Aurora Wall Paper Mill Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 8, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 188 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of AURORA WALL PAPER MILL INC. and UNITED WALL
PAPER CRAFTSMEN & WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA, AFFILIATED WTTH
THE A. F. OF L.1
Case No. 13-C-2747.-Decided April 8,1947
Mr. Benjamin B. Salvaty, Jr., for the Board.
Messrs. Sears and Streit, by Mr. Barnabas F. Sears, of Aurora, Ill.,
for the respondent.
Mr. Joseph M. Jacobs, by Messrs. Jacob N. Gross and Rudolph
Heinl, both of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
Mr. William C. Baisinger, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On September 25, 1946, Trial Examiner W. P. Webb issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after , the Union and counsel for the Board filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and supporting briefs, and, by permission of the
Board, the respondent filed a reply brief.2
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 briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner, except as noted below :
On November 7, 1945, the complainant Thomas and other em-
ployees violated a well-established plant practice concerning work
assignments , by refusing to unload clay unless the respondent paid
i Local No. 12, which was established in August 1945, has jurisdiction over employees of
wall paper manufacturers in the Aurora, Illinois, area.
2In addition to its reply brief, the respondent , on January 15, 1946, filed a written re-
quest for permission to argue orally before the Board. In view of our disposition of the
case herein , we find that no purpose would be served by granting the respondent ' s untimely
request. Accordingly, it is hereby denied.
73 N. L. R. B., No. 33.
188
AURORA WALL PAPER MILL INC. 189
them additional compensation. The respondent did not then take
any severe disciplinary action against these employees, but sent them
home for the remainder of the day. At a meeting held in the plant
the following morning, the respondent afforded them an opportunity
to recant from their position and to commit themselves to unload clay
in the future in accordance with the established plant practice. The
record shows, as found by the Trial Examiner, and contrary to the
contention of the Union, that at this meeting Thomas refused to
commit himself, affirmatively indicating that he would continue to
refuse to unload clay at his prevailing rate; 3 immediately thereafter,
his employment with the respondent was terminated. We find un-
convincing the Union's contention that Thomas was unlawfully dis-
charged because he had attempted to engage in collective bargaining
and protected concerted activity. The record satisfies us, and we find,
that, in requiring Thomas to agree to follow the existing plant prac-
tice with respect to unloading clay, the respondent did not foreclose
collective bargaining as to changes in such practice or otherwise inter-
fere with his right to bargain collectively through the Union, which
was currently negotiating with the respondent on a proposed agree-
ment. For these reasons, we agree with the Trial Examiner's con-
clusion that the respondent's treatment of Thomas was not violative
,of the Act ,4 and therefore find it unnecessary to pass upon the other
reasons given by the Trial Examiner to reach this conclusion.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the complaint herein against Aurora Wall Paper
Mill Inc., Aurora, Illinois, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Benjamin B. Salvaty, Jr., for the Board.
Messrs. Sears and Streit , by Mr. Bainabas F . Sears, of Aurora , Ill., for the Re-
spondent.
Mr. Joseph M. Jacobs, by Messrs. Jacob N. Gross and Rudolph Heinl, both of
Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
' The stenographic transcript of the proceedings at the meeting, referred to in the Inter-
mediate Report as Appendix A thereto, reads in part :
Mr. ATWELL ( the respondent ' s counsel ). Well , Mr. Thomas , the point I am trying
to raise is will you retract your actions of yesterday , that is, will you continue to
take the same position in the future?
Mr. TnoreAS I certainly will, sir.
4 Cf. Matter of Mt. Clemens Pottery Company, et al., 46 N. L . R B. 714, enf ' d as modified.
147 F. ( 2d) 262 (C. C. A. 6).
190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by United Wall Paper Craftsmen & Workers of North
America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the
Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Re-
gional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its com-
plaint, dated July 1, 1946, against Aurora Wall Paper Mill Inc., Aurora, Illinois,
herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and the
charge, accompanied by notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the
Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance :
(1) that on or about November 8, 1945, the Respondent discharged Walter D.
Thomas and thereafter refused to reinstate him for the reason that he joined and
assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities with other employees of
the Respondent for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection ; (2) that on and after November 8, 1945, and continuing to the date
of the complaint, the Respondent warned and threatened its employees with dis-
charge and other disciplinary action if they engaged in concerted activity ; and
(3) by such acts and statements the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
On July 8, 1946, the Respondent filed its answer, in which it admitted cer-
tain allegations of the complaint in respect to the operation of its business,
but denied that it had engaged in or was engaging in the alleged unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was begun at Chicago, Illinois, on July 16,
1946, and continued at Aurora, Illinois, on July 18, 19, and 20, 1946, before the
undersigned, W. P. Webb, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief
Trial Examiner The Board, the Respondent, and the Union were represented
by counsel and participated in the hearing Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues was afforded all parties.
At the conclusion of the Board's case in chief and again at the conclusion of
the hearing, counsel for the Respondent moved to strike paragraphs 4 and 6 of
the complaint and also to dismiss the entire complaint. Ruling on these mo-
tions was reserved. They are now disposed of by the undersigned as indicated
below.
At the conclusion of the hearing, a motion made by Board's counsel to con-
form the pleadings to the proof in respect to formal matters was granted with-
out objection. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties argued orally on
the record before the Trial Examiner. The parties waived the privilege of filing
briefs with the Trial Examiner.
I The hearing was opened at Chicago, Illinois , on July 16, 1946. At the request of coun-
sel for the Respondent, an adjouinnient was granted until July 18, on which date, the
hearing was resumed at Aurora , Illinois , where the plant is located and where the wit-
nesses reside.
AURORA WALL PAPER MILL INC. 191
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT'
The Respondent, Aurora Wall Paper Mill Inc., is an Illinois corporation, hav-
ing its principal office and place of business of Aurora, Illinois, where it is en-
gaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of wall paper. The principal
raw materials used at the plant are paper, clay and paint. The annual purchases
of such material by the Respondent exceed $90,000, in value, of which 90 per-
cent or more is transported to the plant from points outside the State of Illinois.
The Respondent's annual output of finished products at the plant exceeds $150,000
in value, of which more than 50 percent is shipped to points outside the State of
Illinois. The normal number of employees in the plant is approximately 20.
The Respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act and the undersigned so finds.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Wall Paper Craftsmen & Workers of North America, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to member-
ship employees of the Respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of Events
According to Rudolph Hein], business agent and organizer for the Union, the
Union has a contract with the Wall Paper Institute, which represents approxi-
mately 75 percent of the wall paper manufacturers of the United States. This
contract was negotiated by representatives of the International Union. The
Respondent is not a member of the Wall Paper Institute and therefore is not
a party to the contract, hence the Union conducted an organizational campaign
at the plant. Heinl began this campaign in 1938. He first took the matter up
with Harry D. Mombleau, president of the Respondent, and Richard Hamper, the
Respondent's attorney. The latter is the son of H. D. Hamper, superintendent
of the plant. Heinl was told by Mombleau and Attorney Hamper that they
were interested in having the employees organized by the Union, but requested
that it be delayed until they could build up the business to a point where the
Respondent could afford to pay union wages. At that time, the Respondent was
employing a number of people who lived in the rural districts and, although their
wages were not very high, they were sufficient. Heinl made a number of subse-
quent visits to the plant, but it was not until the spring of 1942 that he began
organizational work among the employees themselves.
On May 14, 1942, the Union filed a charge with the Board alleging that the
Respondent had discriminatorily discharged Employees Walter Thomas and
Wendell Burkholzer (Case No. 13-C-1875). However, no complaint was ever
issued. The case was settled by a written agreement dated November 19, 1942,
which was approved by the Board.'
2 The following facts were alleged in the complaint and admitted in the Respondent's
answer.
3 Thomas was immediately reinstated and paid the sum of $300 ; Burkholzer was paid
$200 and was to be offered reinstatement after his discharge from the armed forces The
usual notice in respect to non -inteiference and non -discrimination was posted in the plant
and the charge was withdrawn by the Union.
739926-47-vol. 73-14
192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
. On or about December 8, 1942, the Union filed with the Board a Petition for
Investigation and Certification of Representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of
the Act, claiming that the appropriate unit consisted of all production and
maintenance employees, excluding clerical, office and supervisory employees and
truck drivers, and that the approximate number of employees in the unit was 18,
all of whom had designated the Union as their representative for collective
bargaining. (Case No. 13-R-1553)
On December 14, 1942, the Respondent advised the Board, by letter, that it
recognized the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the
unit claimed by the Union. The letter reads as follows :
This is to inform you that the Aurora Wall Paper Mill, Inc., recognizes the
United Wall Paper Craftsmen and Workers of North America, AFL, as the
exclusive bargaining representative for purposes of collective bargaining in
reference to wages, hours, and conditions of employment for all production
and maintenance employees excluding clerical, office, supervisory employees
and truck drivers employed by the Aurora Wall Paper Mill, Inc., at their
plant located on Jackson Street, Aurora, Illinois.
The Union has evidence to the effect that it represented a majority of the
employees in the appropriate unit, by submitting authorization cards of
employees whose names appear on our payroll as of December 10, 1942.
These authorization cards were checked by Mr. Ogden W. Fields, Field
Examiner, who reported to us that 17 of the 19 cards submitted by the
Union, bear apparently valid genuine original signatures of employees whose
names appealed on the payroll in the unit petitioned for on the Company's
payroll as of December 10, 1942.
After the receipt of this letter by the Regional Director, no further action
was taken on the Petition, and the Union and the Respondent immediately
began a series of bargaining conferences, which have continued up to the date of
the instant hearing. Joseph M. Jacobs, general counsel for the Union and Heinl,
business agent and organizer for the Union, represented the Union at these
conferences, and Attorneys Charles H. Atwell and Richard Hamper, together
with Superintendent H. D. Hamper, represented the Respondent. The Union
has endeavored to get the Respondent to agree to their standard form of con-
tract which they have with the Wall Paper Institute, but without success, so far.
In the early part of 1943, the Union referred the matter to the United States
Conciliation Service in Washington, D. C. and, as a result, Commissioner Egan
was assigned to the case. Several meetings were held with Egan and certain
points were agreed upon by the conferees, but no complete meeting of the minds
was reached. Thereupon, at the request of the Union, the matter was referred
to the National War Labor Board. In May 1944, the War Labor Board issued a
directive, ordering the Respondent to take certain affirmative action. At a
hearing before the War Labor Board held in Chicago, Illinois, on or about
March 30, 1945, the Respondent notified W. L. B. that it would not comply with
the Order, as W. L. B. had no power to enforce its directives. It appears that
no further action was taken in the matter by W. L B. On January 2, 1946, the
Union filed charges against the Respondent, alleging violations of Section 8 (1)
and (3) of the Act. However, the Union has never filed a charge with the Board
alleging that the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with it.
B. The alleged disclaniinatory discharge of Walter D. Thomas
The complaint alleged that the Respondent, on or about November 8, 1945,
discharged Walter D. Thomas and, at all times thereafter, refused to reinstate
AURORA WALL PAPER MILL INC . 193
him because he joined and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activi-
ties with other employees of the Respondent for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, thereby discouraging membership in
the Union. The undersigned finds that the evidence does not substantiate these
allegations.
Thomas was first employed by the Respondent in the spring of 1941, as a car-
penter and general utility man at the rate of 36 cents an hour. Some months
later he became an operator of a "reeler" and a "grounder" and his pay was
gradually increased to 60 cents an hour. As related above, in February 1942, he
was discharged by the Respondent and, on November 19, 1942, was reinstated
under a settlement agreement, approved by the Board. According to Thomas,
he became active in the Union and in organizing the Respondent's employees
prior to his reinstatement.
According to Heinl, during the years 1942, 1943, and 1944, the Union did not
have a local in Aurora, since there was not a sufficient number of eligible employees
in the Respondent's plant to justify establishing a local, according to the Union's
constitution. These employees were carried as members of the local at Joliet,
Illinois, which is about 22 miles from Aurora. However, in August 1945, the
Union organized the employees of the United Wall Paper plant at Montgomery,
Illinois, located about 2 miles from Aurora, which employed over 100 employees.
Local No. 12 was then chartered at Aurora by the International Union. When
Local No. 12 was organized, all of the officers, such as president, vice president,
secretary, treasurer etc. were chosen from among the employees of the larger
plant at Montgomery, as the Respondent's employees represented a small minority
,of the total memberhip. Thomas was the only employee in the Respondent's
plant who held any sort of office in the Union. He was a member of the Union
grievance committee.' His union activities were confined to handling grievances
arising among the employees in the Respondent's plant. He was not a member
of the total membership. Thomas was the only employee in the Respondent's
Respondent in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment or other
conditions of employment. Representatives of the International Union con-
stituted the sole bargaining personnel for the'Union.
The Respondent uses a certain amount of clay at the plant and normally re-
ceives one railway freight car of clay every 6 weeks. The clay is packed in 100
pound paper bags. It usually requires six employees about 5 hours to unload one
car. The bags are loaded on small trucks at the car and the trucks are then
pushed into the plant where the bags are stacked up. Ever since the Re-
spondent's plant has been in operation, it has been the practice and custom for
the employees on the day shift, which was from 7: 00 a. in to 3: 00 p. in., to
unload these cars. If they were unloaded during the shift, the employees
received their regular wages, plus any bonus they might have earned if they had
worked at their regular jobs. But if the unloading was done after the day shift
ceased work, it was considered overtime, the same as any other work after
40 hours had been worked during the week. According to the credited testi-
mony of H. D. Hamper, superintendent of the plant, the unloading of these cars
was usually done during the day shift, but on a few occasions, it has been done
after 3: 00 p. in. When the unloading was done after the day shift had ceased
work at 3: 00 p. in, it was optional with the employees whether they did it or
not. Usually they did not object as they were paid time and one half for it. But
when the unloading was done during the day shift, that is, between 7: 00 a. m.
and 3:00 p. m., it was not optional and those selected by the foreman to do the
job had to obey his orders unless they were physically unable to do the
* Thomas is referred to in the record as "Chairman" of the grievance committee.
194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work. It was considered somewhat harder work than the ordinary work in
the plant . Employees on the night shifts were not required to do this work.
With respect to' unloading clay, Foreman Futterer testified as follows :
Certain times if the weather wasn't too hot and so forth we unloaded it
after working hours. I would make the rounds in the day time and ask
certain ones if they would like to help unload clay. They aren't obligated
to, no one was forced to after working hours if they didn't wish to unload
clay. If they were physically unfit and so forth, they were excused, but
in the morning sometimes we unloaded raw stock in the morning and
sometimes we unloaded clay. If they had an excuse they weren't obligated
to. Now, Mr. Whitlatch had a double rupture, and I didnt' call on him to
unload clay. Certain ones if I knew their physical defects and could get
enough men without calling on those men, I didn't ask them, and a lot of
times I helped unload myself.
Futterer further testified that when an employee was told to unload clay
during the day shift, it was his duty to obey the foremen's orders, unless his
physical condition at the time was such as to excuse him; and that clay had
always been unloaded by the employees in the manner described ever since the
plant has been in operation.
According to Thomas, on November 6, 1945, the day on which a carload of
clay arrived at the plant, he had a conversation with Employee James Brame,
during which, Brame told him that Foreman Walter Futterer had remarked
to him that it was Thomas' fault that the employees were not paid higher
wages while unloading the cars of clay. Thomas' testimony in this respect reads
as follows :
Well, he [Brame] said that Walter Futterer told him it was all my fault
that they didn't get more money for unloading the clay.
Thomas further testified that just before quitting time on that clay, November
6, he spoke to employees John Penrod, Sam Thorpe, Harry Eggleston, Joe Whit-
latch and Hugh Whitlatch, all of whom worked on the clay shift,' and told them
what Brame had said. and asked them if they did not want more than their
regular wages for unloading the clay during the shift hours, and that they said
they should get SO cents an hour, because employee Nielsen sometimes helped
to unload these cars and they thought that his regular wage was SO cents an
hour'
Brame denied that he told Thomas that Foreman Futterer had said it was
Thomas' fault that the employees did not secure higher wages while unloading
clay He also denied that Foreman Futterer had said anything like that to
him. Foreman Futterer flaty denied having said anything to Brame about it.
Thorpe denied having had any conversation at all with Thomas on that day.
Penrod, Eggleston, Joe and Hugh Whitlatch all testified at the hearing, but no
one of them made any mention of Thomas having told him what Thomas claims
that Brame had said The undersigned finds that Foreman Futterer made no
such statement to Brame, and that Brame did not make the statement accredited
to him by Thomas.
Penrod testified that on November 6, Thomas asked him how much an hour
did he want for unloading clay, and he replied that he thought it was worth 80
At that time the day shift consisted of Foreman Futterei and 10 or 12 employees
The record shows that at that time employees on the day shift were receiving 60 cents
an hour , except Nielsen who was getting 75 cents and Thorpe 70 cents Both Nielsen and
Thorpe usually helped unload clay. The other employees thought that when either Nielsen
or Thorpe helped, all should be paid at the higher rate, as they were all doing the same job
AURORA WALL PAPER MILL INC. 195
cents. As related above, Thorpe denied having had any conversation with
Thomas on November 6. Both Eggleston and Joe Wlutlatch testified at the hear-
ing, but neither one made any mention of having had a conversation with Thomas
on November 6, in regard to unloading clay. Hugh Whitlatch testified that on
November 6 Thomas spoke to him about unloading the clay and he told Thomas
that he would not help unload it if there was any one else helping who was
getting a higher wage rate than he, and he understood that Nielsen and Thorpe
were higher paid employees. Brame testified that on November 6 Thomas
came to him and said, "The boys are not going to unload this carload of clay.
What do you want to do about it?", and he replied that whatever the majority of
the employees on the day shift decided to do about it would be all right with him.
At starting time the next morning, November 7, Foreman Futterer told the
day shift not to start up their machines, as they were first going to unload the
car of clay, which had arrived at the plant on the clay before. When this an-
nouncement was made, Thomas spoke up and said that they had decided not to
help unload the clay unless they were paid at the rate of 80 cents an hour, which
-was the rate they thought Nielson and Thorpe were receiving. Futterer then
told them that they might as well operate their machines until Superintendent
Hamper arrived at the plant, and he would submit the matter to him. About
,9: 15 a. in, Superintendent Hamper arrived at the plant and was informed of
the incident. He instructed Futterer to inform those who had refused to comply
with the foreman's orders, that they could either help unload the clay as they
had always done in the past or they could go home until the car was unloaded.
Six of the employees then left the plant. They were Thomas, Penrod, Eggleston,
Brame and Joe and Hugh Whitlatch. Before leaving the plant, they went to
the ollice and asked Superintendent Hamper when they should return to work.
Hamper replied "as soon as the clay is unloaded." They made no complaint
to either the Respondent or the Union about being laid off. All of these
employees belonged to the Union except Joe Whitlatch. They did not work
any more that clay. The car of clay was unloaded that day by Foreman Futterer
and employees Thorpe, Nielsen and Getz. The 6 laid off employees returned to
work, at the usual time, the next morning, November 8. Superintendent Hamper
testified that the reason he sent these 6 employees home was because they had
refused to unload the clay as ordered by their foreman, and he did it in order
to discipline them for refusing to obey orders. Also "We only had a small num-
her of men. While the car of clay was being unloaded we couldn't run the mill
anyway."
According to Charles H. Atwell, member of the law firm of Hamper and
Atwell, general counsel for the Respondent, after having been informed by
Foreman Futterer as to what had transpired on November 7 in respect to
unloading the clay, he decided to call a general meeting of all the employees
involved. His testimony in this respect, reads as follows :
After the matter was fully brought to my attention, the circumstances
surrounding it, either Mr. Hamper, Jr, or myself, or both of us, decided that
we would call a general meeting of all of the employees who were involved
in the day shift when this incident took place . . . Because we felt that it
was necessary. That in order to have an orderly operation of the plant in
the future the policy of the company must be maintained . . . The policy of
the company to my understanding based on instructions that had been given
to me in the past and with the familiarity of their practices and procedure
was that when the able-bodied men in that plant were called upon to unload
a car of clay during regular working hours they were required as a matter
of company policy to do so.
196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
About 10:00 a. in. on November 8, all of the employees on the day shift were
instructed to close down their machines and proceed to another room of the
plant for the purpose of attending a meeting with management. The meeting was
held and those present for the Respondent were Harry D. Mombleau, president
of the Respondent, Attorney Atwell, Superintendent Hamper, and Foreman.
Futterer. Mrs. Gertrude H. Lindstedt, secretary and stenographer for Hamper
and Atwell, was present and took down the proceedings in shorthand. A complete
transcript of her notes is attached to this Intermediate Report as "Appendix A"
which is self-explanatory.
There is no dispute as to the accuracy of "Appendix A," except that Thomas,
Hugh Whitlatch, Penrod, and Brame testified that after Atwell had told Thomas
he could get his hat and coat and go home, Thomas said, "Does that mean I am
fired?" and Atwell replied, "absolutely that." This question and answer do not
appear in "Appendix A." Attorney Atwell, President Mombleau, Foreman
Futterer, and employee Nielsen denied that it was said. Mrs. Lindstedt testified
that she has had over 25 years' experience as secretary and stenographer and
considers herself an expert in writing shorthand ; that she was instructed by
Atwell to take down everything that was said at the meeting, which she did;
and that "Appendix A" is a true and correct copy of her notes as taken on that
occasion
The undersigned finds that it is unnecessary to resolve this conflict in testi-
mony, since it is immaterial whether it occurred or not, because Atwell testified
that he had decided if the employees signified at the meeting that they would
not obey orders in the future with respect to unloading clay, they would be dis-
charged. His testimony in this respect reads as follows :
. . . The purpose in going out there was to find out whether or not the men
were going to take a similar stand on unloading clay during normal working
hours in the future. I was perfectly willing at the time that meeting was
called that if any one recanted or retrenched from their position the day
before, that words of discipline would be used but everything would be for-
gotten. But I determined that if the men elected of their own volition
and free choice to refuse to unload a car of clay in the future, that they
would be dismissed, based upon their refusal to do what they were expected
to do.
It will be noted from "Appendix A" that the employees who had refused on
the day before to unload the clay unless they were paid higher wages were given
an opportunity at that meeting to recede from their position of refusing to obey
the legitimate orders of the Respondent, and to continue working in the plant
as they had for the past several years, or, of course, until the Respondent and
the Union had agreed on a contract. Thomas flatly refused to change his position,
therefore he virtually asked for his dismissal and he got it. Thorpe, it will be
noted, said to Thomas that it was not a union matter- at all, and that Thomas
was wrong. Thomas then left the meeting Penrod, who had refused to change
his position with respect to unloading clay, also left the meeting, and never
returned to work in the plant thereafter. However, the complaint contains no
allegation in respect to him.
Thomas testified that soon after that meeting, he telephoned to union head-
quarters and informed the lady secretary as to what had transpired, but he did
not request the Union to make any effort to get him reinstated in the plant, and
if the Union did make any such effort, he knew nothing about it. Thomas did
not apply for reinstatement.
AURORA WALL PAPER MILL INC. 197
Concluding findings
Thomas testified that he had never received any instructions or authority from
either the International Representatives of the Union or the officials of Local No.
12 in Aurora, to take any action on behalf of the employees with respect to secur-
ing more pay for unloading clay ; and that he did it entirely on his own account.
He further testified that he had been instructed by the Union to "go along with the
Company." At that time, the bargaining committee of the Union, which was
composed solely of representatives of the International Union, was endeavoring
to get the Respondent to sign their standard form of contract, and they did not
desire to create any condition in the plant that would interfere with this program.
Therefore Thomas was acting contrary to the best interests of the Union. What-
ever action Thomas took in the matter of influencing the other employees to
refuse to obey the Respondent's orders, was done without the knowledge or
consent of the bargaining committee.
According to Heinl, business agent and organizer for the Union, the matter of
unloading cars of clay had been discussed during bargaining conferences between
the International Representatives of the Union and the Respondent and it was
understood that if the Respondent signed the Union's standard form of contract,
the Union would not interpret the contract so strictly as to prevent any employee
from unloading cars of clay.
When the Union was selected by the employees and recognized by the Respond-
ent as their bargaining agency in its letter to the Union dated December 14,
1942, it was understood and agreed by all parties that collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment or other conditions of em-
ployment would be carried on between the Union and the Respondent by the
International Representatives of the Union which constituted the duly accredited
bargaining agency of the Union ; that the employees would acquiesce in action
taken by this committee and that they would not undertake independent action with
respect-to matters they had committed to the Union as their authorized bargaining
agency and that not only did the Respondent agree to bargain solely with the
Union, but the employees agreed to bargain only through the Union. Thomas
and the other employees who endeavored to force the Respondent to pay them
higher wages for unloading clay, violated this agreement. They were not mem-
bers of the bargaining committee of the Union and had no authority to usurp
the powers of the committee, which was composed of International Representa-
tives of the Union. They were not acting for or on behalf of the Union, and
indeed they had no power to do so. The Respondent was under no obligation
to bargain with these employees in respect to wages. In fact if it had done so,
thereby bargaining directly with the individual employees, instead of with the
Union which it had recognized as the statutory representative of all the employees
in the unit, it would have subjected itself to a charge of refusal to bargain,
within the meaning of the Act.
The principal question involved in this case is whether the discharge of Thomas
on November 8, 1245, and the subsequent refusal to reinstate him were unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of the Act. The Board contends that Thomas
and the other employees who demanded higher wages for unloading clay were
engaged in "concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection," within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act, and that
the discharge and refusal to reemploy Thomas on this account constituted inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion with respect to the right to engage in such con-
certed activities, denounced as an unfair labor practice by Section 8 (1) of the
Act. The Board also argues that by the discharge and subsequent refusal to
reinstate Thomas, the Respondent discriminated against him in regard to his hire
198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and tenure of employment, and discouraged membership in the Union thereby
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
The record is clear and the undersigned finds that in the discharge and refusal
to reemploy Thomas there was no intent to discourage membership in the Union,
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. All of the other members of the
Union, except Penrod, continued to work in the plant and the Respondent con-
tinued to recognize the Union as the bargaining representative These employees
were not acting as members of the Union. Indeed Joe Whitlatch, one of them,
was not a member of the Union. The demand for higher wages for unloading
the clay was not authorized or approved by the Union, and was not used to
further any purpose of the Union. The employees were acting as individuals,
outside the Union, and apart from any labor organization
In respect to whether the action of the Respondent amounts to an unfair labor
practice, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act, this depends upon
whether or not the refusal of these employees to perform a reasonable order
of their foreman falls within the protection of Section 7 of the Act. If it does,
a discharge on that account would constitute interference, restraint, or coercion
in respect thereto, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act If it does
not, the discharge and failure to reemploy Thomas would be justified and would
furnish no basis for a finding of an unfair labor practice.
The undersigned is of the opinion and finds that the lay-off of these six
employees for one day was justified by their insubordinate conduct in refusing
to unload the clay when ordered to do so Also the conduct of these employees
in refusing to do this work unless they were paid higher wages, was not such
a concerted activity as falls within the protection of Section 7 of the Act, but
was the action of a minority group of employees in an effort to interfere with
the collective bargaining by the duly authorized bargaining agent selected by all
of the employees The purpose of the Act is not to guarantee to employees the
right to do as they please but to guarantee to them the right of collective
bargaining for the purpose of preserving industrial peace.
Section 9 (a) of the Act provides:
Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such
purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment: Provided,
That any individual employee or a group of employees shall have the right
at any time to present grievances to-their employer
A Union selected as bargaining agent is thus made the exclusive representative
of all the employees in the unit for the purposes of collective bargaining The
Act imposes the affirmative duty on the employer to bargain only with the true
representative and hence the negative duty to bargain with 'no other.'
In N. L. R. B. v. Diaper Co?poattoz, 145 F (2d) 199 (C C A 4), the Court
said:
The employees must act through the voice of the majority or the bargain-
ing agent chosen by the majority . Minor ity groups must acquiesce in the
action of the majority and the bai gaining agent they have chosen ; and just
as a minority has no right to enter into separate bargaining arrangements
with the employer , so it has no right to take independent action to interfere
° See McQuag-Norris Mfg Co v N L R B, 116 F (2d) 748 (C C A 7) ; Texarkana
Bus Co. v N. L. It. B, 119 F. (2d) 480, 484 (C C. A. 8) ; North Electric Mfg. Co. v.
N. L. R. B, 123 F. (2d) 887, 890 (C C. A. 6).
AURORA WALL PAPER MILL INC. 199
with the course of bargaining which is being carried on by the duly author-
ized bargaining agent chosen by the majority, the proviso to Section 9 above
quoted, preserves to individuals or groups of employees the right to present
grievances to the employer, negatives by necessary inference the right on
their part to call strikes for the purpose of influencing the bargaining being
carried on by the chosen representatives of all the employees
Upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned concludes and finds that the
Respondent terminated the services of Walter D Thomas on November 8, 1945,
not for the reasons alleged in the complaint, but because of his insubordination
in expressing his intention to refuse to obey legitimate and reasonable orders of
the Respondent, and that by such termination of the services, the Respondent
has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) or
(3) of the Act.
The following cases are cited in support of this finding.
In the Keystone Steel d Wire Company case,' which appears to be on all fours
with the instant case, the Board held that the Respondent had not violated the
Act by discharging eight employees, which included two union officials and the
chief stewai d, because they refused to accept transfers fi om one department to
less desirable positions in another department The Board said that, "The record,
although replete with evidence showing that the respondent was opposed to its
employees belonging to the Union, does not support the allegation of the com-
plaint, as amended, that the eight named employees were demoted and sub-
sequently discharged because of their union membership or activities." The
evidence in that case showed that the respondent's reason for demoting and
subsequently discharging these employees was not "trivial or fanciful," but was
because they had refused to perform the work assigned to them.
In The Ohio Calcium Company case,' the Board dismissed the 8 (3) allega-
tions of the complaint in respect to eight employees who were discharged by the
respondent for insubordination in refusing to work after the respondent's re-
fusal of their demands for an increased crew, and where their refusal to work
was not authorized by the union, which was their statutory representative op-
erating under an exclusive recognition agreement with the respondent. The
Board said, inter aha :
Thereupon, without any recourse to or authorization from the Union, which
was their statutory representative operating under an exclusive recognition
agreement with the respondent, or even from the full union grievance coin-
mittee, the eight miners delivered an ultimatum to the respondent and re-
fused to work when the respondent adhered to its position. Because the
eight miners refused to work, they were told to leave the premises and col-
lect their wages on the following day. They were in effect discharged for
not obeying their superiors' instruction and going to work 10 . . . Upon
the entire record we find that the respondent terminated the services of the
eight miners on May 22, 1938, not because they engaged in concerted activity
protected by the Act, but because of their insubordination in refusing to obey
a legitimate order of the respondent."
On June 27, 1946, the Board, in its decision in the Arnolt Motor Company and
S. H. Arnolt, doing business as Atlas Steel and Tube Coin-pany case's stated in
respect to one of the alleged discharges, as follows :
8 Matter of Keystone Steel & Wire Company, 62 N. L. R. B. 683.
'Matter of The Ohio Calcium Company, 34 N. L R B 917
10 Matter of the Firth Carpet Company and Textile Workers Union of America, 33
N. L. R. B. 191.
"Matter of the Firth Carpet Company and Textile Workers Union of America, ibid.
12 Matter of Atlas Steel and Tube Company , 68 N. L. IT. B. 868.
200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
The Trial Examiner found that the respondent discharged Troy Stamper,
in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act. The respondent contends that
Stamper was not discharged but voluntarily quit, and that it was justified
in refusing to rehire him on the next day. In our judgment, whether
Stamper was discharged or whether he quit and was denied reemployment,
the respondent cannot be said to have violated the Act. The facts, fully
set forth in the Intermediate Report, show that the respondent discharged
and refused to rehire Stamper because, after refusing to perform a task
reasonably assigned to him by his foreman, he walked off the job without
permission and in face of a warning by his foreman that his leaving the
plant would be regarded as a quitting. The Trial Examiner finds these to
be the facts, but he concludes that, notwithstanding Stamper's dereliction,
the respondent would have retained Stamper in its employ, subject to a
reasonable penalty, except for the fact that Stamper was an active union
member. With this conclusion, we do not agree We shall accordingly
order that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that the respondent
violated the Act in discharging, or refusing to rehire, Troy Stamper.
We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusions that the respond-
ent discharged Harvey Headlee and Virgil Shirey because of their union
activity, in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act. The evidence shows that
they were discharged because they refused to accept a transfer to the job of
"hustling," or helping, on the night shift in the automatic shop.
At the time of these discharges, all three of these employees were union
committeemen and were active members of the union. The Board held that
the refusal to perform reasonable assignments by these employees justified the
respondent in discharging and refusing to reinstate them.
In N. L. R B. v. Western Cartridge Company etc. case," the Court in denying
enforcement of the Board's order in respect to the discriminatory discharges
found by the Board said:
. . . Furthermore, the striking employees were not acting as members of
the Union. They expressly disclaimed any such action. The strike was
not authorized or approved by the Union and was not used to further any
purpose of the Union. [Italics supplied ] It was a "wildcat" strike. The
employees were acting as individuals, disclaiming any standing as members
of any labor organization. No organizational work of the Union was going
on at the time in the Cupping Department. The workmen therein were almost
all members of the Union The employees were acting outside the Union.
The strike was a thing apart from any labor organization.
In N. L. R. B. v. Williamson-Dickie Manufacturing Company, the Court,"
In denying enforcement of the Board's order in respect to the discriminatory
discharges found by the Board said, in part :
... As between employer and employee the statute [N. L. R. B. Act]
confers no right of action triable by jury or otherwise. No provision in it
authorizes an employee to make claim. The act does not purport to confer,
it does not confer, private rights . . . The procedure the statute outlines
is not designed to award, the orders it authorizes do not award, damages as
such. The proceeding is not, it cannot be made, a private one to enforce a
private right. It is a public procedure, looking only to public ends. The
statute has in mind the maintenance and furthering of industrial amity,
N. L. R. B. v. Western Cartruige Company, 139 F (2d) 855 (C. C. A 7), enf'g as
modified 48 N. L. R B 434.
14 N. L. it. B. v. Willsamson-Dickie Manufacturing Company, 130 F. (2d) 260 (C. C A 5).
AURORA WALL PAPER MILL INC. 201
and therefore peace, the prevention of industrial war ... The statute
authorizes reparation orders not in the interest of the employees , but in the
interest of the public . A cease and desist order operating retrospectively
is not a private award . . . It is a public reparation order, operating retro-
spectively by way of an order to cease and desist as to unfair labor practices,
from their beginning ; practices as to which , because forbidden in the interest
of industrial amity, and therefore peace, Congress has the right to eradicate
them as from the beginning ., Agwilines , Inc. v. N. L. R. B ., 5 Cir. 87 F. (2d)
146 at page 150, 151 . . . Orders for reinstatement of employees with back
pay are somewhat different . They may impoverish or break an employer,
and while they are not in law penal orders, they are in the nature of penalties
for the infraction of law. The evidence to justify them ought therefore
to be substantial , and surmise or suspicion , even though reasonable, is not
enough . . . So far as the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C . A. 151, et
seq., goes, the employer may discharge , or refuse to reemploy for any reason,
just or unjust , except discrimination because of union activities and relation-
ships. N. L. R. B. v. Tex-O-Kan Flour Hills Co., 5 Cir., 122 F . 2d 433 at page
438. [Italics supplied.]
In N. L. R B. v. Riverside Mfg. Company, 5 Cir., 119 F . ( 2d) 302 at page
307, we said of a discharge : "The only facts found, which at all tend to
support the Board's conclusions that he was discharged for union activity
are that he was a member of the union , and the management did not like
the union or his belonging to it, and had said so. If real grounds for dis-
charging him had not been shown , or if he had been discharged for trivial
or fanciful reasons, the facts would have supported an inference that he
was discharged for union activity, but when the real facts of the discharge
appear, these facts are stripped entirely of probative force. For it is settled
by the decisions that membership in a union is not a guarantee against dis-
charge [italics supplied], and that when real grounds for discharge exist,
the management may not be prevented , because of union membership, from
discharging for them." In respect of the unfair practices in question, the
controlling fact question is whether the evidence supports the ultimate
findings that the employees in question were discriminated against, that is,
were treated differently from employees similarly situated , in order to dis-
courage membership in a labor organization.
In Humble Oil it Refining Company v. N . L. R. B., 5 Cir., 113 F. (2d) 85, 88,
and other cases, we have pointed out that the statute does not make the
Board either "guardian or ruler" over employees or employer ; it does not
authorize it to substitute its judgment for that of the employer as to what
is sufficient cause for discharge . It empowers it only to deliver the employees
from acts and restraints forbidden by the statute , and to reinstate them
when they have been discriminatorily discharged.
C. The alleged intei ference , restraint, and coercion
The complaint alleged that on November 8, 1945, and continuing to the date
of the instant complaint, the Respondent warned and threatened its employees
with discharge and other disciplinary action if they engaged in concerted
activity. In view of the findings above made that the discharge of Thomas
was not discriminatory, and since there is no evidence in the record of warning
or threatening its employees with discharge or other discriminatory action, the
undersigned finds that these allegations of the complaint are not sustained by the
evidence, therefore the undersigned finds that the Respondent has not engaged
in any unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act with respect to such
allegations.
202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case , the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Aurora Wall Paper Mill Inc., Aurora, Illinois, is engaged
in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Wall Paper Craftsmen & Workers of North America, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization, within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the
entire record in the case, the undersigned hereby recommends that the complaint
herein be dismissed in its entirety.
As provided in Section 203.39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or
counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service
of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.38 of
said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Wash-
ington 25, D. C , an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting
forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the
record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he
relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof ; and any party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period,
file an original and four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the
party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon
each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. Proof
of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly
made as required by Section 203 65. As further provided in said Section 203 39,
should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request
therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the
date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board
W P. WEBii,
Trial Examiner-.
Dated September 25, 1946
APPENDIX A
Meeting held at the Aurora Wall Paper hill Inc, on the morning of November
8, 1945, at which the day shift (7: 00 a. in. to 3: 00 p in ) employees were present,
as well as Mr Mombleau and Mr. Atwell.
Mr. ATWEI.r, Boys, this meeting has been called as a result of an incident that
happened yesterday, that we want to discuss with all of you men. I have a
statement here that was given by Mr. Futterer, Walt, which I will read:
"On the morning of November 7, 1945, at 7:00 a in. I went to Thomas and
told him not to start the grounder, that we wanted to unload the car of clay
first. He said that the boys took a vote and would not unload it unless
they received the money per hour as Nielsen is getting. I told him that we
would not put Nielsen with them to unload the car and he said it would not
make any difference, because we would put Sam with them, and he is
.AURORA WALL PAPER MILL INC . 203
making more money than any of them. He said that they voted to unload it
at 80¢ per hour. I was told by Mr. Hamper to tell them if they wanted to
unload the car as we previous did to unload, or go home, till the car of clay
was unloaded. They refused to do so and went home.
Penrod Charles Eggestein
Brame Walter Thomas
Hugh Whitlatch Joe Whitlatch
(Signed) WALTER FUTTERER."
I would like to ask that group if it is substantially correct.
Mr. THOMAS. I think it is, sir.
Mr. ATWELL. The only reason we called this meeting is to try to establish a
policy here, and I would like to ask not only those that took that position yester-
day, but any of the other boys, if they are in a position at this time to state
whether or not that is going to be their permanent policy-is that clear? In
other words, we will probably have another car of clay coming in here within the
next two or three weeks or so, and we might just as well find out now if that is
going to be the policy of the men.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Atwell, what are you going to do, take a vote on it now?
Mr. ATWELL. You can either retrench from your position or reaffirm-I would
like to know if you are.
Mr. PENROD. I will not back down.
Mr. ATWELL. Brame, in the future are you going to do what you did yesterday?
Mr. BRAME. My understanding is that they had some sort of an agreement with
the fellows about unloading cars-I do not know what they asked for but was told
to go home.
Mr. ATWELL. I will ask the men that are here-how long have you unloaded
clay in this way?
Mr. THOMAS. As long as the company has been here. Here is the point, I be-
lieve, it was young Hamper, Ken, or someone that was out here and they promised
to make a different price when we did unloading of clay.
Mr. ATWELL. When did that happen?
Mr. THOMAS. That happened when you put us on piece work, I mean when
you put us on piece work on the machines.
Mr. MOMnLEAU. No you weren't put on piece work, you were put on a bonus
plan and that was about four years ago?
Mr. ATWELL. In other words, you are really acting on an alleged promise
that was made three or four years ago.
Mr.'THOMAS. That is right sir.
Mr. ATWELL. This is the first time you have taken any stand on the matter?
Mr. THOMAS. Yes Sir.
Mr. ATWELL I would like to restate my question, which does not call for any
argument, but just a yes or no
Mr. THOMAS. I am a chairman and cannot vote, but leave it up to the men.
Mr. EGGLESTON. I will do what the majority do.
Mr. ATWELL. Does it offend anyone's wishes that I ask for an informal opinion
here at this time?
Mr. THOMAS. I think the whole matter is out of order sir.
Mr. ATWELL. That is a matter of opinion.
Mr. THOMAS Why not let us bring Jacobs or Jameson in on this meeting?
Mr ATWELL. We are not operating under any agreement ; we are running this
Company and will continue to do so. I will affirm my statement that the Aurora
Wall Paper Mill is going to direct the policy here and when we can no longer do
204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
so we will no longer be in business. As American citizens, we have a perfect
right to work for anyone ; there is no coercion attempted in this country, and we
hope it will never come to that. There is nothing very profound in what I say,
that you can work for anyone you please, and that it is your privilege to work
where you can obtain the highest rate of pay ; and there is nothing that I have
to say to attempt to change that privilege of the employee, but I would like to
know whether or not when a car of clay comes in here tomorrow or any other
day, if this condition is going to repeat itself. A stand is going to be taken here,
not three months from now. I do not think this is an unfair question-If that is
the kind of a stand you are going to take when another car of clay comes in we
would like to know it, as a matter of policy-There isn't any severe or unkind
measure we are taking.
Mr. THOMAS. I tell you Mr. Atwell, let us vote on it-You have a lady here
taking down what is said. Let the boys vote on it. I did not vote on it yester-
day, I am a chairman. Let us drop it today and let us vote on it after working
hours, and we will give you an answer tomorrow.
Mr. ATWELL. I am very sorry Mr. Thomas, I am running this meeting.
Mr. THOMAS. That is all I have to say.
Mr. ATWELL. Then Mr. Thomas you refuse to operate under these conditions?
Mr. THOMAS. I did not say that sir, but we should vote on it. I won't change
my stand.
Mr. ATWELL. Well Mr. Thomas, the point I am trying to raise is will you
retract your actions of yesterday, that is will you continue to take the same
position in the future?
Mr. THOMAS. I certainly will sir.
Mr. ATWELL. Then Mr. Thomas you may put your hat and coat on and leave.
Mr. THOMAS. I will if you have my check-have you my check?
Mr ATWELL. If you cannot abide by rules that hale been in force and effect
for three or four years, we are taking the position that you refuse to do what
is asked.
Mr. THOMAS. That is it. All the boys can quit or stay on the job; stay on
the job boys, go ahead boys stay pn the job, I am going to get my hat.
Mr. THORPE. Thomas you have taken the wrong stand, this is not a matter of
Union at all, you are entirely wrong. Why there is only a sixty cent difference
in three months time. It is no stand to take, there is not a bit of sense to it.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Addressing Mr. Futterer-You told us to go home.
Mr. FUTTERER That was yesterday.
Air. MOMBLEAU. Addressing Mr. Thomas-I will bring your check over to
your house.
Mr. THOMAS. I thought you had my check.
Mr. MOMBLEAU. I do not have the time books in my pocket, but your check
will be prepared and I will mail it to you.
Mr. THOMAS. Leave it with the Mrs.
Mr. ATWELL. I want you men to feel that we are trying to do our best. I think
you who have been with us some three or four years know this. Why if I were
to meet any of you men on the street, you would be just another man, the same
as I am. I personally do not see why two or more men cannot get together, lay
their cards on the table and discuss the matter in a friendly manner. Those of
you fellows who own property would not sanction someone coming in and telling
you how to run it, and certainly if the Aurora Wall Paper Mill is not going to be
presumed to run its own business, then business in this country has gone a hell
of a lot further down than I thought it had. The door to the office here is open
at all times to anyone who thinks he is being treated unfairly, go into the office
AURORA WALL PAPER MILL INC. 205
and tell them-Then if you still think you are being treated unfairly, the door to
my office in the Keystone Building is open, where you can come, and where any-
thing that isn't fair and proper will be corrected.
One of .the, employees spoke up. I was not here when the bonus was put in
effect.
Mr. ATWELL. I was not here either.
Mr. ATWELL. I want you men to know that we do not know who belongs to the
Union; I assumed that you all belong, and it is perfectly all right for anyone or
all to belong. However, this is not a Union matter, it concerns only the matter
of Company policy, but I want to ask you now, if you would tolerate the insub-
ordination of Mr. Thomas.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Perhaps I would if I were Chairman
Mr. ATWELL. Furthermore men, if we tolerated it, there isn't very much fun in
being in business , and if you would apply the same logic to your own homes and
property I doubt that anyone of you men would tolerate it-why, it is unfair to
American Citizenship.
Mr. JOE WHITLACH. You can't tell me anything about American Citizenship-I'm
an American citizen-I am working for Uncle Sam.
Mr. ATWELL. The question of citizenship isn't being raised, Son , it is only a
question of insubordination that is raised
Mr. JOE WHITLATCH. We are all good American citizens that work here.
Mr. ATWELL. That is right-Now if anyone has anything to ask I would like
to hear about it. What do you think about it Son ? ( addressing Joe Whitlach).
Mr. JOE WHITLATCH. I am not talking.
Mr. MOMBLEAU. Addressing Mr. Atwell-He is in the service.
Mr. ATWELL. I see-Does anyone want to ask any questions?
Mr. JOE WH1TLATCH. I am not talking.
Air ATWELL. You have a right to your opinion.
Mr. MOMBLEAU. You (addressing Hugh Whitlatch).
HUGH WHITLATCH The only thing I do not see is why we should work along for
less money, that is the only thing I have to talk about.
Mr. MOMBLEAU Let me understand you clearly.
Answer. The same work for less pay, that is what I mean
Mr MoMBLEAU. Of course you were not in on all of the meetings when the
matter was discussed, but due to a peculiarity in our operations we have felt it
best to handle the matter in this way, and about every 45 clays or so a car of clay
has to be unloaded and also about once a week a car of paper, and because of our
peculiar situation all agreements heretofore have been made on that basis.
Mr. HAMPER That is you would get the same wages when unloading clay as
when you run your machine.
Air. H WHITLATCH I expect the boss or Superintendent to get more money.
Mr. HAMPER But he is always willing to help
Mr. ATWELL. Of course I do not understand everything here in the way of
wages, but as an outsider, that isn't the tragedy here. It seems to me that the
nasty situation is that you feel you are receiving unfair treatment, and why in a
mill as small as this one, the cards cannot be put on the table, I cannot understand.
Mr. EGGLESTON. The only thing I have to say is that we do the same work for
less money.
Mr. ATWELL. I can't see why we cannot all put our cards on the table ; why there
is any disagreement, with some on one side of the fence and others on the other
side-don't you thing the Company has been fair and reasonable?
206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mr. BRAME. I have had to unload clay, and I think the company has been good
to the fellows. Some of the fellows aren't able to do all kinds of work for some
reason or other, but the fellows have never agreed on what they want, and yes-
terday they said they wanted 800 per hour.
Mr. HAMPER. I never heard it, but they are getting just the same as though
they were on their machines.
Mr. ATWELL. Well is there any better feeling or is there anything else you
want to say? If there is any other question for God's sake say so-At least
if we cannot have decent working conditions between employer and employee,
I do not see what fun anyone gets out of working, and certainly there is no
pleasure in running a business.
Mr. BRAME. I have to work and want to work-There are some things I can't
do and there are some things I can do, but I can do this and it isn't pleasant
having to go home every two or three days.
Mr. ATWELL. Well I don't know how you men feel but this Company is too
small to have two sides of the fence ; of course, I do not feel that condition should
exist in any place, but the tragedy is where some place themselves on one side of
the fence and some on the other.
Mr. S. THORPE. There are some men here that have been here three or four
years and some work is too heavy for them and I know they have been given other
work to do.
Mr ATWELL. Addressing Joe Whitlatch-Has the Company ever been unreason-
able in asking you to do certain work?
Mr JOE WHITLATCH. I can do any work that anyone else can do, and apparently
addressing Sam Thorpe-"I can work you down any time".
Mr. ATWELL. We didn't say that at all boy.
Mr. JOE WHITLATCII. I am getting tired of that.
Mr. HAMPER. I did not ask this boy to unload clay.
Mr. JOE WHITr.ATCH. You can get my check too
Dir. ATWELL. I am sorry
Mr. MOMBLEAU. Any further questions? Jim, Russ, Sam?
Answer. No.
I, Gertrude H. Lindstedt, certified that I was present at a meeting held at the
Aurora Wall Paper Mill on the morning of November 8, 1945, and took down
the proceedings of said meeting in shorthand, and that the above and foregoing
is a true and correct transcript of said proceedings
(Signed) GERrRIJDE H. LINDSTEDT.
We, the undersigned, do hereby certify that we were present at a meeting held
at the Aurora Wall Paper Mill Inc., on the morning of November 8, 1945, on or
about 9.00 o'clock a. in., and that the above and foregoing is a correct transcript
of the proceedings which took place at said meeting, to the best of my knowledge
and recollection.
(Signed) WALTER FUTTERER.
( Signed ) RUSSELL NIELSON.
( Signed ) SAMUEL L. THORPE.
( Signed ) JAMES BRAME.
( Signed ) GABOR GETZ.
( Signed ) HUGH WHITLATCI.
(Signed) HARRISON EGGLESTON.