Bemis Bro. Bag Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1940

28 N.L.R.B. 430 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of BEMIS BRO. BAG COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL
ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. C-1657.-Decided December 10, 1940
Jurisdiction : paper bag manufacturing industry.
Unfair labor practices
In General: responsibility of employer for acts of supervisory employees.
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements ; interrogation con-
cerning union activities ; interfering with collective bargaining rights by issuing
notice foreclosing certain subjects as matters to-be negotiated ; dismissal of cer-
tain allegations.
Discrimination: allegations of discrimination dismissed.
Remedial Orders : cease and desist interference, restraint, and coercion.
Mr. Wallace Cooper, for the Board. -
Jones, Hooker, Gladney & Grand, by Mr. Frank Y. Gladney, of St.
Louis, Mo., for the respondent.
Mr. IsadoTre Katz and Mr. David Jaffee, of New York City, for the
Union.
Mr. Bliss Daffan, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges and amended charges having been duly filed on October 23,
1939, and May 18, 1940, respectively, by Textile Workers Union of
America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
,herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region
(St. Louis, Missouri), issued its complaint dated May 24, 1940, against
'Bemis Bro. Bag Company, St. Louis, Missouri, herein called the re-
spondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engag-
ing 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
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the com-
plaint and'accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the
respondent and the Union.
28 N. L. R. B., No. 72.
430 -
BEMIS BRO . BAG COMPANY 431
Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in sub-
stance, that the respondent had discriminated in regard to the hire,
and tenure of employment of Aubrey Wolverton and Anuel Goodrich,
because' of their membership in the Union and because they had en-
gaged in concerted activities with other employees for purposes of
mutual aid and protection and collective bargaining, and that the re-
spondent thereby discouraged membership in the Union. The com-
plaint further alleged that the respondent by the foregoing and other
acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On June '5, 1940, the respondent filed its answer in which-it admitted
the allegations of the complaint as to the character of its business. but
denied that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in St. Louis, Missouri, on
June 10, 11, and 12, 1940, before R. N. Denham, the Trial Examiner.
duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were
represented by counsel who participated in the hearing. Full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties.
At the conclusion of the Board's case, the Trial Examiner granted a
motion of the Board's counsel to conform the complaint to the proof.
This ruling is hereby affirmed. Motions were then made, on behalf of
the respondent to dismiss-the complaint as a whole, and specifically,
to dismiss the allegations thereof pertaining to : (1) the lay-off of
Aubrey Wolverton; (2) the discharge of Anuel Goodrich; (3) the
acts and conduct of the-respondent's officers and agents in connection
with an election held on August 23, 1939; and (4) the allegations of
anti-union activities of the respondent as asserted in the complaint in
"general terms." The motion to dismiss the complaint with respect to
the discriminatory lay-off of Aubrey Wolverton was granted by the
Trial Examiner and the other motions denied with leave to the re-
spondent to renew them at the close of the hearing. At the conclusion
of the hearing the respondent renewed its motions and the Trial Ex-
aminer reserved ruling thereon.' During the course of the hearing the
Trial Examiner made numerous other rulings on motions and on obj ec-
tions to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed these
rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
After the close of the hearing, pursuant to leave granted to all
parties by the Trial Examiner, the respondent filed a brief with the
Trial Examiner. On August 15, 1940, the Trial Examiner issued his
Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the re-
'Subsequently in his Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner , except as , otherwise
disposed of therein , denied the respondent 's motions.
432 DECISIONS OE NATIONAL ' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent and the Union. He found that the respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 ( 6) and (7)
of the Act, and recommended that the respondent cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies
of the Act. He further recommended that the allegations in the com-
plaint relative to certain other alleged unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 ( 1) of the Act and the allegations that the re-
spondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 ( 3) of the Act , be dismissed . Thereafter the respondent and
the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report ; both parties
also filed briefs with the Board.
The Board has considered the exceptions filed by the respondent and
the Union and, except as they are consistent with the findings of fact,
conclusions of law , and order set forth below, finds them to be without
merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following':
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Bemis Bro. Bag Company , the respondent , is a Missouri corporation
having its principal office and place of business at St. Louis, Missouri,
and approximately 20 plants located throughout the United States.
The respondent maintains two plants in St. Louis, Missouri , one known
as the Fourth Street plant , where its office is located and where it is
engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of textile and paper
bags, and the other, known as the Barton Street plant , where it is en-
gaged in the business of spinning , weaving, and processing fabric to
be used in the manufacture of bags at the Fourth Street plant. This
proceeding is concerned with activities of the respondent at its Fourth
Street plant , herein called the plant, where it employs approximately
375 production and maintenance employees.
The principal raw materials used by the respondent at the plant
are cotton cloth, burlap, paper , and asphalt and rubber substances.
The value of all raw materials purchased by the respondent during.
1939 for use at the plant was in excess of $1,500,000. Ninety per
cent of these materials were purchased and shipped to the plant
from outside the State of Missouri . During the same year the
finished products of the plant were of a value of more than $2,000;000.
Approximately 70 per cent of its products were shipped from the
plant to points outside the State of Missouri.
BEMIS BRO. BAG COMPANY
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
433
Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to
membership production and maintenance employees of the respond-
ent at the plant, excluding supervisory and office employees. .
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PR \CTICES
A. Interference, r•estr°aint, and coercion
The first organizational activity among the respondent's employees.
at the, plant began in 1937 when several of the employees joined
the Union. It was not, however, until January 1939 that the Union
instituted an active organizational campaign among the employees
at the plant. Immediately thereafter the respondent began a def-
inite campaign of disparaging the Union and discouraging mem-
bership therein.
According to the testimony of Frank Clouser, an employee, on
February 17, 1939, James DeMent, foreman of the printing, bag,.
and baling departments, said to him, "I hear you are going up and
sign up with the union." Clouser replied that he was going to a
Union meeting to "see what it is all about." That Iiight`Clouser'joined
the Union. The next day Clouser requested DeMent for a "bonus"
which was due him.' According to Clouser, DeMent approved the
"ticket" which would entitle Clouser to the bonus, advised Clouser of
the amount'he had allowed him, and added, "When the union gets in
here I can not do that." Clouser replied, "You are still foreman when-
the Union gets in here and if you can give me that now I don't see why
you can't after the Union gets in here." Clouser testified that shortly
thereafter DeMent attempted to demonstrate to, him, with certain
figures how Clouser "was losing money by, joining the union."'
Clouser testified that his conversation with DeMent on this occasion.
lasted an hour. DeMent, .who admitted at the hearing that he had
had numerous conversations with Clouser and others concerning-
the Union, testified that "Clouser always instigated the conversa-
tion concerning the unions" and denied the remarks attributed to.
him by Clouser. The Trial Examiner did not credit his denial and
found, as we do, on the basis of evidence as to other, similar state-
ments made by DeMent, that the conversations between DeMent
and Clouser took place substantially as testified to by Clouser.
DeMent did not confine his anti-union discussions to Clouser.
John Zobrisky, an employee in the baling department, testified that
2 Machine operators in the respondent 's employ receive a bonus of 6 cents per 1,000
yards of material passing through their machines in addition to their megular hourly rates,
of pay
434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the latter part of January 1939, about a week after he had joined
the Union, DeMent told him that he (DeMent) %' as "surprised that
some of his intelligent workers joined the [7nion." DeMent denied
that he had made this statement. The Trial Examiner did not
credit his denial and found, as we do, that DeMent made the state-
ment substantially as testified to by Zobrisky.
Walter Moore, an employee in one of DeMent's departments, testi-
fied that in January 1939, on the day after Moore had joined the
Union, he and another employee were told by the assistant foreman
that DeMent wanted to see them in the locker room; that when Moore
got to the locker. room, DeMent• told him that he knew that he had
joined the Union and that he (DeMent) "didn't see what the union
can get us, that if the company wanted to do anything for us it
would go ahead and do it without having the union in it." As to
this conversation, DeMent testified as follows:
He [Moore] came up to me and began talking and finally drifted
into union conversation and tried to explain to me his reason
for joining, and I said "I don 't care, either way would suit me,
and it don't make any difference , and I know all about the union,
and that is your privilege , if you see fit to join it, belong to
it, that is your privilege."
DeMent did not' deny that on the occasion of his-'conversatiom`he
had sent the assistant foreman to fetch Moore, nor did the respondent
call the assistant foreman as a witness to deny that such was the
case. The Trial Examiner did not credit DeMent's version of the
conversation and, on the basis of evidence as to other similar state-
ments made by DeMent , accepted Moore's version of the incident,
as we do, as correctly stating what occurred.
In February 1939 the respondent posted at the plant a notice
to its employees ; which stated , inter alia: 3
Union Mblembersliip.-Each employee may join or may not
join any labor organization, according to his or her individual
wish. Whether you join or refrain from joining will not make
the slightest difference in your employment with the company.
The Closed Shop.-You need not join any organization to
hold a job with Bemis. The Company believes the so-called
,'closed shop" is not consistent with the right of each individual
3 When early in 1936 the employees at the respondent's San Francisco plant manifested
an interest in self-organizational activities , the respondent posted a similar notice at that
plant. Thereafter, as employees at other plants of the respondent evidenced similar
interest , the respondent posted similar notices.
BEMIS BRO . 'BAG-COMPANY 435,
employee to make up his own mind regarding union member-
ship. If you have heard that you must join any , organization
in order to hold your job, you should disregard the rumor
because it is incorrect.
.The Check-Off.-The matter of union dues is an individual
arrangement between the employee and the union to which he
belongs: Our company will take no part in the collection of
such dues. You may disregard as false any statement that
Bemis will deduct union dues from pay of employees.
Freedom of Discussion With Management.-Employees in-
dividually or collectively are free to, see the management on any
matter which is troubling them, or to call to the attention of
the management any condition which may appear to them to be
operating to their disadvantage .. .
Rates Of .Pay.-It is the policy of our company to maintain
rates on the basis of fairness to the individual for the work he
is doing ... The cost of wages must be included in the
sales prices of our products and this wage cost must be such
as to permit the profitable sale of our products, thus insuring
continuous operation of the factory, which is what we all desire.
Hours and Overtime.-It is the policy at this plant to pay
time and one-half to production workers on hourly or piece
work basis for all work in excess of eight hours per day or 40
hours per week, and for production work on January 1, May 30,
July 4, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and December 25.
This notice, timed to coincide with the organizational campaign
of the Union, clearly indicated to the employees the respondent's
antipathy to the Union. It represented that the respondent's em-
ployees could expect no benefits. from affiliation with a labor organi-
zation. At a time when the Union had not asked the respondent for
either a closed shop or a check-off, and indeed, had made no demands
of the respondent, they paragraphs of the notice condemning the closed
shop and check-off and relative to rates of pay and hours of employ-
ment were gratuitous in nature, coercive in effect, and intimated
clearly that all employment policies, had already been fixed by the
respondent and that attempts by the Union, to secure changes in
rates of pay might have dire consequences.
By this notice they respondent indicated to its employees the futility
of that which the Act is designed to encourage-collective bargain-
ing with respect to terms and conditions of employment. The notice,
posted when it was, had the purpose of anticipating and denying to
employees possible advantages to be derived from collective bargain-
ing negotiations. It not only counseled futility, but also, to the em-
413597-42-vol 28-29
436 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL' LABOR 'RELATIONS BOARD
ployees, was an unmistakable indication of-the respondent's hostility
toward their ,self-organization 4
We have frequently had occasion to consider notices of similar
import to the one here in issue,and have uniformly held that such
notices, coming at a time when a union is seeking to establish itself
as a collective bargaining • agent, are attempts on the part of the
employer to obstruct and prevent self-organization of the employees
and their affiliation with and continued membership in a labor organ-
ization and as such constitute an unlawful interference with the rights
of such employees under the Act.,' In-the instant case, it is plain
that in posting the notice in question the respondent was motivated
by the hope that its employees would reject the Union, and the notice
could have been understood by the employees only as a manifestation
of the respondent's desire that, they refrain from organization.(,
DeMent continued his anti-union activities in the summer and fall
of 1939. Zobrisky testified 'that during the summer' DeMent told
him that the union organizers were nothing "but a.bunch of crooks."
DeMent,. at the hearing, recalled the conversation referred to but
denied having referred to the organizers as a "bunch of crooks."
In view of the many instances in the record evidencing DeMent's
antagonism towards the Union, however, we find, as did the Trial
Examiner; that the remarks were made substantially as testified'to by
Zobrisky. -
Clouser testified that in October 1939 he had the following conversa-
tion with'De.Ment : - .
... he started talking to me about how the company liked
my work and what the company had lined ' up for me if I had
stuck with the company, and I said, "Jim, how do you' figure
I' am not sticking with the company?_ I try to do my work as
good as Fever did." He said, "If you hadn't joined up with
the union." I said, "I am sticking -with the company and I
have to do my work, in fact I- have to watch myself closer and
do better work, and I don't see why when they put a notice on
the bulletin board and they Government is in back of it "we can,
4 See Matter of, Roberti Brothers , Inc and Furniture Workers Union, Local 1561, t
N. L. R B . 925; Matter of Blue Bell-Globe Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated
Clothing, Workers of America , 24 N. L, R. B. 126 ; Matter of The Yale & Towne Mann-
faeturing Company and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of
North America, Lodge No. 1647, through the Steel Workers Organizing Committee, af-
filiated with the Committee for Industrial Organization , 17 N. L. R. B. 666.
See N. L R. B. vs._ Elkland Leather Co ., 114 F. (2d) 221 (C. C. A. 3), ent'g. 8
N L R B 519, cert'denied , November 25,,1940; Matter of Adams Brothers Manifold
Printing Company, doing business as Adams ' Brothers Salesbook Company, and Topeka
Typographical Union, No. 121, affiliated with the American, Federation of Labor, 17
N. L. It. B. 974; Blue Bell-Globe Manufacturing - Company and Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, 24 N. L. R. B. 126.
e See Matter of Blue Bell-Globe Manufacturing Company , and Amalgamated Clothing
Ivor.&P,s of A merica , 24 N. L. It. B. 126.
BEMIS 'BRO. BAG COMPANY 437
not join the union," and he said, "I stuck with the company, and
I got a good job, and Roy Hopwood upstairs, he got a good job
sticking with the company, and he has a good job by sticking
with the company."
As with the other anti-union statements attributed to DeMent, he
denied having made the statements quoted by Clouser. However,
in view of DeMent's admitted numerous conversations with Clouser
and others concerning the Union and his' obvious disapproval of it,
his denial cannot be credited. We find, as did the Trial Examiner,
-that the conversation took place substantially as testified to by
Clouser.
DeMent was not, the only supervisory official of the respondent who
engaged in anti-union activities. Aubrey Wolverton, an employee,
testified that shortly before he joined the Union on June 17, 1939,
William Case, foreman of the manufacturing and waterproofing
department, said to him, referring to they Union, "Well they can all
join that wants to, but I will guarantee you one thing, there will be
no more bonus paid." While Case denied having conversed with
employees concerning the Union, we credit Wolverton's testimony
concerning this conversation and find that, just as DeMent had earlier
indicated. to Clouser that he "was' losing money by joining the
Union," Case threatened Wolverton with a loss of pay in the event
that he joined the Union.
Anuel Goodrich, another employee, testified that in May or June
1939, three'or"four months after he had joined the Union, Case ap-
proached him and said, "Shorty, I understand you have signed up
with the Union." When Goodrich replied that he had, Case contin-
ued, "If you would rather listen to outsiders than listen to us, it is
immaterial to me." As to this conversation, also, we do not credit,
Case's general denial and find, as did the Trial Examiner, that this
conversation occurred substantially as testified to by Goodrich.
The respondent contends that any remarks made by its super-
visory officials to employees relative to the Union or their affiliation
therewith were expressions of personal opinion and not binding upon
the respondent in the absence of evidence showing that such remarks
reflected its views or that they were authorized, encouraged, or ac-
quiesced in by it. In this connection the respondent points to evi-
dence to the effect that DeMent and Case had received instructions
from the plant manager not to 'interfere with the employees in the
exercise of their rights under the Act:-However, the respondent's
notice of February 28, 1939,' indicates that the foregoing statements
made by the respondent's supervisory officials to employees were
reflections of the general hostile attitude of the respondent toward
the Union. Moreover, even if the respondent's supervisory officials
438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Were acting in violation of instructions in engaging in the activities
detailed above, the respondent did not make its instructions effective
and is responsible for such activities.? We, find no merit in the
respondent's contention. -
We find that by the notice of February 28, 1939, and the foregoing
statements of DeMent and Case, the respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form, join, and assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining and other mutual aid and protection as gauranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
B. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion with respect to the:
election of August 23, 1939
On August 23, 1939, an election by secret ballot was conducted
by the Regional Director among the employees at the plant to deter-
mine whether they desired to be represented by the Union. In this
election, 114 employees voted for the Union and 209 voted against
it.. The Regional Director notified the Union and the respondent
of the results and the representatives of both the Union and the
respondent certified that they were satisfied that the election was'
held in a fair and impartial manner. ' The complaint alleges that
during this election the respondent instructed its employees to vote
against the Union, stationed foremen near the polling place to dis-
courage employees from voting for the Union, and threatened to
close the plant for two months if the Union won the election. We
have reviewed the record and find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
the evidence does not support this allegation of the complaint.
The election was held during working hours in a building in the
block next to that on which the respondent's plant is located and
the employees were given time off, with pay, in which to vote.
During the voting, various of the respondent's foremen, after their
respective departments had been released to vote, gathered on the
corner by the respondent's plant and engaged in conversation. The
foremen did not speak to any of the employees as they passed on
their way to vote and did not conduct themselves in a way to in-
dicate their preference as to how the employees should vote. Since
there is no showing that the foremen did anything other than loiter
in front of the plant while a secret ballot was being conducted at.
7 See Swift & Co. v. N L. R. B , 106 F. (2d) 87 (C. C. A 10) enf'g as mod , Matter
of Swift & Company , a corporation and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
of North America , Local No 641, and United Packing House Workers Local Industrial'
Union No 300, 7 N L - R B. 269
- BEMIS BRO. BAG COMPANY I 439
some distance therefrom, we shall dismiss the allegation of the com-
plaint that by its conduct during this election the respondent inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The alleged discrimination with respect to hire and tenure of
employment
1. Goodrich
The complaint alleges that on or about October 9, 1939, the re-
spondent terminated the employment of Anuel Goodrich because of
his union membership and activity. Goodrich joined the Union on
February 7, 1939. He was not an officer or committeeman but had
solicited union memberships among the employees at their homes
and while going to and from work.
Goodrich was first employed by the respondent in March 1934 in
the receiving department. In November 1936 he was transferred
to the waterproofing department, and became a helper to one Flem-
ming, another union member. According to Flemming and one
Schauman, another employee to whom Goodrich served as helper
for a tine, Goodrich's work was not satisfactory and resulted in
complaints and the manufacture of defective materials from time to
time. In September 1939 Goodrich's failure to perform his job
properly resulted in from 30 to 40 yards of burlap being rendered
defective and unusable. Flemming complained to Foreman Case that
Goodrich did not pay attention to his work and asked for another
helper on the ground that he' could not produce good work with
Goodrich assisting him. Case then assigned one Lewis, another union
member, as helper to Flemming and put Goodrich to work operating
the cutter. At this time Case warned Goodrich that if he continued
to do poor work he would be discharged. According to the testi-
mony of several employees, operation of the cutter is not difficult
and can be learned in one day. Goodrich, however, failed to become
proficient after several days. He was then replaced, sent to the
Barton Street plant, and assigned to work there on the second shift.
That shift was terminated on October 6, 1939. At that time the
foreman at the Barton- Street plant was requested by Case to retain
Goodrich to do other work but refused to do so on the ground that
he had other employees better qualified for the work. Consequently,
Goodrich reported for work at the Fourth Street plant on the morn-
ing of October 9, 1939, was sent to Case, and advised that he was
discharged because of his unsatisfactory work.
Under these circumstances and considering that Goodrich was
discharged as a result of complaints by Flemming, a union member,
440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Flemming testified to. the unsatisfactory nature of Goodrich's
work, and that Goodrich was replaced by another union member,
we do not find . that Goodrich was discriminatorily discharged to
discourage membership in the Union.
2. Wolverton
The complaint alleges that in October 1939 the respondent laid
off Aubrey Wolverton for one week because of his membership and
activity in the Union. A review of the record indicates that the
evidence does not support this allegation of the complaint.
It appears that Wolverton was laid off by the respondent as a
disciplinary measure because of his violation of a rule promulgated
by the respondent forbidding the solicitation of memberships to any
organization during working hours or on the respondent's property.
There is no showing that the rule was discriminatorily applied to
Wolverton. Wolverton was reinstated by the respondent at the end
of a week and was working at the time of the hearing.
On these facts we do not find that the respondent discriminatorily
laid off Wolverton to discourage membership in the Union.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with, the operations of the re-
spondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sev-
eral States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices. We shall order the respondent to cease and desist
therefrom and to take certain affirmative action which we find neces-
sary to, effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
1
BEMIS BRO. BAG COMPANY 441
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within. the 'meaning of Section:- , (6) and (7)_
of the Act. T- : - -. - - : . - . ' . .f-
4.. The respondent has not engaged in-unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spondent, Bemis Bro. Bag Company, St. Louis, Missouri, and its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restiain-
'ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its Fourth Street
plant, St.. Louis, Missouri, and maintain for a period of at least
sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its
employees stating that the respondent will not engage in the con-
duct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraph 1 of
this Order; and
(b) Notify the Regional Director for.the Fourteenth Region -in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what
steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is
dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent (1) engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the
Act with respect to Anuel Goodrich and Aubrey Wolverton, -and
(2) during the conduct of the election of August 23, 1939, instructed
its employees to vote against the Union, stationed. foremen near the
polling place to discourage employees from voting for the Union,
and threatened to close the plant if the Union won the election.
i
CHAIRMAN HARRY A. MILLis took no part in the consideration of,
the above Decision and Order. _