one who started the conversation . Connor told the
employees that if the Union got in , the overtime would be cut out and they would
be making less money . He also told them that if the Union got in , the employees
would be sent home as soon as work would run out on their job . The record
shows that the existing practice in such a situation was to find other work for the
employees to enable them to finish out their shift.
About April 12, Connor asked John E. Williams, an employee in his department,
if he had the union card, that was sent through the mail. Williams replied in the
negative and stated that he would bring it to Connor if the latter wanted it. Connor
said , "Okay." However , Williams did not keep his promise in this respect.
Connor also spoke to Williams in the personnel office about a week before the
latter's discharge on April 23, 1957. Connor asked Williams , "ain't you messed
4 The findings in this section are based on the undisputed and credible testimony of
Harry Jiles
134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
up in the union ?" When Williams stated that he did not know anything about
the Union, Connor retorted, "Oh, yes, you are." 5
8. Vice President E. R. Brooks
Employee Charles Ray Campbell had signed an authorization card for the
Charging Union to represent him for collective-bargaining purposes. About May
13 or 14, 1957, Campbell told Foreman Stone that he would "like to see about
getting out of the mess about the union." Stone said he would see what he could
do about it. The next day, Stone took Campbell to the office of E. R. Brooks,
Respondents' vice president. Brooks asked Campbell why he wanted to get out
of the Union. Campbell replied that no one liked him -because he was in the
Union and that he "just couldn't do anything right." Brooks said he would fix up
a letter and asked if that would be agreeable to Campbell. The latter stated that
it would. Brooks then told Campbell to return the next day. When Campbell
returned to Brooks' office the following day, Personnel Director Pinkard was also
present. Pinkard asked Campbell to read and to copy a letter which the former
had prepared. When Campbell was -unable to copy it, Pinkard suggested that it
would be easier if he had it typed up for Campbell. Pinkard then left the office
and returned shortly with a typewritten letter. Campbell signed the letter and
gave Pinkard 6 cents for postage. Pinkard left the office with the letter which was
subsequently mailed to the Charging Union, with a copy to the Board's Regional
Office. The letter, which is dated May 16, 1957, states that Campbell was an
employee of Atlanta Paper Company, that he had previously signed a card author-
izing the Charging Union to "represent me with my employer," that he was hereby
revoking "said authorization" and was notifying the Charging Union that it was
no longer authorized to represent him "in any manner."
On May 20, 1957, all the employees on the second shift in plant No. 2 were
directed by their foreman to shut their machines down and to assemble at the
loading platform to go to plant No. 1, located on the same street about a quarter
of mile from plant No. 2. When all the employees had assembled at the loading
platform, Leo Benatar, night shift superintendent of plant No. 2, told those em-
ployees who had cars to drive their cars and the others to get rides and to assemble
in the lobby in plant No. 1. When all the employees had arrived in the lobby,
Benatar directed them to assemble in a meeting room in plant No 1. About 100
employees were present in this room. Also present were Vice President Brooks,
Personnel Director Pinkard, George Knight, the general superintendent in charge
of all production in plants Nos. 1 and 2, Foremen Mass and Hulsey, and Bill
Cunningham from the personnel office.
Vice President Brooks told the employees that many of them were receiving
letters from unions which were trying to organize the plants, that he thought they
did not need anyone to tell them how to run their jobs, that he waned to show
them what kind of men were trying to come into the plant to be their leaders, and
that he wanted to show them some slides. Brooks then showed the employees some
slides of newspaper clippings which stated that Mr.' Harmon of the Pulp, Sulphite
and Paper Mill Workers' union had been tried for embezzlement and forgery and
that Mr. Bristol of Local 25 of the Charging Union was trying to organize communist
groups. Brooks then told the employees that if any of them had signed union
cards, it would not be held against them. One of the employees in the group
asked how they could go about getting their cards back. Brooks stated that they
could go to Mr. Pinkard in the personnel office and ask him to help them write
a letter.
The next day when the employees reported for work, stacks of letters appeared
at the time clock, in the smoking areas, and in the restrooms . Some of the letters
were addressed to Mr. Harmon of the Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers'
union; the others were addressed to Mr. Bristol of the Charging Union. Attached
to the letters were envelopes addressed to the respective unions. Each letter, in
substance, stated that "I (with a blank space for the name of the employee) do
not wish to be a member of your union, and I would like to have my card revoked."
At the end was a blank line for the signature of the employee.6
8 The findings in this section are based on the credible testimony of employee John E.
Williams Connor merely denied that he ever told Williams that if the Union came in,
the em"loyees would draw less money than before or that the Company would take away
any of the employee benefits I do not credit Connor's denials
0 The findings in this section are based on the undisputed and credible testimony of
employees Charles Ray Campbell, Thomas Bedwell, Frances Riggs, and Doris Weeks.
ATLANTA PAPER COMPANY
9. Superintendent Leo Benatar
135
A few days after the meeting addressed by Mr. Brooks, discussed in the preced-
ing section , Frances Riggs, an employee of almost 8 years' standing , was directed
during working hours by her foreman, Joe Mass, to go to Superintendent Benatar's
office. Benatar asked Mrs. Riggs what she thought of the meeting that had been
held a few days before, referring to the meeting addressed by Brooks. Mrs. Riggs
stated that she did not know anything about the Union and was not interested.
Benatar asked if after being with the Company almost 8 years, it did not mean
any more to her than that. She stated she did not know anything about it. He
then asked if she had seen the withdrawal letters, a copy of which he held in his
hand. When she answered in the affirmative, he stated that the Company had
prepared the letters, that all the employees had to do was to sign them and send
them in, and that nobody would know anything about it except those who had
signed the letters. Foreman Mass was present during this conversation.
About the same time, Doris Weeks, an employee of 10 years' standing, was also
directed during working hours to go to Superintendent Benatar's office In the
presence of Foreman Mass, Benatar asked Mrs Weeks what she thought about
the slides that were shown a few days earlier by Mr. Brooks. She replied that she
did not think much about it.
The foregoing is based upon the credible testimony of Frances Riggs and Doris
Weeks. Benatar admitted directing Foreman Mass to send these 2 employees to
his office. He testified that he merely asked them if they had any questions about
the slides that had been shown, and that they told him they did not. He also
admitted that over a period of 4 to 5 days, he had about 30 to 35 employees called
to his office, individually, and questioned each about the slides that had been shown.
He also admitted that he discussed the withdrawal letters with about 50 employees,
individually, while they were at work, and told them that if they had signed a
card and wanted to get out of the Union they could sign one of the letters and
send them in to the Union.
10. Foreman Russell Trotter
Russell Trotter was Harry Jiles' foreman on the second shift. About a week
after Jiles' conversation with Foreman Canady, hereinabove set forth, Foreman
Trotter told Jiles during working hours that if Jiles wanted to keep his job, he
had better keep his mouth shut about the Union, that the Company would fire
half the employees if it was necessary to do that in order to keep the Union from
organizing, and that on a prior occasion the Company fired about 250 employees
because the Union was trying to organize the employees.7
Foreman Trotter admitted that Superintendent Jakes told him one afternoon to
pick up the form letters for withdrawal from the Union in Jakes' office, to distribute
them in the bathrooms, and to tell the employees to take them and sign them in
order to get out of the Union. Trotter did not get these letters but that evening saw
the withdrawal letters already stacked in the bathroom. Trotter further admitted
that he told all 11 employees under his supervision that there were union with-
drawal letters in the office, and that if they had signed up for the Union and wanted
to release themselves they could go to the office and sign those letters.
11. Foreman Roy Hulsey
Roy Hulsey was the foreman of the folding box department in plant No. 2. On
May 21, 1957, the day after Vice President Brooks had addressed the entire second
shift of plant No. 2, Foreman Hulsey walked up to employee Thomas Bedwell,
while the latter was working at his machine, and said, "Tommie, . we are going
to give everyone a chance to square off with the Union . we will help you get
your card back." When Bedwell stated that he had not signed a card, Hulsey
retorted that there was no need of Bedwell standing there and saying that when
Hulsey knew different and Bedwell knew different.
The foregoing is based on the credible testimony of Bedwell. Hulsey admitted
talking to Bedwell about signing a withdrawal letter from the Union but denied
stating that he knew Bedwell belonged to the Union. Under all the circumstances,
I credit Bedwell's testimony and find that Hulsey made the statements attributed
to him.
4 The findings in this paragraph are based on the credited testimony of Harry Jiles.
I do not credit Trotter's denial in this respect.
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hulsey testified that when he came to work, a stack of form withdrawal letters
from the Union, which the Company had prepared, was on his desk. He admitted
that he talked to all the employees under his supervision and explained that if they
wanted to get out of the Union, all they would have to do was to sign that letter.
Concluding Findings
All parties stipulated that at all times material herein the following were
supervisors within the meaning of the Act: Superintendent Buford Jakes, Superin-
tendent Leo Benatar, Vice President, E. R. Brooks, and Foremen James Carver,
Roy Stone, Joe Mass, Ollie Canady, Russell Trotter, Roy Hulsey, Willard Petty,
and Joe Connor. The complaint alleges that the Respondents, by the conduct of
the above-named supervisors, interfered with, restrained, and coerced their em-
ployees in the exercise of their statutory rights in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act. In substance, these allegations fall into the following three categories:
(1) threats of reprisals; (2) interrogation; and (3) participation in the preparation
and circulation of, and solicitation of employee signatures to, union withdrawal
letters.
1. As to threats of reprisals
Superintendent Jakes directed separate groups of his employees, totaling 175 in
number, to assemble in his office during working hours over a period of 2 nights
about the middle of March 1957. During the course of his talk in the presence
of the foreman of the respective group, he enumerated the existing employee bene-
fits, privileges, and favors which the employees were receiving from the Company
and stated that these would be withdrawn if a union became their collective-
bargaining representative in the plant. At one of these meetings in Jakes' office,
Foreman Carver, with Jakes' approval, made similar statements to a group of 20
employees. Foreman Mass told employees Weeks and Riggs during working
hours that if the Union came into the plant, all existing privileges would be cut
out, and specifically mentioned some of them. Foreman Canady told employee
Harry Jiles during working hours that if the Union came into the plant, the Company
would do away with the existing employee benefits such as the credit union, gas
coupons, bonuses, and loan vouchers. Foreman Connor told a group of five
employees during working hours that if the Union came in, overtime would be cut
out, the employees would make less money, and they would no longer be permitted
to finish their shift when work ran out but would be sent home instead.
At the group meetings of employees in his office about the middle of March
1957, Jakes also told the employees that before the Company would let a union
come into the plant, they would close down. Foreman Petty told a group of 15
employees during working hours about the middle of March 1957 that if they joined
the Union, President Harris would shut the door like he did before.
Foreman Stone told employee Bedwell that if he found out that employee Moore
was passing out union cards, he was going to fire Moore. He also told employee
Willis, Jr., that the best thing he could do to keep his job was not to "mess around"
with the Union. All three employees worked under the supervision of Stone.
Foreman Trotter told employee Jiles during working hours that he better keep his
mouth shut about the Union if he wanted to keep his job, that the Company would
fire half the employees if it were necessary to do so in order to keep the Union
from organizing, and that on a prior occasion the Company fired 250 employees
because a union was trying to organize the employees.
The foregoing constituted obvious threats of economic reprisals by the Company
if the employees continued their union activity and selected the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative. It is well settled that such threats of economic
reprisals made during working hours on such a wholesale scale by numerous
admitted supervisors, constitute interference, restraint, and coercion violative of
the Act. I find that by the above described conduct of Superintendent Jakes,
Foreman Carver, Foreman Mass, Foreman Canady, Foreman Connor, Foreman
Petty, Foreman Stone, and Foreman Trotter, the Respondents 8 interfered with,
restrained, and coerced the employees in the exercise of their statutory rights in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
"As Mead Atlanta Paper Company is the alter ego or a mere continuation of Atlanta
Paper Company, as previously found, it is equally responsible for the unfair labor prac-
tices committed by the latter. See cases cited in footnote 3, supra. The cases cited in
Respondents' brief do not apply to an alter ego situation.
ATLANTA PAPER COMPANY 137
2. Interrogation
At the group meeting of employees in his office about the middle of March, Super-
intendent Jakes asked the employees about their views about the Union and whether
they had received a letter from the Union, urging them to turn over to him any union
letters which they had or would receive. Foreman Carver interrogated employee
Smallwood about 4 or 5 times during working hours as to whether she had received a
union letter. Foreman Stone accused employee Moore of talking about the Union
and passing out union cards in the restroom, and asked employee Bedwell if he knew
anything about Moore working for the Union. Stone also asked employee Bedwell
if he saw Moore passing out cards in the bathroom and if employee Coffin had any-
thing to do with the Union "that way"; asked employee Willis, Jr., if Miss Nancy and
Miss Becky, 2 employees in his crew, had said anything to Willis about the Union,
and accused Willis of lying when the latter answered in the negative; on 2 other
occasions asked Willis, Jr., if he had joined the Union and accused him of lying when
be answered in the negative; and on 4 occasions asked employee Avery about his
union letter and accused him of lying when he stated that he had not received one.
These employees all worked under Stone's supervision. Superintendent Benatar
directed Mrs. Weeks and Mrs. Riggs to report to his office, individually, during
working hours, and in the presence of their foreman, Mass, questioned them as to
how they felt about the meeting held a short time previously by Vice President Brooks
concerning the Union. Mrs. Weeks and Mrs. Riggs were known to be two of the
oldest employees from the standpoint of service with the Company. Over a period
of 4 to 5 days, Benatar also questioned about 30 to 35 employees, individually, in
his office to ascertain what they thought about the union slides which Vice President
Brooks had shown at a previous meeting of employees assembled by the Company.
Foreman Mass questioned employees under his supervision, individually, as to
whether they had received letters from the Union; urged them to turn such letters in
to Vice President Brooks; and at the sanie time pointed out to Mrs. Riggs and Mrs
Weeks that the Company would think that they had signed the accompanying union
cards if they did not turn the union letters in to the office, and reminded them that
they had been employed long enough to know better than to sign the union cards
Foreman Connor asked employee Williams on one occasion if he had received a
union card, and on another occasion, if he was "messed up" in the Union. Connor
accused Williams of lying when he answered in the negative on the latter occasion.
The foregoing acts of interrogation by Superintendent Jakes, Superintendent
Benatar. Foreman Carver, Foreman Stone, Foreman Mass, and Foreman Connor
all occurred during working hours. It is well settled that interrogation of this type,
carried out on such a widespread scale under the circumstances hereinabove de-
scribed, reasonably tended to interfere with, restrain, and coerce the employees in
the exercise of their statutory rights, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Especially is such conduct violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, when viewed
against the almost contemporaneous and widespread threats of economic reprisals for
continued union activity and for selecting the Union as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees .9
3. Preparation and circulation of, and solicitation of employees' signatures to,
union withdrawal letters
Although only 2 employees, each on a separate occasion, had asked Vice President
Brooks what they had to do to get out of the Union, the Respondents prepared large
quantities of form letters, addressed to each of the 2 Unions which were then engaged
in a campaign to organize the employees, and stating that the employee, for whose
signature there was a blank line, did not wish to be a member of the Union and
wished to have his card revoked. Attached to these form letters was an envelope
addressed to the respective union. Stacks of these form letters were placed by
Respondents at the time clocks, in the smoking areas, and in the restrooms. Respond-
ents' supervisors then solicited the employees during working hours to sign these
letters. Thus, at the time when Superintendent Benatar was interrogating Mrs. Riggs
in his office about the meeting previously held by Vice President Brooks, as previously
found, he asked her, in the presence of her foreman, Mass. whether she had seen the
withdrawal letters, a copy of which he held in his hand. When she answered in the
affirmative, he told her that all the employees had to do was to sign them and send
them in and that nobody would know anything about it extent those who had signed
the letters. Benatar also discussed the withdrawal letters with about 50 employees,
• See, e. g., Fleming Manufacturing Company, Inc., 119 NLRB 452, and cases cited
therein.
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
individually, and told them that if they had signed a card and wanted to get out of
the Union, they could sign one of the letters and send them in to the Union. Fore-
man Trotter told all 11 employees under his supervision that withdrawal letters from
the Union were in the office, and that if they had signed up for the Union and wanted
to release themselves they could go to the office and sign these letters. Foreman
Hulsey told employee Bedwell that the Company was going to give everyone a chance
to get out of the Union and to get his card back. A stack of these form withdrawal
letters was on Hulsey's desk and he told all the employees under his supervision that
they could get out of the Union merely by signing these letters.
In the light of the entire record considered as a whole, and particularly the con-
temporaneous threats of economic reprisals for continued union activity and for
selecting the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees, I
find that by preparing, distributing, and soliciting employee signatures to (the form
withdrawal letters from the Union) the Respondent Mead Atlanta Paper Company 10
interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees in the exercise of their statutory
rights in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.11
B. Discrimination in hire and tenure of employment
1. Ted Moore
(a) Moore's union activities and Respondents' knowledge thereof
Ted Moore was employed as a glue machine operator on the second shift in plant
No. I from February 1956 until his discharge on March 29, 1957. His immediate
foreman was Roy Stone.
About March 11, 1957, Moore signed a membership card in Local #527 of the
Charging Union. During the month of March until the date of his discharge,
Moore talked about the Union to the employees in his department, passed out
union authorization cards, and actively solicited employee signatures to these cards.
Moore's union activities occurred during rest periods in the restroom and in the
smoking areas. He was successful in getting about 3 or 4 union authorization cards
signed by employees in his department.
Moore's union activities came to the attention of his foreman, Roy Stone. Thus,
early in March, Stone accused Moore of talking about the Union, stating that he had
heard that Moore had been talking about the Union in the smoking area. Moore
denied the charge. The day following the meetings of the groups of employees in
Superintendent Jakes' office, as previously found, Stone asked employee Bedwell
if he had heard anything about Moore working for the Union. When Bedwell
replied in the negative, Stone stated that he had heard that Moore was passing out
union cards in the restroom and that if he found that to be true, he was going to
fire Moore. About a week before Moore's discharge, Stone told employee Campbell
that word had reached Stone about Moore passing out union cards in the bathroom,
and asked Campbell if he saw Moore engaging in such activity. About a week
before Moore's discharge, Stone again accused Moore of passing out union cards
in the restroom, a charge which Moore again denied. About 3 days after Moore's
discharge, employee Campbell went to see Superintendent Jakes in the latter's office.
Campbell told Jakes that he and Moore were very good friends, that Moore was for
the Union but that he (Campbell) had nothing to do with the Union, and asked if
his close association with Moore would have any effect on Campbell's job. Knight
told Campbell that his job would not be in jeopardy as long as he did his work satis-
factorily, that the Company knew for some time that Moore was for the Union and
that was the reason why General Superintendent Knight was watching Moore so
closely on the day of his discharge, and that Moore was discharged not only because
of the Union but that his production was very low.12
11 As this conduct occurred after Respondent Atlanta Paper Company ceased operations,
I find, in agreement with Respondents, that it is not liable in this respect.
11 See, e g., The Juvenile Manufacturing Company. Inc . 117 NLRB 1513, 1536-1538 ;
United States Rubber Company, 115 NLRB 1707, 1710; The Jefferson Company, Inc, 110
NLRB 757, 771 ; The Sun Company of San Bernardino. California, 103 NLRB 359 369-
370; Poultry Enterprises, Inc, 102 NLRB 211, 221-222, 225; Burlington Mills Corpo-
ration, 102 NLRB 252, 259, 260, 268; American Bottlino Company, 99 NLRB 345 348-
350; Charles R Krimm Lumber Company, et al, 97 NLRB 1574, 1578, enfd 203 F. 2d
194, 196 (C. A. 2) ; cf. Hazen & Jaeger Funeral Home, 95 NLRB 1034, 1036.
13 The findings with respect to Jakes' statements are based on the credible testimony of
Campbell, who was still in the Respondents' employ when he testified under subpena at
the hearing in this proceeding. Jakes denied having made these statements. He ad-
I , -, . ATLANTA PAPER COMPANY 139
Upon the basis of the entire record, I am convinced and find that Respondents
were aware of Moore's union interest and activities.
(b) The discharge of Moore an March 29, 1957
Moore operated a Staude gluing machine on the shift from 4 p. in. to 1 a. in.,
since he was employed in February 1956. This machine, which is about 40 to 45
feet long and 5 to 6 feet wide, folds and glues carry-home cartons used by soft
drink companies and known as "bottle Master Cartons." A crew of 6 employees,
including the operator, works on a machine; 1 employee, called a score breaker,
breaks the scores on the flat cardboard; another employee, called a feeder, feeds
the flat cardboards into the machine; 2 employees, called take-off men or girls,
take the cartons off the machine after they have been folded and glued; and 1
employee, called a packer, packs the carton into a large corrugated case. The
machine is electrically operated and can be stopped by pressing a button. When
a machine jams, the cartons get folded up and back up in behind one another.
When that happens, the machine has to be stopped and the jammed up cartons
pulled out by hand. Jams are very frequent occurrences on these machines and
are usually caused by cut-stock but sometimes by lack of varnish on the stock or
by the poor condition of the machine. There is nothing that can be done to prevent
a jam caused by cut-stock.
Moore gave the following version of the incident which led to his discharge on
March 29, 1957, when his machine jammed: Moore was talking to Totherow, an
employee who worked on the day shift and who told Moore he had just been
discharged. During the conversation, Moore was standing near the end of the
machine, next to the feeder, and was looking directly at the machine. While he
was talking, some cut-stock caused the machine to jam. Totherow helped Moore
clean out the jam. When the machine was started again, the feeder asked Moore
to clean out the gluepot. Moore then went to the back of the building to get the
material to clean out the gluepot. When he returned and was cleaning out the
gluepot, General Superintendent George Knight walked up and escorted Totherow
away. Knight returned in about 10 minutes and said to Moore, "Boy, you had
better not be talking to anyone else and let the machine jam and not watching the
machine." Moore tried to tell Knight that he had been watching the machine but
Knight would not listen. Knight said, "you had better not do that again; we will
have to fire you." Moore then saw Knight walk over and talk to Foreman Roy
Stone. Knight then returned and took Moore down to Personnel Director Pinkard's
office. Knight told Pinkard that Moore had been talking to Totherow for about
an hour and a half and was not watching his machine. Moore denied that he had
been talking that long and stated that he was watching his machine. Pinkard stated
that he would have to accept Knight's version and Moore was discharged.
General Superintendent Knight's version of what occurred is as follows: On
Friday, March 29, the personnel division was holding a safety meeting with the
night shift supervision. Aware of this meeting, Knight was making a tour of the
plant. When he came to the gluing department, he noticed, about 20 feet away,
Moore and another boy, Totherow, standing and talking. He also noticed that
the operator, Moore, had his back to the machine and to the feeder. He watched
them talking for 2 or 3 minutes, when the machine jammed. The feeder pushed
the button and stopped the machine. Knight walked up to about 15 feet from the
machine and saw Moore and Totherow begin pulling out the jam. Moore then
went to get a piece of scrap metal to clean out the gluepot. Knight then went to
the telephone and called Pinkard to find out if Totherow was the boy who had
quit at 4 p. in. When Knight received confirmation in this respect, he returned
and watched the two boys finish cleaning the gluepot and start the machine up
again. By this time the machine had been down some 6 or 8 minutes. (On cross-
examination, he testified that the machine was down about 10 minutes ) Knight
then spoke to Totherow about whether he had been fired or had quit, and escorted
him to the personnel office to get this point straightened out. He then returned
mitted that shortly after Moore's discharge, Campbell came to his office "apparently dis-
turbed" about what "we might think about his association" with Moore and that he
wanted to know if he were likely to lose his job. He further admitted that Campbell
might have said that "we might have thought he was in" the Union too Production
records introduced by Respondents show that Moore's production was in fact lower than
that of the other glue machine operators Under all the circumstances, and in and view of
fakes' other unlawful conduct previously described, I do not credit Jakes' denial in this
respect.
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the gluing department and met Foreman Stone, who had returned from the
safety meeting. He asked Stone for the name of the operator of machine #278,
which was Moore's machine. Stone told him it was Ted Moore. Knight then
asked if Stone had an operator to operate that machine while he took Moore down
to the personnel office. Moore said that he had. Knight then went over and
asked Moore if he did not know any better than to stand with his back to the
machine and the feeder and allow the machine to jam up. Moore said he did not
think too much about it and shrugged his shoulders. Knight then stated that they
had better go down and discuss it with Mr. Pinkard, the personnel director. On
the way to the personnel office, Moore asked if he was going to be fired. Knight
replied that he did not know, that they would talk about it when they got to the
personnel department and see what Pinkard thinks about it. After Knight told
Pinkard what had happened, Pinkard asked Moore what he had to say. Moore
stated that he had nothing to say and that he did not realize it was so bad. When
Moore "didn't show any effort to correct his errors," he was discharged. Knight
denied telling Pinkard that Moore had been talking about an hour and a half.
Moore, Knight, and Pinkard were the only persons present in the personnel
office. Yet, Respondents made no effort to corroborate Knight's version through
the testimony of Pinkard. As the Supreme Court has held,13 "the failure under
the circumstances to call as witnesses those . . . who were in a position to
know . is itself persuasive that their testimony, if given, would have been
unfavorable" to the Respondents. Moreover, although Knight first testified that
before he spoke to Moore, he had asked Stone if he had an operator to operate
Moore's machine while he took Moore to the personnel office, he later testified
that the first time he entertained any thoughts of taking Moore to the personnel
office was after he had spoken to Moore and as a result of Moore's attitude.
Finally, Moore's version was corroborated in some respects by three other credible
witnesses for the General Counsel. Thus, Campbell, who was still in Respondent's
employ when he gave the following testimony under subpena in this proceeding,
at that time was the operator of the same kind of machine, one removed from but
parallel to, Moore's machine. He saw Knight go up to the end of Moore's machine
and just stand there, watching, while Moore and Totherow were talking. Moore
was looking at the machine when the jam occurred. Moore and Totherow cleaned
out the jam. Moore then left the machine for a few minutes and then came back
to clean out the gluepot. Knight then came over and went away with Totherow.
He came back in about 5 minutes and started to talk to Moore. Knight then left
Moore and went back to talk to Foreman Stone. Then Knight returned to Moore
and left with him. Employees Nassie Robinson and Robert Willis, Jr., also testified
under subpena as witnesses for the General Counsel. Robinson was the takeoff
girl, and Willis, Jr., was the packer, on Moore's machine at the time in question.
Both testified that Moore was facing the machine when he was talking to Totherow.
Robinson also testified that it was Moore who discovered the jam.
In view of the foregoing, and upon the basis of my observation of the demeanor
of the witnesses, I credit the testimony of Moore and accept as true his version
of what occurred on March 29 to the extent that it conflicts with that of Knight.
(c) Respondents' defenses and concluding findings
Superintendent Knight testified that Moore was discharged because of the manner
in which he "worked his machine" on March 29, when it jammed, and his "carefree
attitude" in the personnel office in not making any attempt to correct his actions
"toward making a better operator." He admitted that he had not decided to
discharge Moore until he had displayed this alleged attitude in the personnel office.
Yet, when asked if he would have discharged Moore if he had not displayed the
attitude which Knight considered objectionable, Knight replied, "I do not know."
On the other hand, the uncontradicted testimony shows that every day jams were
a common and frequent occurrence on all the machines and that all the employees,
including the operators, talked to other employees while at work. Yet, no com-
pany representative ever mentioned this to the employees, let alone reprimanded
them for it. Indeed, Campbell, who was still employed by Respondents, testified
that it once took him as much as 25 minutes to clean out a jam. As previously
found, Moore was facing his machine on the day in question, and his jam was
cleaned up within 10 minutes. Moore tried to explain that he was watching his
machine, but Knight would not listen. After reprimanding Moore, Knight talked
to Foreman Stone and then escorted Moore to the personnel office where Moore
denied the charges that he had not been watching his machine and had been talking
13 Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. U 8, 306 U. S. 208, 226.
ATLANTA PAPER COMPANY 141
as long as Knight claimed. Yet, at the hearing in this proceeding, Knight testified
that he had observed Moore talking only 2 or 3 minutes when the jam occurred.
Respondents also point to a check-cashing incident, which occurred a week earlier,
as having a bearing on Moore's discharge. The record shows that it was a long-
standing and common practice for the employees to cash their paychecks during
working hours in the lobby of the building. About a week before Moore's discharge,
Foreman Stone met Moore and two other operators as they were returning to work
after cashing their checks. Stone stated that they ought to know better than to go
at the same time and that he did not want it to happen again. The other- two op-
erators stated that they would not do it again; Moore did not say anything. However,
Knight definitely did not mention this incident as having any bearing on Moore's
discharge, and when Foreman Stone was asked whether the check-cashing incident
was one of the reasons for Moore's discharge, he testified, "No, sir, I wouldn't
think so."
Respondents also introduced a compilation of the production records of Moore
and other machine operators during the first 3 months of 1957, which records show
Moore's production to be the lowest among the operators. Moreover, Superintendent
Jakes told employee Campbell, about 3 days after Moore's discharge, that Moore
was discharged, not only because of his union activities, but that his production
was poor. However, after persistent cross-examination by the General Counsel on
the question of whether Moore's production had anything to do with his discharge,
Knight, after some reluctance, finally admitted that "it did not."
The record shows, as previously found, that Respondents were vigorously opposed
to having a union in the plant as the collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees and engaged in flagrant and extensive unfair labor practices in an effort to
prevent it. Respondents had threatened the employees with reprisals, including dis-
charge, for "messing around" with the Union, talking about the Union, or continued
activity on behalf of the Union. Moore was continuously active on behalf of the
Union and passed out union cards in the restroom and the smoking area, as previously
found. Reports of Moore's union activities came to Stone's attention. Stone then
made repeated efforts to verify these reports, and on one occasion threatened to
discharge Moore if Stone found the reports to be true. Finally, a few days after
Moore's discharge, Superintendent Jakes admitted to employee Campbell that the
Company was aware of Moore's union activities, that that was why Superintendent
Knight was watching him so closely on the day of his discharge, and that Moore's
union activities was a motivating cause for his discharge. Significantly revealing in
this respect is Campbell's apprehension about his job because of his close association
with Moore and the need he felt for informing Jakes that, while Moore was for
the Union, he (Campbell) was not.
Upon the basis of the entire record considered as a whole, .I am convinced and
find that Respondents seized upon the incident of March 29 as a protection
against Moore's discharge, the real and dominant motive of, the moving cause for,
which was Moore's continued union activities. By discharging and refusing to re-
instate Ted Moore because of his union activities, the Respondents have discriminated
in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership
in the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
2. John E. Williams
Williams was employed from March 1955, until his termination on April 23, 1957,
at which time he was a feeder on a slotter machine on the first shift in the cutting
department of the corrugating department. His foreman was Joe Connor. Ben W.
Sikes was the superintendent of the corrugating department, in charge of coordinating
sales orders with the planning, scheduling, and running of the plant. Shortly before
Williams' termination, there was a decline in orders which necessitated a layoff of
some employees. After studying the type of orders to be run, Sikes decided that
the most feasible place to make the layoffs was in the cutting department, supervised
by Connor. Sikes thereupon discussed the matter with Connor. The factors of
dependability and performance were the criteria considered by them in selecting the
employees for layoff. They jointly agreed upon a list of four employees, whose
absentee records they then checked in the personnel office. Williams was selected
as 1 of the 2 employees to be laid off because of his bad absentee record and his
work performance not being up to the desired standard.
The foregoing reflects the testimony of Sikes and Connor. In support of this
contention, Respondents introduced- a study of the absentee records of all those
employed in the cutting department at that time. This study shows that during the
3-month period of February, March, and April 1957, the average of absences per
employee in this department was 2.17 days, that Williams was absent 12 days, and
142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Williams had the highest number bf absences of all the employees in the
department.
To counter the foregoing, the General Counsel adduced evidence to'the effect that
many of Williams' absences had been excused. However, it is not the Respondents'
position that Williams was selected because of a bad record of unexcused absences,
but because of a bad absentee record, whether excused or unexcused. The General
Counsel also points to the fact that at the time of his termination Williams was
merely told by Personnel Director Pinkard about being absent too much, although
Connor and Sikes had long been aware of the manner in which Williams performed
his work. Williams, however, did not deny conducting himself in the manner which
Connor and Sikes regarded as not being up to their desired standard.14 That such
conduct had been tolerated and was not regarded as a sufficient cause for discharge,
does not negative the fact of its consideration when the need for a layoff arose. And
the General Counsel does not dispute the necessity for an economic layoff.
Williams' sole union activity consisted of signing a union card and attending one
union meeting, both events occurring early in March. About April 12, Foreman
Connor asked Williams if he had the union cards which were mailed to his home.
Williams promised to bring them to Connor but failed to keep his promise. Connor
also asked Williams, about a week before his termination, if he were not "messed up
in the Union." When Williams answered in the negative, Connor stated, "Oh yes
you are."
While the foregoing, considered in the context of Respondents' other unfair labor
practices, previously found, casts some suspicion on the reasons asserted by the
Respondents for Williams' termination, I nevertheless am not convinced that, in
balance, the General Counsel has sustained the burden of proving that Williams'
termination was discriminatorily motivated. I will accordingly recommend that the
complaint be dismissed in this respect.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents, set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondents 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
As previously found, the Respondent Atlanta Paper Company ceased operations
about May 6, 1957. Under all the circumstances, and particularly in view of the
fact that the individuals involved in the commission of the unfair labor practices are
all employed by Respondent Mead Atlanta Paper Company, the alter ego charged
with the responsibility for remedying the unfair labor practices,15 I believe that the
policies of the Act will be adequately effectuated by directing the Recommended
Order only against Respondent Mead Atlanta Paper Company.
Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I will recommend that Respondent Mead Atlanta Paper Company cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Ted Moore was discriminated with regard to his hire and
tenure of employment, I will recommend that Respondent Mead Atlanta Paper
Company offer to him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substan-
tially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against him, by payment to him a sum of money
equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of
his discharge to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings
during said period. Said loss of pay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in
the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289,
291-294. I will also recommend that the above-named Respondent make available
to the Board,,upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the determination
of the amounts due under this 'recommended remedy.
The unfair labor practices committed by Respondents are of a character which
strike at the roots of employee rights safeguarded by the Act. As these unfair
labor practices are persuasively related to other unfair labor practices proscribed
14 The chief complaint against Williams was that every time his machine was not oper-
ating, he would go to the smoking area and would not pitch in and clean up around his
machine.
11 See cases cited in footnote 3, supra.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 143
by the Act, a danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the
past conduct. The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the
remedial order is coextensive with the threat . In order therefore to make effective
the interdependent guaranties of Section 7 of the Act and to prevent a recurrence
of unfair labor practices , I will recommend that the Respondent Mead Atlanta
Paper Company cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights
guaranteed employees by Section 7 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. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Ted
Moore, thereby discouraging membership , in Atlanta Printing Specialties and Paper
Products Union #527, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act.
2. By the foregoing conduct, by interrogating employees concerning their own
and other employees ' union membership , interests , and activities , by threatening
employees with discharge , the closing of the plant and the withdrawal of existing
employee benefits in the event of continued union activity or the selection of a
union as their collective -bargaining representative , and by preparing , distributing,
and soliciting employee signatures to, form letters revoking the employees' union
membership and authorization for the Union to represent them ,16 the Respondents
have interfered with, restrained , and coerced the employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby have engaged in and are engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices by discharging
John E. Williams.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
16 This applies only , to Respondent Mead Atlanta Paper Company.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, and
International Brotherhood , of Electrical - Workers, Local 5,
AFL-CIO [Franklin Electric Construction Company and Util-
ities Line Construction Company, Inc.] and Sherman T. Rock.
Case No. 6-CC-145. July 24, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 31, 1958, Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 5, AFL-CIO, had, and that the Respondent International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, had not, engaged in
certain unfair labor practices and recommending that the Respond-
ent Local cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached-hereto. Thereafter the General Counsel and
the Respondent Local filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
briefs in support thereof. The Respondent International filed a brief
in support of that part of the Intermediate Report which found no
unfair labor practices by the Respondent International.
121 NLRB No. 26.