C. A. Reed Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 30, 1943

53 N.L.R.B. 279 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of C. A. REED COMPANY and DISTRICT No. 50, UNITED
MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. 4-C-13,03.-Decided October 30, 1943
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On'September 17, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had not engaged in and was not engaging in the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint herein
be dismissed, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report an-
nexed hereto. No exceptions to the Intermediate Report have been
filed, and no request has been made for oral argument before the
Board. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report and the
entire, record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following
exception : I
The Trial Examiner has found, and we agree, that McKay, Tallman
and Robbins do not occupy supervisory positions and that the respond-
ent is not, responsible for their activities in connection with the
formation of the Association. In reaching this conclusion, we take
into account the fact that the Board's agents and District 50, in the
consent election agreement, included McKay, Robbins, and Tallman
among the employees eligible to vote in the election, but we do not
thereby decide that this of itself and under other circumstances would
absolve the employer from responsibility for the union activities of
the employees in question.
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 issued herein against the
respondent, C. A. Reed Company, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
53 N. L. R. B.; No. 50.
279
280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MR. GERARD D. REiLLY tooJJ no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Eugene V. Purver, for the Board.
Mr. Joseph C. Gallagher, of Pittsburgh, Pa. for District 50.
Condor, Youngman cE Gibson , Esgs, of Williamsport, Pa., by Mr. John C.
I oungman, for the respondent. '
Mr. Joseph M. McNerney, of Williamsport, Pa., for the Association.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on April 16, 1943, by District No. 50, United Mine
Workers of America, herein ,called District 50, the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region
(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), issued its complaint dated July 6, 1943, against
C. A. Reed Company, 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 (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the
,complaint and notices of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent,
District 50, and Crepe Paper Workers Association of Williamsport, Pennsyl-
vania,' herein called the Association.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance
that: (1) the respondent (a) engaged in surveillance of certain of its employees
who were actively engaged in behalf of District 50; (b) ridiculed and maligned
District 50; (,c) discriminated against John Carey and deprived him of privi-
leges previously accorded him, because of his activities on behalf of District 50;
and (2) the respondent, commencing in January 1943 and continuing down to
the date of the issuance of this complaint, caused to be formed, interfered with,
and dominated the formation and administration of the Association.
On or about July 10, 1943, the respondent filed its answer in which it admits
certain facts as to its corporate organization and the nature of its business,
but denies that it engaged in any of the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint. The answer avers that in its relations with the Association, the
respondent acting in compliance with Section 9 (a) of the Act, merely dealt
with the Association as a group of employees who were presenting grievances.
Pursuant'to notice, a hearing was held in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, on
August 12, 13 and 14, 1943, before the undersigned, Charles E. Persons, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the
respondent, and the Association were represented by counsel, and District 50
by a union official. All parties participated in the hearing. Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
was afforded all parties.
At the opening of the hearing, the Association moved to intervene. This
motion was granted without objection, such intervention being limited to par-
ticipation in matters which affect the intervenor. At the close of the Board's
presentation in chief, the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint as a whole,
'and as to specified paragraphs, for failure of proof. The Association joined in
this motion as to the paragraphs with which it had concern. These motions
i The complaint carries the name The Crepe Paper workers Association of the C. A. Reed
Company. The i ecord cart ects this as here stated.
C. A. REED 'COMPANY 281
were denied. At the close of the hearing, the respondent and the Association
renewed these motions. They were taken under advisement, and are at this
time, after consideration of the record, granted to the extent indicated by the
findings, conclusions and recommendations set forth below. The Board moved
to conform its pleadings to the proof as to names, spellings, and addresses.
This motion was granted without objection. At the conclusion of the hearing,
the parties were notified that they might participate in oral argument before
the undersigned. All parties waived oral argument. The parties were duly
advised that they had the privilege of presenting briefs for the consideration
of the Trial Examiner . The respondent presented such a brief on or about
August 25, 1943.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY'
C. A. Reed Company is a corporation organized in 1925 under the laws of the
State of Delaware. It maintains its principal office and plant at Williamsport,
Pennsylvania, where it manufactures, sells and distributes crepe paper, paper
napkins, covers, plates, and cups, and rayon parachutes. The principal raw
materials purchased by the respondent for use in its business are cardboard,
semi-crepe paper, tissue paper, dyes, glue and rayon fabrics. During the year
ending April 30, 1943, the respondent purchased approximately $1,367,000 worth
of such raw materials, of which about 85 percent were shipped to it from sources
outside the State of Pennsylvania. During the same period the respondent
produced approximately $3,043,000 worth of finished products Of these
approximately 85 percent were shipped from its plant in Williamsport to points
outside the State of Pennsylvania. The respondent admits that it is engaged
in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. TIIE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
District No. 50, United Mine Workers of America, and its Local No. 12,286,
are labor organizations admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
Crepe Paper Workers Association of Williamsport, Pennsylvania, is an unaffili-
ated organization whose membership is confined to employees of the Iespondent.
III. TILE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The record reflects no union activity in the respondent's plant before July
or August of 1942. At that time District 50 began an organizational cam-
paign. On November 16, 1942, two representatives of District 50: Peter J.
Schneider and one Higgins, met with the respondent's Board of Directors.
John C. Youngman, counsel of record for the respondent, was present. The
union representatives complained that respondent's foremen had intimidated
some of the employees. They requested that a notice be posted oil the respond-
ent's bulletin board assuring the employees that "they had the right to choose
their own union and choose who they wanted to represent them in the union."8
'These findings are based on a stipulation of the parties Incorporated in the record,
and on allegations in the complaint admitted by respondent in its answer.
7 Quoted from the testimony of A. H. Stockwell, vice president and treasurer for the
respondent.
282 D'ECISION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board of Directors acceded to this request. A notice was composed -by
Youngman in conformance to the union representatives ' expressed wishes, im
mediately typed and posted . It read as follows :
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES OF C. A. REED CO.
Under the Wagner Labor Act, you,have the right to self organization, to
form, join or assist labor organizations and to bargain collectively through
representatives of your own choosing. The question of whether an em-
ployee shall or shall not join a union is up to that individual employee.
(Signed) C. A. REED CO.,
C. A. Reed,
President.
On the same day the respondent's supervisory employees were called together
in the company office.4 Passages from the Act were read to them and they
were positively instructed not to interfere in union activities. A. H. Stockwell,
vice president and treasurer of the respondent, testified regarding the instruc-
tions then given as follows :
We discussed with them the importance of not interfering at all with any
of the union activities. That they were to keep out of it and not even
answer any questions, and if anything came up about questions that needed
to be answered they were to take it up with us in the office.
Q. In other words,, the foremen were 'instructed to keep their mouths
shut?
A. That is right.5
Night Foreman Robert Hutchinson was not present at the meeting. However
he, as well as Harold Fisher, who was promoted to be foreman about January
1, 1943, were given similar instructions by Superintendent Edward G. Knights.
Their testimony at the 'hearing clearly indicated that they had apprehended and
remembered the instructions transmitted.6 Testimony given by other foremen
who were present, clearly indicates that this order had been effectively
transmitted. -
On January 6, 1943, the respondent and District 50, under the supervision of
agents from the Board's 4th Regional Office, entered into an Agreement for
a Consent Election. The parties agreed upon a definition for an appropriate
unit. An eligibility list based upon the respondent's pay roll'for January '4,
4 The parties stipulated that those 'preseni were : Foremen James Smith, R. J. Mingle,
Freeman Stroup, A. D. Logue, Floyd Bartlett, Sherman Bricker, William Snyder, Robert
Cummings, Ralph Chamberlain, and Conrad Woerner ; Assistant Foreman Joseph Havihck ;
and Ethel A. Tallman, Margaret A. Smith and Harold Fisher, whom the respondent did
not consider to be either foremen or assistant foremen. Tallman is listed on the ,January
4, 1942, pay roll as a supervisor , Margaret Smith as a doorlady and Fisher as foreman
of the cup department. It is in evidence that Fisher's elevation to foreman was subsequent
to'this foremen's meeting.
8 Superintendent Knights 'corroborated this testimony.
6 Hutchison's testimony on this matter reads as follows :
I was not present at that meeting but I knew there had been a meeting, and I went
to our superintendent when I came in that night and asked him what it was all about,
and he gave me the substance of what it was. He told me that I shouldn't discrim-
inate in any way, not talk for or against the union, inside the shop or outside.
Fisher 's testimony was of similar import :
Well, right after I had been appointed foreman in the cup department Mr. Knights
came to me and told me that I should understand that I should not take 'no part in
any union activity, and not to discuss it with'any of the help or participate in any
of the union activities 'at all.
C. A. REED COMPANY 283
1943, was drawn up. The listing of those "not eligible to vote" indicates that
respondent's officials, foremen, assistant foremen, employees in the Planning
Department, the sales force and clerical employees were excluded from the
appropriate unit. The election was held on January 20. Of the 531 employees
eligible to vote, 488 cast ballots. Ten were challenged, and one ballot was
void. Of the 477 ballots counted, 194 were cast for District 50 and 283 against.
No objections were filed to the Regional Director's report of this election result.
B. The alleged domination and interference with the formation and administra-
tion of the Association
The complaint alleges that the respondent did :
(a) In or about January, February and March 1943, assist in the formation of
the Association ;
(b) Extend unlimited time and unlimited use of the plant facilities during
working hours to representatives of the Association in order to solicit member-
ship therein;
(c) Permit the circularization of a petition for the formation of the Associa-
tion during working hours and on respondent's property ;
(d) Accord to the Association recognition as exclusive bargaining agent with-
out requiring proof of designation by a majority of respondent's employees
while denying same to the Union.
These allegations are hereinafter discussed seriatim.
(a) The only basis for the Board's charge that the respondent assisted in
the formation of the Association is found in the attempt to prove that, certain
employees influential in its formation were supervisory in character. The
earliest activity leading to the formation of the Association occurred very soon
after the consent election. Doren Wilson, a die block cutter, in conference with
George Strunk,' a napkin machine operator, and Barton Lorah,e an order
checker, decided that "rather than to pay anything to any outside interests, we
would rather have an Association of our own." As Wilson testified, these em-
ployees "developed it from then on." They were joined by Joseph S. Johnston,
a printer, and Ethel A. Tallman. Tallman arranged that the group meet with
Joseph M. McNerney, counsel of record for the Association in this proceeding.
In addition to those named, Henderson Robbins, who "serves and supervises
a conveyer line," was present. McNerney's services were retained. Under
McNerney's advice it was decided to circulate a petition to determine the strength
of sentiment in favor of an independent organization and to hold a public meeting
at the Court House on February 4, 1943.
Those present at McNerney's office gave notice of this initial meeting "by
word of mouth. At the meeting James R. MacKay,° who is listed on the.
respondent's pay roll of January 4, 1943, as a laborer, gave the opening address.
He had been invited to do so by Tallman. A considerable number of member-
ships were secured. Officers were elected. Johnston became president; Lorah,
vice president, and Lovdie Welsh, who is the only employee listed in the
respondent's Art Department, became secretary-treasurer. A grievance com-
mittee composed of Tallman, Wilson and Robbins was also elected. Bylaws
were later printed which provided for monthly meetings of the Association 10
An initiation fee of one dollar and annual dues of the same amount were
established.
7 Strunk's name is at times erroneously reported in the transcript as Strump.
Sometimes carried in the transcript as Lohr.
° Sometimes incorrectly reported as McCay in the transcript.
70 Such meetings were held in Wilson's dance studio.
284 DECIS 'ION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board contends that Tallman, Robbins and MacKay are supervisory
employees and that their activities, in connection with the promotion of the
Association are ascribable to the respondent. During the campaign for mem-
bership in District 50, both Tallman and Robbins were solicited to join that
organization The three employees are all on the eligible list set up for, the
consent election All three voted. MacKay's vote was challenged by the watcher
for District 50.
MacKay, who had been employed by the respondent for not quite 9 years,
leads the "bull gang" which loads and unloads trucks and cars, handles heavy
paper rolls, and cartons and places them in their appropriate storage rooms
in the plant He has one, two, or three assistants, as the work in hand makes
necessary and he directs them while at work. MacKay is at all times engaged
in physical labor himself. His pay exceeds that of his assistants by a "very
small difference." He has no authority to hire or to discharge or to recommend
such action. The work which he directs requires considerable physical strength
and, at times, he suggests to Superintendent Knights that men assigned are not
husky enough for work on the "bull, gang." MacKay was not summoned for
the foremen's meeting on November 16, 1942.
Tallman has been in the employ of the respondent for 23 years. As supervisor,
she gives out and collects the work of it group of about 10 employees who work
on favors. She assigns jobs, keeps track of the work in hand and is responsible
for its orderly completion. She works under the supervision of Foreman A D.
Logue, who exercises all authority to hire or discharge the workers and hears
complaints about the character of the work assigned. There is also an
instructor, Ruth Eddinger," who directs the employees in the accomplishment
of their various tasks and inspects the finished work. When the giving out
and collection of work does not require all of Tallman's attention, she works on
the favors. She may be so employed in slack times for several hours 'a day.
She is paid 57 cents an hour. The employees under her supervision work at
piece rates and under the Federal Fair Labor Practices Act are guaranteed
40 cents an hour As stated above, Tallman attended the foremen's meeting
on November 16, 1942. She did so on a telephoned direction which she under-
stood was transmitted by a girl in the office. Later Knights told her that her
attendance was not necessary and the direction given her was it mistake." Tall-
man has no authority to employ or to discharge or to make, recommendations
affecting employment or discharges. However, she is in duty bound under her
assignment to report to her superiors "any incompetency or wrong attitude."
Superintendent Knights'test ifled that he might consult her as the person best
informed, in regard to the capabilities of persons in her group.
Robbins' duties in servicing and supervising the'conveyor line on the second
floor require him to report a half hour earlier than the group of 10 or more em-
ployees for whom he provides materials and removes finished work. He gives
these employees work and "tells them what to do."" But he has no authority
over their employment status beyond reporting to Foreman R. L. Miller, in case
a given employee seems unfitted for work on the conveyer, that he "don't think
the girl will ever make out " Stockwell characterized Robbins as a "servicer."
He described his duties as follows : "He brings work to the girls, gets them labels
and wrappers, and all that sort of thing, and keeps them supplied with mate-
rials." Robbins is paid 73 cents an hour. The employees on, the conveyor line
" Incorrectly recorded in the transcript as Ruth Ettinger.
'= Tallman so testified Knights testified that he did not remember giving her this
explanation. However, he further stated, "I would say, if she testified to that, I did."
" Robbins so testified.
C. A. REED COMPANY 285
are piece workers and have the same guaranteed hourly wage as the Tallman
group. Robbins was not called to the foremen's meeting on November 16, 1942.
Under this description of the duties of MacKay, Tallman and Robbins the un-
dersigned concludes and finds that each of them does not have "authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees or effectively recommend such action." " It is accordingly found that
their duties are not supervisory in character and that their acts in connection
with the formation of the Association are not ascribable to the respondent.
Further the undersigned finds that action of representatives of District 50
and of the respondent in making an agreement for a consent election, with the
active cooperation and approval of agents of the Board, has significance here.
The parties agreed upon an eligibility list which included MacKay, Tallman
and Robbins. The respondent contends that District 50 and the Board are bound
by such action.16 It is the Board's established practice to effectuate agreements
in the formulation of which its agents have participated providing these agree-
ments are not breached by subsequent unfair labor practices on the part of the
respondent 16 As appears in the recommendation herein the undersigned finds
that the respondent has not invalidated the agreement by such acts. Under
circumstances somewhat similar to those in the instant proceeding, the Board
recently said:
On May 7, 1941, a representative of the Board affirmed the understanding
between the Union and the respondents and permitted shift foremen to vote
in the consent election held on that date . . . We agree . . . that the shift
foremen are, clearly supervisory employees whose interference with the
self organization of subordinate employees is attributable to the respond-
ents . . . Since the respondents' failure to maintain neutrality in this re-
spect was due in substantial measure to the advice and agreement of a Board
agent, we are of the opinion that it would not effectuate the policies of the
Act, to make findings of violation of the Act, or to issue an order against
the respondents, based upon the conduct of the shift foremen. . ."
By accepting MacKay, Robbins and Tallman as eligible voters for the consent
election, the Board and District 50 recognized their right to participate in union
activities. Their leadership in the formation and administration of the As-
sociation thereafter may not be assailed.
(b) Proven instances of the solicitation of memberships in the Association
during work time are few in number. James Burkholder, a mechanic whose
duties took him throughout the plant, testified that "around February" 1943
he saw Wilson near the Motto Paster machine on the third floor. Wilson
14 See Matter of Boston Edison Company and Utility Workers Organizing Committee,
C. I 0 Local 224, R. 4988-9. 51 N. L. R B. 118.
u In Knights' testimony, lie was asked whether in his estimation the question of Tall-
man's supervisory status was settled by setting up the eligibility list and answered : "It
had been considered and agreed on at that time." In presenting a motion to dismiss the
complaint, counsel for the respondent said :
. . . The persons who formed the Association were not supervisory employees, and
e%en if they were, the union, District 50, would be estopped from complaining about
it, since they actively represented that they were not supervisory employees in agreeing
that they should vote and in having similar classes of employees, such as Calvert
and McCabe become active for District 50 and w ere permitted to vote.
16 See Matter of Shenandoah-Dives Mining Company and International Union of Mine,
Mill . Smelter Workers Local No. 28, 11 N. L. R. B. 885, and Godehdua Sugars Inc., and
Sugar Mill Workers' Union, Locals No. 21177, and To. 2188 A. F. L., 12 N. L. It. B. 568
IT Matter of Armour Fertilizer Works Inc et at and International Union of Mine, Mill
.f .Smelter Workers, CIO, 46 N L. R. B. 629.
559015-44-vol. 53-20
286 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR R'ELATION'S BOARD
collected a dollar from a girl employee and gave her a "slip of paper." She
refused to let Burkholder see this paper on his request. Another girl employee
showed him a receipt reading "Received one dollar," and signed by Wilson.
Burkholder could identify neither of these employees. However, he testified
that the second employee on showing her receipt told him : "They were paying
for the Union." Wilson operates a dance studio. He testified that while in the
plant, employees whose children attended his classes, frequently gave him
money to cover his fees. On. such occasions he gave them a receipt. In view of
the indefiniteness of Burkholder's testimony and the complete lack of direct
proof as to the character of the payment made by the first unidentified girl
employee, the undersigned credits the explanation given by Wilson.
Matthew A. McCabe, an electrician and president of District 50's local No.
12,286 in the respondent's plant, testified that on February 19, 1943, he'saw,an
employee, identified as Caroline Padvona, supervisor of hat making.and style
machines, give Wilson during work 'hours a number of bills .and a,little black
book which "looked like a receipt book." McCabe assumed that this incident
represented the -transmission of Association dues. As McCabe testified : "I just
got sore because I saw they [Association members] were allowed to do. things
that we were not allowed to do." He protested to Assistant Foreman Havilick,
who said nothing to McCabe. However, Havilick's testimony is that he ques-
tioned Padvona after McCabe had left, and was told that the money "was [war]
savings money or stamp money." Padvona was collector of such funds in the
hat department and had turned over to Wilson, monies resulting from the
Thursday, February 18, pay day collection. It is in evidence that the handling
of such matters in work time was regarded as legitimate. After considering the
evidence, the undersigned credits the testimony of Havilick and finds that McCabe
was mistaken in inferring that Padvona was collecting Association dues.
" 'On 'another occasion, in February f943, McCabe saw Betty Fry, a desk girl in
the cup department, hand Winnetta Fox, an order checker, a book "that looked
like a receipt book." McCabe inferred that these employees were transacting
Association business and called Foreman Harold Fisher's attention to the matter.
McCabe testified that "he [Fisher] didn't say anything. He just walked away
and let it go at that." Fisher testified that he kept silence because he .had been
instructed to do so by Superintendent Knights. However, he later questioned
Fry who explained that Fox gave her a `credit union book to take downstairs
and get .checked, when I, go down the next time." When Fisher persisted asking :
,.you are sure it wasn't no union activities?" Fry showed him the credit union
book. On this evidence the undersigned concludes and finds that McCabe was
mistaken in his inference that Fry and Fox were transacting Association business.
Again on February 17, 1943, between 3: 30 and 3: 35 McCabe, as he testified,
was shown,by Charles Greenabaum,'$ an elevator operator, a receipt for Associa-
tion initiation fees, signed by Tallman. McCabe was able to fix the time with
great exactitude, because he made a' note of the occurrence at the time. Since
Greenabaum told McCabe he had "just joined," McCabe concluded that 'he had
been solicited during work time. • Tallman testified, however, that Carl Ren-
ninger, a storekeeper, had given her Greenabaum's dollar during the'noon hour,
asking that she hand in the money that night. Tallman did so and next day gave
Benninger a receipt, signed by herself, made out to Greenabaum. In these cir-
cumstances, the undersigned finds no proof either that Greenabaum was solicited
or that he paid.money to the Association, during work time.
18 At the time of the hearing Greenabaum had left his employment with the respondent.
He was not called as a witness. '
C. A. RE-ED COMPANY 287
• Hobert • Bricker, who operates a crepe paper machine, and has been in the
employ of the respondent for over 20 years, testified that in "the fore part of
May" 1942, Lorah "came up to [his] machine" and had a conversation with
him. Bricker fixed the time.as between 8 and 8: 30 in the morning, I. e., during
work hours. Lorah inquired if Bricker "cared to become a member of the Paper
Workers Association." Bricker asked if "the company had any objections to
an organization of that kind." Lorah assured him they had not and showed a
letter with-the signature C. A: Reed, "stating that they [the respondent] were
granting vacations with pay." The letter was headed : "To the Crepe Paper
Worker's Association of the C. A. Reed Company." The details of a plan for
vacations were set forth, and it was stated that approval by the War Labor
Board • must be secured before the plan became operative. Lorah was in the
hearing room during Bricker's testimony but was not called to the stand. The
undersigned -accordingly credits the testimony of Bricker. Although Foreman
R. if. Mingle was 'In the crepe department during this conversation and Knights
passed through, neither of these supervisors was in a position to overhear the
conversation or to observe what took place between Bricker and Lorah. The
conversation lasted "probably ten minutes." i
Burkholder testified that Robbins said to him during working hours : "We
are going, to have to form a company union. We will get a petition and bring
it around to sign." Burkholder further testified that during the lunch period,
Robbins "asked me if I wanted to sign it, I lie petition] to form a company
union." • Since Robbins' testimony only denied that he had ever asked Burk-
holder to join the Association and signing the petition did not establish mem-
bership, the undersigned credits Burkholder's testimony. Floyd Blair, a napkin
printer,•gabe uncontradicted testimony that Robbins asked him to join the Asso-
ciation. 'Blair fixed the time as "about six weeks after the election" and during
working hours. Robbins assured Blaid that Knights were favorable to the Asso-
ciation.
The record makes clear that employees in the respondent's plant' exercised
an unusual measure of freedom of movement and actions. Reasonably brief
conversations between employees were not ordinarily interfered with by the
supervisors. Under such circumstances these three instances of solicitation for
the Association shown to have occurred during working hours, but not within
the observation of supervisors, do not involve the respondent in Association
activities. Moreover, several uncontroverted instances of solicitation in favor
of District 50 during working hours, which the undersigned credits, and finds
it unnecessary to set forth, were entered on the record's Respondent's of-
ficials, Knights and Stockwell, and various of its supervisors testified positively
that their treatment of the advocates of District 50 and of the Association was
exactly similar and guided by the instructions given to the foremen on No-
vember 16, 1942. Under these circumstances, the undersigned finds no evidence
in the record which supports the Board's allegation that the respondent ex-
tended "unlimited time and unlimited use of its plant facilities during working
hours to representatives of the Association in order to solicit membership
therein." He finds that the respondent maintained an attitude of neutrality,
and that the treatment of.the contending unions was impartial.
's Carey admitted that he had "talked union there on the company property and the
company time." It is further in evidence that Carey on two occasions, during work time,
solicited the membership of Walter Pacacha.
288 DECISION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) The Association's petition, so called, is a 10-page, legal backed, securely
bound document.2° Competent testimony, credited by the undersigned , states
that it was never unbound and circulated as separate sheets. It contains the
signatures , with addresses, of over 250 employees of the respondent. Both
Robbins and Tallman testified that the petition was never circulated in work
hours.21 Evidence to the contrary, for the most part, rests on inferences. Thus
McCabe testified that he saw Fry have what "looked like several pieces of type
writer paper." Fry, in work hours and with these papers in hand , took five
or six individual employees into that rest room. McCabe admitted.that he did
not see the papers clearly and that it "might have been anything." Later Mc-
Cabe saw Tallman talking with Robbins both before and after dinner. On the
second occasion, during work time, Robbins took "several sheets of paper" that
"looked very similar to the papers Miss Betty Fry had" and talked to girls
on the conveyor line. McCabe did not overbear these conversations and ad-
mitted that "they may have been talking about anything at all." On being
asked, McCabe testified that he did not notice a legal back on the papers.
Burkholder also testified that both Wilson and Robbins had "one of these
petitions" during February about 2 weeks after the election. Burkholder de-
scribed the petition as a piece of paper about 2 feet in length, "that had four
leaves on it" some of which were turned back. He further testified that, while
Wilson had it, he "saw a couple of women signing it." The time was fixed as
during work hours around 10 o'clock. Burkholder admitted that he did not
overhear the conversation between Wilson and the two women employees, and
stated "the only thing I know it looked like the other paper."
- Blair testified that he saw Tallman, 3 or 4 weeks after the election, give Robbins
"three or four sheets of paper " After lunch Robbins talked to Ralph Shirey, a
machine operator. Blair saw Shirey write on the sheets. Later Robbins took
the paper and "talked to the girls on the scallop press." Blair could not identify
these employees beyond stating that the first name of one was "Lib." When
asked : "Have you any idea what those papers were?" Blair answered : "Only that
the girls said that he was trying to sign them up for the Association."
Tallman testified relative to her conversations with Robbins : '
I never went. down to talk to him for Association business. I did go down
when his wife would ask me to give him a message, or I went down for,
materials on the floor, and he would come to the door, and if I had anything
to tell him, any message, that was the conversation.
Robbins corroborated this testimony.
Wilson's testimony contains an' adequate explanation, credited by the under-
signed, concerning the papers which he and others were seen circulating. His
testimony was as follows :
I have gone around the factory, in different parts of the factory, sometimes
four or five or six times the day through, and on this paper I have the girls
20 This document reads as follows :
We the undersigned, employees of the C. A. Reed Company of Williamsport, Peuusyl-
vania by signing our names hereon express our desire to form an Association for the
purpose of joining ourselves together so that we may have unity of thoughts and
action as a group in matters pertaining to our working conditions , wages, and labor
relations generally with our employer . The adding of a signature hereto is a voluntary
act and any signer if he so desires , may withdraw from the Association either before
it is formed or after it is formed.
21 This is corroborated by Burkholiler 's testimony that Robbins asked him to sign the
petition during the lunch hour.
C. A. REED COMPANY 289
write to the boys who have left the factory for the service. Sometimes they
write their names and say, "Hello, Jack," or something, and sign their names.
That happens very often.
Wilson further explained that these service men's letters were circulated
throughout the plant. They began as three or four loose sheets of paper about 15
inches long. The number of pages was increased as the length of the messages
required. The undersigned finds no proof in the record to substantiate the Board's
allegation that the respondent permitted the circulation of the Association's peti-
tion during working hours and on respondent's property.
(d) The Board relies on two matters to substantiate its allegation that the
respondent recognized the Association as exclusive bargaining agent without
requiring proof of designation by a majority of respondent's employees. First,
the respondent notified the Association Grievance Committee of its decision as to
vacations soon after April 13, 1943, while the employees generally were not notified
until June 7, 1943. Second, the Association committee did not negotiate for their
members only but sought concessions applicable to all employees.
The first contact between the respondent and the Association was by a letter
dated March 18, 1943, which McNerney wrote under instructions from the Asso-
ciation. He inforined the respondent of the existence of the Association and
further stated :
The membership of the Association is made up of employees of the Company ;
its purpose is to protect the interests of employees in the matter of wages,
hours of working, safety, sanitation, and other working conditions.
On March 24 McNerney wrote again asking an appointment on March 25 for
representatives of the Association "for the purpose of bringing up certain matters
concerning their employment with your company." Three conferences were held
on dates between March 25 and April 13 not exactly fixed in the record. The
members of the grievance committee, Tallman, Wilson, and Robbins, represented
the Association. Stockwell and Knights 22 for the respondent met with them.
At an Association meeting on March 22, 1943, as the minutes of the meeting
record, the grievance committee was instructed to present these matters:
1. Vacation to all employees who have worked at C. A. Reed for six months
or over .. .
2. Notification of employees by foremen of the prospect for work on the
following day. Anyone presenting themselves for work and receiving none
should be given three hours pay or work equivalent to that pay.
3. Seniority rights Older employees should be given preference in re-
placement jobs over newer employees. They should be given at least a month
to adjust themselves to new conditions 23
All participants in the three conferences were called as witnesses in the
hearing. All agreed in testifying, and the undersigned finds, that the respondent
did not recognize the Association as exclusive bargaining agent for its employees
during the conferences. It will be noted that McNerney's letters did not advance
claims of majority membership. Stockwell inquired as to the extent of the
Association membership and was told "it was something like 240 or 260. Since
the consent election eligibility list carried 531 names the number stated did not
"These two officials had been appointed by the respondent's Board of Directors to deal
with District 50 at a time when the respondent anticipated that that union would win the
consent election. On receipt of the Association's letters, President C. A. Reed asked them
to meet with that organization's representatives
11 Quoted in part only.
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD
represent a majority. It is clear that the Association representatives, never
claimed a majority.
Stockwell's testimony as to the basis on which the discussions were, carried
on is as, follows :
When they came in to discuss, some of the grievances they had, I emphasized
quickly'and promptly, that we could not recognize them as the sole ,bargain-
ing agency for all the. employees. in the factory... They would., have, to,•get
permission to have a vote, and up to that time we just considered them
ordinary employees that had certain grievances that they wantedi toi have
corrected.
Each of the matters advanced by the Association was discussed at the ' confer-
ences. The respondent took definite action, however, only on the first request.
The Association had asked for a schedule of vacations as follows :
Six months , to one year, three days with pay,; one year to five years, one
week with pay ; five years and over, two weeks, with pay.
After discussion and' consideration the respondent sent the following statement
to each member of the grivance committee :
TO THE CREPE PAPER WORKERS ASSOCIATION OF THE C. A. REED COMPANY
The Board of Directors of the C. A. Reed Company have approved the
following plan for vacations with pay for our employees. Eligibility for
vacation will be determined on the basis of employment ending April 30
in any year.
Vacation Plan
E?nployees
1 to 3 years________________________ 101-3 days or 24 hours.
3 to 10 years______________________ 129-1 week or 40 hrs.
10 years and over ------------------ 86-2 weeks or 80 hrs.
Total employees_____________ 316
Approval of this plan by the National War Labor Board must be obtained
in order to make it operative. ,
This approval has been requested by letter April 13, 1943.
Approved by the Board of Directors.
C. A. REEb,•"
President.
On June 7, 1943, a bulletin was posted, addressed "To Our Employees" and
stating :
We have received word from the National War Labor Board that-our request
for vacations with pay for factory employees, ... has been, approved as of
April 30, 1943.
After detailing the plan as above, the bulletin concludes with the statement :
Within the next few days a schedule showing those who are entitled to
vacations will be available for each employee.
In the issue of the plant paper REEDer for, June 15, 1943, which is given to
all employees, appeared a statement relative to vacations.' Like the bulletin,
this news item made no mention of the Association.
24
This is the statement used by Lorah in soliciting members for the Association as
discussed above.
C. A. REED COMPANT 291
Respondent's action in these matters followed advice from its counsel of
record. He had been asked generally what the respondent's "rights and duties
[were] with respect to an independent union in your factory representing a
minority of your employees, or in any event an independent union not certified
as representing a majority of your employees." The respondent was warned
that the union must be in fact independent and not "a Company union." The final
paragraphs of the letter read as follows :
So long as this independent union has not been certified to represent all
of your employees, you are not required to bargain with it but you are
required to receive from any indivdual employee or group of employees
grievances.
Any agreement which you might make with the independent union shall
not be binding upon employees who are not members of the independent
union. You would be required to extend to all of your employees the benefits
which you grant unto the members of the independent union.
While the Association representatives were received as a group presenting
grievances , they regarded themselves, as the statement of their demands indi-
cates, as seeking concessions for all the employees. Moreover, Robbins, at least,
understood that all three of their demands were granted. He testified positively
as to seniority rights that they were presently in effect in the plant. As to pay
for employees who reported and found no work he testified that the employees
would get this but added, "I don't believe we have had any cases like that."
Robbins' understanding is reflected in the Association's minutes for April 2,
1943, which state that employees reporting and'finding no work were to be given
"four hours pay or work equivalent" and that the seniority rights demand had
been accepted by the respondent. Stockwell's testimony gives some support to
this understanding. When asked : "Did you do anything about the seniority
request?" he answered : "We have never posted any notice on it, but we have
had it under consideration, just how to handle it." Regarding' the pay-for-no-
work grievance he testified as follows :
Well, we had a sort of practice at times that some of our employees would
come in the factory in the morning and there wouldn't be any work for them,
and the Company wouldn't pay them, and this grievance committee asked
if there could be some correction made on this matter, and we said we
would give it some consideration. I don't know if that has been corrected
as yet, although there isn't anybody being sent home and, not paid. We
,generally keep them working.
On this statement of facts the undersigned concludes and finds that the
respondent in its relation with the Association did not recognize it as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of the employees. While the vacations granted
were extended to all employees this action was not only in accord with the advice
given by its attorney, but was dictated by practical considerations, of, plant
administration. Manifestly employees of equal lengths of service could not, be
granted or denied vacation with pay on the basis of their membership or non-
membership in the Association.
More doubt attaches to the act of the respondent in giving advance notice to
the Association on April 13, 1943, when its Board of Directors decided to grant
vacations with pay. The letters sent to the members of the Association's
'grievance committee, found their way into the hands of advocates of the Associ-
ation-.and became effective talking points in the solicitation of membership.
McCabe gave uncontroverted testimony, credited by the undersigned, that he
first learned of the vacation plan when shown copies of this letter by Betty Fry
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the cup department and by Florence Fritz , a checker in the parachute depart-
ment. Stockwell and Knights in their testimony disclaimed any intent to harm
District 50 or benefit the Association by their action . The respondent contends
that "the only proper thing 'to do was to inform those who had presented the
grievances" of the action taken R6 The action taken was explained as affording
desirable protection in case the ruling of the War Labor Board was unfavorable.
After the favorable decision of that agency , the vacation plan was published to
all employees on the respondent 's bulletin board and a notice printed in the
REEDer on June 15, 1943. These announcements simply stated that the re-
spondent had determined to grant vacations on a specified schedule and gave
no credit to the Association . The' undersigned finds the correctness of the
respondent's procedure in sending advance notice to 'the Association agents ad-
dressed to the Association at large, not free from doubt . After consideration of
the entire record, he does not find in this incident proof of the allegations in the
complaint.
After considering all evidence in the record bearing upon the issue , the under-
signed finds that the respondent did not dominate and interfere with the forma-
tion and administration of the Association and recommends that so much of the
complaint as concerns this allegation , be dismissed.
C. Alleged acts of interference, restraint, and coercion
Burkholder testified that about a week before the consent election he saw
four or five cards carrying the word "NO" on Foreman Stroup's desk. These cards
had been worn by employees of the second and third floor who were opposed to
District 50. They were made of two kinds of paper stock used in respondent's
operations in Stroup's department. Burkholder who had been called to the
vicinity of Stroup's desk to repair a machine testified that he saw Stroup "bump-
ing his fist" on the cards "as though he was pasting them." Burkholder re-
ported the occurence to McCabe on the same day during work hours. Foreman
Stroup was called as a witness by the respondent and testified in a straight-
forward, credible manner. He stated that on complaint that the wearing of the
"No" badges in the plant constituted discrimination against District 50, Super-
intendent Knights ordered him to see that they were gathered up. Stroup did
so. On inspecting his department later he found "two or three or four or five"
of the badges on the tables. He placed these on his desk for a day and then
threw them in the scrap box. The cards were gathered up on the same day that
they appeared in numbers. Stroup testified, and the undersigned credits his
statement, that he knew nothing about the manufacture of the cards. The under-
signed finds the contention of the Board that the respondent incurred responsi-
bility for the "No" cards through acts of Foreman Stroup to be without merit.
Blair testified that during the week before the election he wore his District
50 button in the plant. About 3 days before the consent election he wore in the
plant a ribbon with the word "Committee" printed on it. About 10 minutes after
he went to work Blair observed Foreman Miller and Assistant Foreman Llewellyn
Winner standing about 6 or 8 feet from his machine. Blair testified that he
heard Miller say to Winner : "1 see Blair is wearing one of those damn things."
Miller specifically denied that such a conversation took place, and insisted that
he had at all times obeyed the instructions given him at the foremen's meeting
of November 16, 19,42. He quoted the instruction in part as "to keep my mouth
absolutely shut on anything I heard or said [saw]." Winner testified that he
had seen Blair wear the committee ribbon. However, he also specifically denied
15 See respondent 's brief page 13.
C. A. REED 'COMPANY 293
that Miller made the remark which Blair ascribed to him. Winner also dis-
played accurate knowledge of the instructions given on November 16. After
considering the-evidence, the demeanor of the witnesses and the entire record,
the undersigned credits the testimony of Miller and Winner.
'Blair further testified that on the same shift, i. e., from 4 to 12 p. m, he had
a conversation with Night Foreman Hutchinson as follows :
He asked me what -I thought it was going to get me by joining the union
and I told him what we were trying to accomplish and he said he guessed
that is about all he better say, because lie was not allowed to talk about the
union . . . He said that wages were frozen, and he didn't see what good
it would do to try to get the union.
Hutchinson specifically denied having made each of the statements quoted
above. However, lie admitted that on one occasion when he was looking at
Blair's ribbon, Blair said: "Well, what do you think about it?" Hutchinson
then said : "Well, I am not allowed to say anything." Without resolving this
conflict of testimony, the undersigned sees in this incident evaluated at its worst,
no more than an isolated instance of violation by a supervisory official of
positive instructions, the import of which the official admittedly had in mind
He finds no proof here that the respondent was responsible for an effort "to
i idicule and malign the Union."
The complaint alleged that the respondent did in and about January, Feb-
ruary, March, and April 1943, spy upon and engage in surveillance of certain of
its employees who were actively engaged on behalf of District 50. The only
evidence to support this allegation is found in testimony by John Carey, a
crepe paper collator and shipping room employee. Carey joined District 50
in mid-September 1942, and thereafter wore a union button in the plant and
was active in District 50's campaign. He was elected vice president of the
local, was a member of the District 50 committee when the consent election
agreement was worked out, and served as a watcher for District 50 at the
election.. He testified that he had customarily left the shipping room without
getting permission until about a week before the election. At that time his
foreman, William Snyder, instructed Carey to ask for permission before leaving
the floor. Three or four days before the election Carey had occasion to go to
the fourth floor for some crepe paper. As Carey admitted, the paper was
"needed immediately." When he reached the crepe paper department on the
fourth floor, Foreman James Smith told him that Snyder had called on the
phone to inquire if he (Carey) had arrived. Both Smith and Snyder corrobo-
rated Carey's testimony in substance. Snyder explained: "Now this particular
time I was waiting on a certain kind of goods that I had sent him for, and he
stayed overtime, and I called to see what became of him." After considering
the evidence the undersigned finds no significance in this incident beyond the
execution of normal administrative routine.
Carey testified, and the Board alleged, that he had been discriminated against
after the consent election in the distribution of overtime. When confronted
with the respondent's overtime records, Carey admitted that he had been
mistaken in his testimony. The Board during the hearing agreed that there
was no discrimination on Carey as to overtime.20
51 The record reads :
Mr. YOUNGMAN : "Well, will the Board agree that there was no discrimination on
Carey as to overtime,"
Mr. Punvaa : "Yes."
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Carey 'further testified that , just before the election he was subjected to an
unusual measure of supervision and restricted in his freedom of action to a
discriminatory degree. Carey 's testimony , in point here , reads as follows :
Before the election I was made to stay right there, but prior to that if
anybody would come along I'would be allowed to talk to them or walk over
and talk to somebody that was working on something else, but just before
the election I was told to stay and talk to nobody, and when they stopped
to talk to me Mr. Snyder was right there to see that I didn't talk to them,
and if I was some place else he would come over to me and tell me to get
back where .1 belonged.
Foreman Snyder specifically denied that he had so treated Carey. He kdmitted
that "there had been a little hearsay-just a little remark passed," about Carey's
union affiliation. Snyder denied, however, that he had made any effort to pre-
vent Carey from engaging,in legitimate union activities. The undersigned, after
considering the evidence , and the demeanor of the witnesses , and remembering
in this connection Carey's admission,' that he talked union on company time,
finds no proof in this incident that Carey was discriminatorily treated.
Carey testified also that in contrast with his work before the consent election
when he was exclusively occupied in collating crepe, he had been required after
the election to perform various onerous tasks. His testimony reads as follows :
"Well, whenever there was odd jobs to be done around there, I was placed on
them, whether it was heavy or whether it was light . . . I was required to band
export 'orders and work on the shipping floor and unload trucks and load them
and collate the other orders and ,stuff around the shipping room ." He added,
in response to a question , that he was also required to sweep the floor. His fore-
man, Snyder, denied that any change had been made in his duties, saying, "He
practically done the same thing." Snyder testified that each of the employees
was expected "if we slowed up a little" to do any kind of work including sweep-
ing the floors . Carey was reemployed in September 1942 after a period of absence
from the respondent 's plant. Since the holiday season is a period of heavy
movement of orders succeeded by a relatively slack season after New Years, it is
normal to expect some readjustment of job assignments in the shipping room
during January. The undersigned credits the testimony of Foreman Snyder and
finds no discriminatory treatment of Carey because of his union membership
and activity.
After consideration of the record, the undersigned recommends that so much
of the complaint as alleges that the respondent was guilty of acts of interference,
restraint , and coercion , be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the - foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the ease, the undersigned makes the following :
CoNcLusIoNs of LAW
1. The operations of the respondent , C. A. Reed Company, occur in commerce,
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
'27 Carey under cross-examination testified :
Q. Now you were very active at that time [just prior to the election '] on the part of
the union , were you not?
A. I was. .
Q. Now you would not deny, would you, that you talked union there on the company
property and the company time, would you?
A. No, I wouldn't deny that I talked it.
C. A. REED COMPANY - 295
2. District No. 50, United Mine Workers of America , its Local No. 12,286,
and Crepe Paper Workers Association of Williamsport , Pennsylvania , are labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The respondent has not interfered with, restrained , or coerced its employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, within the meaning
of Section 8 • (1) of the Act.
4. The respondent has not dominated or interfered with the formation or
administration of Crepe Paper Workers Association of Williamsport, Penn-
sylvania , or contributed financial or other support to it, within the meaning of
Section 8 ( 2) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the Board's complaint issued under date of July 6,
1943, be dismissed.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2, as amended , effective October 28,
1942-any party may within fifteen ( 15) days from the date of the entry of the
order transferring the ease to the Board , pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of
said Rules and Regulations , file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Wash-
ington, 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.
As further provided in said Section 33, 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 the order transferring the case
to the Board.
CnASu.as E. PESsoNs,
Trial Examiner.
Dated September 17, 1943.