Carlisle Paper Box Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 6, 1967

168 N.L.R.B. 706 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Carlisle Paper Box Company and United Glass and
Ceramic Workers of North America , AFL-CIO.
Cases 4-CA-4131 and 4-CA-4165
December 6, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On August 10, 1967, Trial Examiner Sidney J.
Barban issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He
also found that Respondent had not engaged in the
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
and recommended dismissal of these allegations.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed.I The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
brief, and the entire record in these cases 2 and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the modifa-
cation set forth in the Board's Order herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below and hereby orders that Respondent, Carlisle
' Respondent contends that the Trial Examiner erred in not striking the
testimony of General Counsel witnesses Charles Laughman , Hattie
Bowne, and Ruth Martin on the ground that the General Counsel did not
produce their statements until a few days after they testified . The record
shows that when the hearing was resumed , after a recess of several days,
the General Counsel , who had previously stated that he did not recall hav-
ing in his possession further statements from the foregoing witnesses,
stated that he had found in his files affidavits which he offered to Re-
spondent although he was of the belief that they dealt with a matter not
relevant to the instant proceeding , namely , the layoff of the affiants The
Trial Examiner did not pass on their relevancy but nevertheless offered, if
requested to do so by Respondent , to recall the three witnesses for further
cross-examination As the affidavits were produced by the General Coun-
sel and Respondent did not avail itself of the opportunity to cross-examine
on the basis thereof, we find Respondent was not prejudiced
2 Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the
record and brief adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
Paper Box Company, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order, as so modified:
Substitute the following paragraph for the penul-
timate paragraph in the Appendix to the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision:
As the Board found that we violated the law
when we fired Genevieve Morin over the
Union, WE WILL offer her old job back and
give her backpay. -
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be,
and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges un-
fair labor practices not specifically found in the
Trial Examiner's Decision.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
SIDNEY J. BARBAN, Trial Examiner: These matters
were heard before me at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on
March 28, 29, 30, 31, April 4, 5, and 6, 1967, upon al-
legations in the consolidated complaint issued on January
23, 1967, as thereafter amended, based upon charges filed
on November 16, 1966, and December 30, 1966, that the
above-named Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1),
(3), and (5) of the Act. In its answer to the consolidated
complaint, as amended, Respondent denied that it had
violated the Act, and asserted certain affirmative defen-
ses which will be considered hereinafter.
Upon the entire record in this case,' from observation
of witnesses, and after due consideration of the extensive
briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Pennsylvania corporation, in the course
of the manufacture and sale of setup paper boxes at its
plant at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, during the past year,
received at and shipped from its Carlisle plant goods and
materials in interstate commerce of a value in excess of
$50,000. Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
1. Respondent asserts that it is justified in its refusal
to bargain with the Union on the basis that the Union's
certification as representative of the employees is void. In
' A separate order has been issued [not published] correcting the trans-
cript in this matter In a number of instances in which testimony is quoted
from the transcript herein punctuation has been added
168 NLRB No. 89
CARLISLE PAPER BOX CO.
support of this position, in its answer to the complaint,
Respondent argues, in effect, that the certification issued
by the Regional Director was invalidated by asserted
error (1) on the part of the Regional Director in failing to
pass on the validity of certain challenged ballots, acid in
determining that Respondent's objections to an election
conducted by the Regional Director were without merit,
and (2) on the part of the Board in holding that the Re-
gional Director's decision upon the objections and chal-
lenged ballots were made pursuant to an agreement for
consent election, and thus final and binding on the parties,
and in refusing to consider Respondent's attempted ap-
peal from the Regional Director's decision.
At the hearing, Respondent, for the first time specifi-
cally, asserted that the Regional Director's actions were
void because arbitrary and capricious. For reasons noted
hereinafter, the Trial Examiner ruled that this was the
only ground of attack upon the Regional Director's ac-
tions properly raised here.
2. The complaint alleges that Respondent engaged in
certain acts of interference, restraint, and coercion of em-
ployees, and discharged Genevieve Morin, in violation of
the Act. These allegations are denied by Respondent,
which also affirmatively asserts that Morin was
discharged for cause. The resolution of these issues de-
pends largely upon a determination of credibility of the
witnesses, which matters have been extensively treated
in the briefs.
B. The Validity of the Union's Certification
1. The first election
The Union's attempt to organize employees of Re-
spondent at its Carlisle plant began in July 1966.2
On August 8, Respondent and the Union executed the
Board's normal form "Agreement for Consent Election,"
which provides, inter alia:
1. SECRET BALLOT - An election by secret bal-
lot shall be held under the supervision of the said Re-
gional Director .... Said election shall be held in ac-
cordance with the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board's Rules and Regulations, and the applicable
procedures and policies of the Board, provided that
the determination of the Regional Director shall be
final and binding on any question, including
questions as to the eligibility of voters, raised by any
party hereto relating in any manner to the election,
and provided further that rulings or determinations
by the Regional Director in respect of any amend-
ment of any certification resulting therefrom shall
also be final.
6. OBJECTIONS, CHALLENGES, REPORTS
THEREON. - Objections [to an election] may be
filed with the Regional Director .... The Regional
Director shall investigate the matters contained in
the objections and issue a report thereon. If objec-
tions are sustained, the Regional Director may in his
report include an order voiding the results of the
election, and, in that event, shall be empowered to
Unless otherwise noted, all dates herein are in 1966.
Quotations from pp. 9-10 of Respondent's objections to the second
election
707
conduct a new election under the terms and provi-
sions of this agreement at a date, time and place to be
determined by him. If the challenges are determina-
tive of the results of the election, the Regional
Director shall investigate the challenges and issue a
report thereon. The method of investigation of objec-
tions and challenges, including the question whether
a hearing should be held in connection therewith,
shall be determined by the Regional Director, whose
decision shall be final and binding.
At the election held on August 30, pursuant to this
agreement, a majority of the ballots cast were for the
Union. Objections to the election were duly filed by
Respondent, and, in accordance with the Board's
established policy, see Allied Electric Products, Inc., 109
NLRB 1270, the Regional Director set the election aside
and directed a new election because of use of a facsimile
official ballot marked in favor of the Union.
2. The second election
Prior to the second election, scheduled for October 11,
Genevieve Morin, an officer of the local union group, was
discharged. There is a dispute, considered hereinafter, as
to whether, at the time of her discharge, Morin was struck
and injured by George Tay, Respondent's president, in
the presence of a number of employees. The Union
thereafter issued some strongly worded leaflets referring
to an alleged assault upon Morin.
While Respondent avers that these handbills assert an
attack by Tay upon Morin, it is noted that, in fact, Tay is
not mentioned in the leaflets, which, for the most part,
refer to an assault (without specifying the attacker),
which, it is stated, "dozens of employees witnessed," and
also to Morin's asserted injury and illness. (See p. 5 of
Employer's Exceptions to Regional Director's Report
(G.C. Exh. 2(e)).) In another leaflet, dated "10/10/66,"
attached to Respondent's objections to the election,
among other items, it is stated that the employees "know
the boss was wrong when he .... mistreated Ginny
Morin."
While, on the basis of the entire record, it is inferred
and found that the employees were aware that the leaflets
referred to Tay, it is also clear, and it is found, that this
awareness was based on information concerning the in-
cident known to the employees quite apart from the union
leaflets.
On one occasion, shortly before the second election,
Morin, wearing a "medical collar," appeared with a
representative of the Union on the road leading to the
plant while union leaflets were being distributed to em-
ployees. It is Respondent's contention that on this occa-
sion, in order to give "the impression to those who
viewed her person that she was suffering from the injuries
allegedly inflicted on her by [Respondent's] President,"
Morin "drastically changed her appearance by removing
her cosmetic face make-up and ... applied make-up caus-
ing her eyes to look darkened and her complexion sallow,
thereby giving the viewer of her person the impression
that she was suffering great distress."'
It appears that thereafter, on the day before the elec-
tion, Respondent presented a skit before the assembled
336-845 0 70 - 46
708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees , involving a female clerical employee with
disheveled appearance , wearing a medical collar similar
to that worn by Morin, and made up to give the ap-
pearance of paleness , sleeplessness , and bruises . The em-
ployee in the skit stated that although there was nothing
wrong with her, she had seen a doctor and had taken X-
rays, that the make-up was for effect, that "you can't be-
lieve everything you see. "4
On the day of the election , Morin, wearing the medical
collar, on two occasions entered the plant , as did two
other persons, Hockley and Martin, whose eligibility to
vote in the election was disputed . It is asserted that there
was an altercation between George Tay and Union
Representative Kanatzer concerning their right to be in
the plant. All three cast challenged ballots after being
challenged by Respondent 's observer. Morin appears to
have briefly greeted and to have "touched" a number of
employees in line to vote. Two persons appearing to vote,
Shover and Myers, were challenged by the Union.
The results of the second election show 21 votes in
favor of the Union, 18 votes against the Union, with 5
votes challenged.
3. Respondent 's objections to the second election
Respondent filed lengthy and detailed objections to the
second election . For the most part these involved the
Genevieve Morin-George Tay incident referred to
above . In particular , Respondent objected that the Union
had prevented a fair election by the following conduct:
1. Union handbills accusing George Tay of injuring
Morin, which Respondent asserted was false, and for
which Respondent assertedly had no adequate opportuni-
ty or means of response.
2. A union handbill claiming that a complaint of "ag-
gravated" assault and battery had been lodged against
Tay, and that charges would be filed with the Board
against Respondent on October 12, whereas only a com-
plaint of "simple" assault was lodged against Tay and no
charges were filed on the date specified.
3. Morin's appearance in a medical collar, both in dis-
tributing leaflets and appearing at the polls, was asserted
to be "campaign trickery calculated to mislead Em-
ployer's employees" (p. 10), and calculated to "wrong-
fully enrage Employer's employees against Employer" (p.
11), which, "because of the shortness of time," and
because knowledge of Morin 's health was "within the ex-
clusive possession" of Morin and the Union and "un-
available to the Employer, Employer was unable to ef-
fectively reply or counteract the affect [sic] of Union's
said campaign device" (p. 10). Respondent also asserted
that the appearance of Morin at the polls (with disputed
voters Martin and Hockley) constituted "improper,
misleading and unfair campaigning at the election place"
(p. 12).
4. A union handbill which, inter alia, accused Respond-
ent of making "false and libellous statements against the
Union," to which, Respondent claims, no opportunity to
reply was available. Respondent denied the accusation.
5. Union handbills accusing Respondent of wrongfully
attempting to disenfranchise Hockley and Martin, which
are asserted to be false and to which, it is claimed, no op-
portunity to reply was available.
3 These findings are based on the Regional Director 's report on chal-
lenges and objections to election , and apparently are not disputed by
Respondent . Respondent 's written exceptions to this report merely states
4. The Regional Director 's disposition of the challenged
ballots and Respondent 's objections
As previously noted, the five challenged ballots
(Morin , Martin , and Hockley challenged by Respondent
as not employees, and Shover and Myers challenged by
the Union, the former alleged to be a supervisor, the latter
asserted not to be an employee) were sufficient to affect
the results of the election. The Union, for the purpose of
the election only, agreed that the votes of Morin , Martin,
and Hockley need not be opened. The Regional Director,
finding apparent agreement between the parties that the
ballots of these three not be opened , with no evidence
submitted by either party to establish their eligibility,
ruled that they were ineligible voters. Since the remaining
two challenged votes could not affect the results of the
election , the Regional Director found it unnecessary to
pass on their eligibility and therefore held that "the Union
has received a majority of the valid votes cast in the elec-
tion."
In the course of an extensive analysis of the objections
to the election, the Regional Director found that Morin's
physician had examined her on the evening of the incident
alleged to have caused her disability and found "a
swelling about the brachial plexus and the right side of the
neck and that this was a temporary disability," and ad-
vised her to wear a cervical collar. The Regional Director
found that the evidence with respect to whether George
Tay caused Morin's condition was in dispute and con-
cluded that for the purposes of his report it was unneces-
sary to resolve this issue, noting that it was the subject of
a criminal charge, originally set for hearing on October 5,
but postponed to October 19.
In essence, and in effect , the Regional Director held
that after careful consideration of the assertions of the
Union complained of, and the Board and court decisions
which he considered most applicable , which are cited in
his report, the matters contained in the union leaflets, in
the circumstances in which they were uttered, did not ex-
ceed the limits of permissible or tolerable electioneering.
In particular, the Regional Director noted that Morin's
wearing of the collar could not be termed misrepresenta-
tion because she had been directed by her doctor to wear
it. He further found that Respondent had ample opportu-
nity to respond to the matters complained of and did
respond to the Union 's leaflets concerning Morin's inju-
ry. He also noted that Respondent had relinquished an
opportunity to lay the matter of Tay's responsibility for
the alleged injury to rest on October 5, before the elec-
tion, by having the criminal proceeding continued to a
date after the election. The Regional Director further
found that the disputed voters had the right to appear at
the polls to cast challenged ballots, and such appearance
did not constitute improper electioneering.
On all of the evidence and materials presented, the Re-
gional Director found and concluded that the Union's
conduct "did not deprive the employees of an opportunity
to cast a free and thoughtful vote," and that, in fact, "the
circumstances herein permitted employees to express
their uninhibited desires for or against representation by
the Union." The Regional Director further rejected
Respondent's contention that this second election was
(p 9), "In the skit the Employer tried to point out that a `beaten' ap-
pearance can be given by one who has been in no way subjected to harm "
CARLISLE PAPER BOX CO.
not conducted under the authority of the original agree-
ment for consent election , and certified the Union.
5. Respondent 's attempted appeal from Regional
Director 's decision
In response to the Regional Director's decision, the
Respondent filed with the Board its "Exceptions" to the
Regional Director 's report , presenting in discursive form
the points previously made in its objections to the elec-
tion . In addition , Respondent asserted , in effect , that the
Regional Director had erred in certain of his findings,
rulings, conclusions , and interpretation of the applicable
case law. In particular Respondent objected to the Re-
gional Director 's failure to pass on the merits of the
disputed ballots, asserted to be mandatory , to the failure
to find whether Tay had assaulted Morin, which was as-
serted to be critical to the issues, to the findings that
Respondent had adequate opportunity to reply to the
Union 's propaganda , and to the finding that the second
election was conducted pursuant to the agreement for
consent election.
Respondent was thereafter , on November 23, advised
that the Board would not consider its exceptions, pur-
suant to "the firm policy of the Board ," where the parties
have entered into an agreement for consent election, not
to intervene in the judgment of the Regional Director
because of the parties' disapproval of the judgment exer-
cised by the Regional Director.
C. Analysis and Conclusions With Respect to the Validi-
ty of the Union's Certification and Respondent 's Refusal
To Bargain
At the outset Respondent contends that the second
election was not conducted under the agreement for con-
sent election. Clearly this point was decided adversely to
Respondent by the ruling of November 23, noted above,
and this is binding upon the Trial Examiner. In any event,
the contention is obviously without merit . As previously
set forth , the agreement specifically provides , in para-
graph 6, that where objections to an election conducted
under the agreement are sustained, the Regional Director
is "empowered to conduct a new election under the terms
and provisions of this agreement," which patently would
include the right to pass upon challenged ballots cast and
objections to the election as provided by the agreement.
The principle to be applied where the Regional
Director 's decisions upon challenges or objections under
a consent-election agreement is attacked is also well set-
tled. As the Board stated in Sumner Sand & Gravel Com-
pany, 128 NLRB 1368 , enfd. 293 F .2d 754 (C.A. 9,
1961), at page 1371 (citations omitted):
. we will deem the Regional Director 's determina-
tion in consent elections of this character to be final
in the absence of fraud , misconduct, or such gross
mistakes as imply bad faith on the part of the Re-
gional Director , even though we might have reached
a different conclusion.... only evidence as to the al-
leged arbitrariness or capriciousness of a Regional
Director 's determinations shall be [admitted] by a
In its brief, Respondent argues in support of this point that . ( 1) the in-
vestigator did not include in affidavits of election observers the fact that
Morin wore "a neck brace" in the vicinity of the polls ; (2) the investigator
failed to interview one eligible voter; ( 3) the investigator "gave the im-
709
Trial Examiner in any complaint proceeding arising
out of a respondent 's failure to honor a Regional
Director's certification following an agreement for
consent election which provides for a final and bind-
ing determination of all issues by the Regional
Director.
On the basis of this standard , it cannot be said upon
consideration of the record as a whole that the determina-
tions of the Regional Director here involved were arbitra-
ry and capricious. In fact , Respondent in its exceptions
filed with the Board, while asserting that the Regional
Director 's rulings and decisions were erroneous , did not
then specifically claim that his determinations were ar-
bitrary and capricious , although there were some state-
ments to the effect that the Regional Director 's failure to
pass on the merits of the five challenged ballots con-
stituted a violation of a "mandatory duty."
With respect to the disposition of the challenged bal-
lots, the agreement specifically provides that the Regional
Director's "method of investigation" of challenged bal-
lots shall be "final and binding ." Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Saxe-
Glassman Shoe Corporation, 201 F.2d 238 (C.A. 1,
1953). It cannot be said that his determination not to open
the ballots of Morin , Martin , and Hockley, where both
the Union and the Respondent urged that they not be
counted, was arbitrary and capricious . Nor was he under
any obligation to determine the validity of the remaining
two disputed ballots which could not affect the results of
the election.
Nor is there any evidence in the record of fraud,
misconduct , or gross mistakes which might imply fraud
on the part of the Regional Director . It may be noted, in
respect to Respondent 's chief complaint of the Regional
Director . that he did not find the claims of an assault upon
Morin to be false and material to the results of the elec-
tion, in fact , the employees themselves , many of whom
were present at the incident , were in the best position to
evaluate the validity and justice of the claims made. In
such circumstances the Regional Director's determina-
tion , without passing on its merits, would appear to be
consistent with the Board 's practices and policies. See
Hollywood Ceramics Company, Inc., 140 NLRB 221,
224, particularly footnote 10 and the sentence to which it
is attached.
After careful consideration of the evidence in the
record as a whole , it is further found that there is no merit
in Respondent 's additional contention that the investiga-
tion of the second election by the Regional Director's
agent was conducted in an "improper , arbitrary and capri-
cious manner."5 On the basis of the record in this case,
the Trial Examiner cannot find that there was miscon-
duct, fraud , or gross error in the investigation of Respon-
dent 's objections to the election.
Lastly , in support of Respondent 's motion to dismiss
the allegation that it violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act,
Respondent urges that the Trial Examiner reexamine the
Regional Director 's certification of the Union and find it
to be invalid , in view of the allegation of the complaint in
this matter that Morin was a discriminatorily discharged
employee at the time of the election . Respondent argues
in its brief that "Consequently her status , for the purpose
of the motion [to dismiss ], is presumed to be that of an
pression to the employees being interviewed by him that he had a bias in
favor of the Union ;" and (4) that he burned some interviews and told one
witness that her statement could not be used if she refused to sign it
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
eligible voter. The determinative challenges [i.e., those of
Morin, Myers, and Shover] not having been resolved, the
certification in this case improperly has issued. Re-
spondent, therefore, has not, by refusing to bargain, vio-
lated Section 8(a) of the Act."
However, the agreement for consent election makes it
abundantly clear that, where the Regional Director is not
shown to be arbitrary or capricious, his certification is
final.6 Without question, the Regional Director was
authorized to pass on the eligibility of the challenged
voters on the basis of the circumstances as of the time of
his decision, Stainless Welded Products, Inc., 104 N LRB
204; Happ Manufacturing Company, 124 NLRB 202,
and was not required to withhold determination because
of a possibility that the status of certain voters casting
disputed ballots might thereafter be raised in other
proceedings. See Happ Manufacturing Company, supra.
On the basis of the above, and upon the entire record,
it is found that the Regional Director's certification of the
Union was valid and is final and binding. Respondent,
therefore, by refusing to bargain with the Union upon
request , has engaged in and is engaging in conduct in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
D. Credibility of Witnesses
The issues in this proceeding, as in so many of these
cases, turn mainly on the resolution of credibility
problems, which have been fully argued in the briefs of
both Respondent and the General Counsel.
General Counsel's case in support of the allegations of
the complaint was presented through five witnesses who
had previously worked at the plant and through two
representatives of the Union. Respondent's chief witness
was George I. Tay, its president. Certain other witnesses
were offered in support of Tay's testimony, or in attack
on the credibility of General Counsel' s witnesses.
In essence, Tay's testimony, with certain exceptions
considered hereinafter, constitutes a flat denial of con-
duct attributed to him by General Counsel's witnesses.
Tay, however, was not a convincing witness, either in the
manner or content of his testimony. He is contradicted on
material points by testimony which the Trial Examiner
considers, without doubt, to be reliable. Nor was he, on
material points, candid and straightforward in his
testimony.
As an example, the Trial Examiner finds incredible
Tay's attempted explanation of the situation giving rise to
a written reprimand of Genevieve Morin shortly before
she was discharged, and, in particular, Tay's denial that
he was aware of Morin's union activity at the time. Thus,
although the reprimand was personally written by him to
Morin for "using Company time to solicit for other or-
ganization," Tay testified that he did not hear what Morin
was talking about and did not know she was active in the
Union at the time; and, when pressed for an explanation
of his reference to an "other organization," he evasively
answered, "As far as I know, she could have been selling
shirts. But she wasn't working for me. She was either
working for herself as an organization or for some outside
organization, but not for me."
Paragraph I of the consent election agreement not only provides that
determination of the Regional Director shall be "final and binding" on
"any question .. relating in any manner to the election," but that his
Other evidence, considered hereinafter, confirms the
fact that at the time of this incident and for some period
prior thereto, contrary to his denial , George Tay was
aware that Morin was an officer in the Union and active
on its behalf. In addition to other evidence on this point,
it may be noted that among the employees in this rather
small plant, a number of them, including employees
elected to minor union office, were reporting to Tay with
respect to these matters. Indeed, it is argued in Respond-
ent's brief (p. 43), in connection with certain allegations
in the complaint, that "As a practical matter, it would not
have been necessary for George Tay to interrogate
[Joann Swartz and Genevieve Morin] as to what em-
ployees were officers of the Union. He had readily availa-
ble to him individuals who were more than willing to
divulge that information."
At the close of General Counsel 's case , and before ad-
ducing any testimony , Respondent advised that it had
several prominent citizens who would testify to George
Tay's reputation as a peaceable man and further to his
reputation for truth and veracity in the community and
requested General Counsel to stipulate that such persons
would testify as indicated . The Trial Examiner ruled that
a basis had been laid for receipt of testimony as to George
Tay's reputation for peaceableness but no basis had been
shown justifying receipt of testimony as to his general
reputation for truth and veracity . See Homan v. U.S., 279
F.2d 767, 772 (C.A. 8, 1960); Commonwealth v. Ford,
184 A.2d 401, 404-405 ( Pa. Super . Ct., 1962);
McCommon v. Johnson , 187 A. 445 ( Pa. Super. Ct.,
1936); notes 15 ALR 1065, 33 ALR 1220, 78 ALR 643.
General Counsel stipulated that these witnesses would
have testified as to George Tay's reputation for peaceful-
ness and this has been considered in assessing Tay's
testimony . Moreover , the Trial Examiner , upon con-
sideration of Respondent 's offer, has determined that the
witnesses ' opinion of Tay's veracity would not overweigh
the personal assessment of his credibility which has been
made herein upon observation of the witnesses and study
of their testimony.
Further reference to George Tay's testimony, and to
the testimony of other Respondent witnesses, where
necessary , is made hereinafter.
The lack of confidence which the Trial Examiner has
in the testimony of George Tay, however, has been
balanced with a deep concern with the testimony of a
number of the witnesses for the General Counsel. Among
them , Respondent showed that Joann Swartz admittedly
gave false testimony in the criminal proceeding involving
the claim that George Tay struck Morin , upon matters to
which Swartz did not testify in this proceeding . General
Counsel's witness Ruth Martin was a highly emotional
witness who testified under extreme tension and broke
down weeping under the stress of cross-examination. Her
inconsistency as to details of what she saw when Tay is
alleged to have struck Morin , heavily relied upon by
Respondent as discrediting her, apparently arose not
from conscious effort to color her testimony , -but her
overwrought condition ; nevertheless , it seriously impairs
the reliability of her account of that situation . Morin, also,
was an emotional witness, and perhaps not as careful or
rulings and determinations with respect to "any amendment of any certifi-
cation. shall also be final "
CARLISLE PAPER BOX CO. 711
consistent in some details as might be expected, 7 but in
general impressed the Trial Examiner as a reliable wit-
ness. Charles Laughman, another of General Counsel's
witnesses, was also generally believable with respect to
the substance of events in which he participated or was a
witness, although apparently unreliable as to certain
details upon which he was closely questioned."
In summary , after consideration of their demeanor on
the witness stand, and the defects in their testimony as
shown by the record and argued by Respondent, and
upon close study of the whole record, the Trial Examiner
is convinced that these witnesses presented by the
General Counsel were not fabricating their testimony out
of the whole cloth, as George Tay's testimony indicates,
but were attempting to testify truthfully and should be
credited generally as to the substance of their testimony,
though not necessarily on all details, as considered
hereinafter.
A special comment is in order with respect to General
Counsel's witness Hattie Bowne. Her demeanor as a wit-
ness was quite impressive. She appeared to be a well-
balanced, mature person of probity and reliability, who
exhibited neither in her manner, nor in the content of her
testimony, any particular bias or interest on behalf of any
party. Although elected a trustee of the Union, she does
not appear to have been close to the other employees.
The record indicates that she was a good, responsible em-
ployee, seemingly on good terms with George Tay, and
apparently left Respondent's employ under amicable cir-
cumstances. Her testimony was not shaken on cross-ex-
amination, and is fully credited.
In its brief, Respondent renews its argument made at
the hearing that the testimony of Bowne, Ruth Martin,
and Charles Laughman should be stricken on the basis
that the General Counsel allegedly "decline[d] to
furnish" certain additional statements of these witnesses
in his possession upon request of Respondent 's counsel.
(See NLRB Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
Sec. 102.118.) The record shows that although the
General Counsel, during the cross-examination of
Bowne, stated he had no such additional statements in his
files, at the beginning of the next day's session of the
hearing, he voluntarily produced statements of Bowne,
Martin, and Laughman which he had discovered, and
submitted them to Respondent's counsel, prior to the
commencement of Respondent's case. After being given
an opportunity to read these statements, Respondent's
counsel stated that he was not requesting that these wit-
nesses be made available for further cross-examination.
On the basis of the circumstances presented, the Trial
Examiner believes that there is no basis for striking the
testimony of these witnesses and affirms the ruling made
at the hearing denying the motion.
E. Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
1. Alleged surveillance
It is alleged in paragraph 5(a) of the complaint that
George Tay engaged in surveillance of employees as they
were offered union literature. In this connection, Union
Representative Everett Kanatzer testified that he dis-
tributed literature at the plant to employees for the first
time on July 23 (which was a Saturday), at I I a.m., when
employees were leaving work.`' He was stationed in the
center of the access road leading to the plant, not far from
the point where the access road intersects Spring Garden
Street, a public road. In one of the first cars leaving the
plant at that time and approaching Kanatzer was a person
unknown to Kanatzer, but whom he took to be a "boss."
After Kanatzer gave this man, identified at the hearing as
George Tay, some of the union literature , Tay drove
away. However , within 2 or 3 minutes , George Tay
returned, turned into the access road, stopped his car near
Kanatzer , and waited with his motor running until the em-
ployee cars ceased coming and the road was clear. Tay
then proceeded up the road to the plant. These findings
are consistent with the testimony of both George Tay and
Kanatzer, except as hereinafter noted.
Kanatzer further testified that when Tay stopped upon
his return, and after Kanatzer asked his identity, Tay
stopped in the middle of the road, with part of his car ex-
tending behind Kanatzer, and watched Kanatzer for 5
minutes as he was handing out literature; further, that
Kanatzer told Tay he could not do that, and, in answer to
Tay's question, told him it was a violation of the law to
watch while his employees took union material.
Tay, who did not testify with respect to leaving the
plant or the length of his absence, testified that, upon ap-
proaching the plant on this occasion at the 4:30 p.m.
quitting time (and thus not a Saturday), he noted two em-
ployee cars coming down the plant access road, that he
drew up 20 feet beyond Kanatzer, where the road
"breaks over to another building," and is thus wider,
waited a few seconds for the two cars to pass, and then
proceeded up to the plant. Tay further stated that he did
not watch Kanatzer during this period or say anything to
him, although he did look back when Kanatzer "hollered,
You can't do that. That's illegal. I'm going to report you."
It is Respondent's testimony that two cars cannot pass
in safety on the plant access road. Kanatzer testified that
such passage was feasible. There was considerable con-
troversy over the physical condition of the road and with
respect to the pictures of the road placed in evidence. The
Trial Examiner, together with counsel and representa-
tives of the parties, went to the area and viewed the road.
Upon the basis of that observation and the record, it is
clear to me that two cars can pass one another on that
Respondent showed , for instance , that although Morin admitted in
this proceeding that she had "consulted" with Union Representative
Kanatzer about her alleged injury by George Tay, she testified in the
criminal proceeding that she did not "talk it over" or "discuss" it with
Kanatzer, but "talked it over with my mother "
8 Respondent particularly attacks Laughman's credibility on the ground
that his description of how he copied a certain notice from the bulletin
board relating to Respondent 's no-solicitation rule strains belief. How-
ever, although Respondent 's counsel originally disputed the existence of
this notice, George Tay later acknowledged that Laughman's copy was
substantially accurate.
" The record shows the date as July 22. General Counsel's motion to
correct the record to July 23 is opposed by Respondent . However, this
was the exact date adopted by counsel for Respondent on cross-examina-
tion of Kanatzer on the incident. The Trial Examiner's note made at the
time is in accord. Kanatzer also testified that this distribution was at I I
a.m., which would be the Saturday quitting time General Counsel's mo-
tion to correct the transcript of Kanatzer's testimony to July 23 has there-
fore been granted
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
road, but I certainly would not hold it an unreasonable ex-
ercise of judgment for one car to await a clearing of the
road before proceeding.
I have no doubt that the conversations stated by
Kanatzer, occurred substantially as he testified. As
discussed hereinabove, I was not impressed with George
Tay as a witness and do not credit him where his
testimony conflicts with credible testimony or the record
as a whole. However, it is found that, on this occasion,
Tay pulled up at the side of the road, and not in the center
of the road, as described by Kanatzer.
I do not find that this incident, though suspicious, sup-
ports the allegation of surveillance. General Counsel
urges that the inference be drawn that this must have
been Tay's intent because there is no other explanation
for Tay's short trip away from the plant on this occasion.
However, I cannot find that Tay intended to engage in il-
legal surveillance in this instance merely because he did
not explain his reasons for leaving the plant in the first
place, or staying away a short time. On all of the facts, I
find it was reasonable for George Tay to stop his car on
this occasion and wait for the road to clear before
proceeding.
Kanatzer also testified that on a number of occasions
he saw George Tay and his son, Thomas Tay, on the out-
side of the plant, watching him, and sometimes pointing
at him, as he was distributing leaflets, near the intersec-
tion of Spring Garden Street and the plant access road, to
employees leaving work. The distance involved appears
to be approximately 140 yards. Respondent argues that
it is not possible to recognize individuals at this distance.
Thomas Tay testified that he was unable, from the plant,
to recognize an individual, whom he did not know, who
happened to appear at the intersection of the roads on the
day before he testified. However, the situation is
somewhat different here. I am satisfied, from my personal
observation, that, at least on a clear day, one could recog-
nize at that distance, and in those circumstances, in-
dividuals whose features, movements, and contours were
already familiar to the observer. Employees' automobiles
would be easily identifiable. Kanatzer's testimony that on
several occasions he saw George and Thomas Tay on the
outside of the plant when he was distributing literature,
and that, on some occasions, they motioned in his
direction is credited. Both George Tay and Thomas Tay
denied that they came to the outside of the plant, during
the period in question, to observe Kanatzer distributing
literature.
It cannot be found on the basis of this evidence that
Respondent engaged in unlawful surveillance of its em-
ployees. The record as a whole raises certain suspicions,
but more than the mere presence of a union representa-
tive distributing literature nearby is required to support a
holding that management cannot stand outside its plant
when employees are leaving at the close of the workday
and make motions, otherwise unexplained, in the general
direction of the position of the union representative.
2. Alleged unlawful interrogation
It is alleged in paragraphs 5(b), (f), (g), and (h) of the
complaint that Respondent, through George Tay, unlaw-
fully interrogated employees concerning their union ac-
"' Swartz identifies Morin as being present and telling Tay on this occa-
sion that she was vice president of the Union. Tay denied that he ques-
tivities. Evidence adduced by the General Counsel in
support of these allegations is as follows:
a. Joann Swartz, who had been employed by Respond-
ent for several years before she quit in December 1966,
testified that in the middle of July George Tay ap-
proached her at her machine and asked her if she knew
who had brought the union cards in. She testified that
although she was aware of the facts she told Tay she did
not know. This incident was denied by George Tay.
b. Later in July, Swartz stated, George Tay asked her
if she knew the attitude of a former employee, Flo
Jumper, toward the Union; that, when she said she did
not know, Tay said Respondent would not have her back
if she was "for the Union." This is denied by George Tay,
who testified that he had been advised by Thomas Tay
that Jumper had asserted that she was strongly opposed
to the Union before she quit Respondent's employment.
c. At an unspecified time, but prior to August 22,
Genevieve Morin testified George Tay came to her and
said, "You are not going to the meetings, attending any
meetings of the Union?" She replied, "George, you know
I wasn't here when the cards went through the plant....
I was off sick." He said, "Oh, that's right." Although
this conversation was not specifically denied by George
Tay, it was controverted in effect. Respondent also as-
serts that, even if true, it would constitute only an expres-
sion of George Tay's thoughts.
d. Morin states that a day or two after the meeting of
the Union on August 8, George Tay came to her and
said, "Ginny, I will have to fire 15 employees, and he said
that you will be one of them." He said, "I heard you were
head of the God damn union." She replied, "Yes,
George, I am one hundred percent." This was denied by
George Tay specifically and in effect.
e. In this same period prior to the first election, Joann
Swartz testified that George Tay asked her how she "felt
about the Union," and that, when she told Tay that
"everybody had the right to vote their own way," Tay
agreed with this and told Swartz that he did not care how
she voted, but hoped that they would remain good
friends. Swartz stated that she agreed with this, but that
thereafter Respondent's attitude changed toward her, a
matter considered hereinafter. George Tay denied that he
asked Swartz how she felt about the Union.
f. On August 22, the Union held an election of officers
at its meeting. Thereafter, according to Morin, George
Tay came up to her and "said, `I heard you are president
of the Union,' and I said, `No, George, I'm not president.'
`Well, then,' he said, `You must be vice-president.' He
said, `Well, Joann must be the president,' and I said, `If
you want to know if Joann is the president, you go back
to her where she is where she works and let her tell you."'
After this, probably on the same day, according to the
testimony of Swartz, Tay commented to Swartz that he
had heard that she was "the president." Swartz denied
that she was; however, when Tay later remarked to her
again that he "sure would like to meet the president,"
Swartz admitted that he was "looking at her." She states
that Tay remonstrated, "No, Joann, it can 't be you.""' At
this point, Tay told Swartz, according to the latter's
testimony, that he had a letter from the Union naming her
as the Union's observer in the upcoming election. When
Swartz protested that she knew nothing about this, Tay
tioned any employee directly or indirectly as to the identity of the
Union's officers.
CARLISLE PAPER BOX CO. 713
went to his office and got the letter to show her. At this
point Swartz asserts that Tay told her that, if she knew
"what was good for her," she had "better not take it."
Swartz said that she would act as the union observer any-
way "and see what does happen." Tay recalled talking to
Swartz about this and showing her the letter, but denied
threatening her, stating it was of no concern to him who
was the Union's observer.
g. On an occasion after July 22, Morin testified Tay
came up to the place where she and employee Dick
Shaffer were working. Morin states that Tay looked at
Shaffer "and said, `This girl trying to talk union to you?'
Dick said, `No, nobody is.' And I said, `Come on,
George, I am not as dumb as I look.' And he said, `No,
but you're a liar.''' He says, `You know you might have
your laugh now, your laugh and fun now, I'll have mine
later ...."' This incident is not referred to in George
Tay's testimony.
h. According to Swartz, she also had a conversation
with George Tay before the second election, in which he
asked her how she "felt about voting," which was quite
similar to the conversation noted above alleged to have
occurred prior to the first election. This is denied by Tay.
i. As noted hereinafter, George Tay, after the first
election, informed Charles Laughman that by the process
of elimination Tay was aware that Laughman had voted
for the Union, Apparently, about this same time, accord-
ing to the testimony of Ruth Martin, Tay sought to con-
firm this conclusion through a query to her, stating that
both Tay and Charles Shover standing nearby "know that
Charles Laughman voted for the Union, didn't he?" Mar-
tin said that she did not know how any of the employees
had voted. This conversation was denied by Tay.
The testimony of General Counsel's witnesses with
respect to these matters is credited and it is found that
George Tay in substance and effect engaged in the con-
duct attributed to him.12 Respondent argues, in effect,
that the matters testified to do not constitute coercive in-
terrogation. Without considering what their effect might
be if they stood alone or in the abstract, it is plain that the
conduct involved here, in the context of this record,
tended to interfere with, coerce, and restrain Respond-
ent's employees in the exercise of their rights under Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, and was so intended by George Tay.
This conduct therefore violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
3. Alleged threats
It is alleged in paragraphs 5(d), (i), (j), and (n) of the
complaint that Respondent, through its president, George
Tay, threatened employees in connection with their union
activities or support. The record shows the following:
a. Morin testified, as previously noted, that a day or
two after she attended a meeting of the Union on August
8 (the first which she attended), George Tay told her, dur-
ing a conversation concerning her union sympathies, that
"Ginny, I will have to fire 15 employees and you will be
one of them." Morin further stated that "a couple of days
later, he came to me and said that if the God damn union
gets in, he will have to fire or lay 15 employees off
because he would lose the Puritan order and he said that
I was the only one he had threatened."18
b. Employee Joann Swartz testified that about 2
weeks before the first election, George Tay "told me not
to say anything to any employees and he said that he
might, we might lose the order of Puritans and I asked
him why and he said well if the union get in that we would
lose the order of Puritans."
According to Swartz, shortly thereafter, on a Saturday,
when she had gone down to the helper's table, at which
employees Quigley and Bowne were located, George Tay
said to her "Well, Joann, I'm going down to save that God
damn Puritans." She states, "and I told him, `I wish you
good luck,' and he said, `You don't have to wish me any
good luck,' and I walked away."
On another occasion, as part of another conversation,
Swartz states Tay said that, if the Puritan order were lost,
he would have to lay 15 off.
c. Bowne, who was one of Swartz' helpers, recalled an
occasion in which George Tay had stated at her table that
he and his son "were going to Jeanette to see about the
Puritan contract and he said if in case we should happen
to lose it there may be some of you will have to look for
jobs." Bowne indicated this would cause her no alarm,
that she could return "where I came from," where she
had previously worked for 13 years.
Bowne also detailed a prior occasion on which Tay
came to her workplace to ask her if she had ever heard
him say anything about laying 15 or so off, if the Union
came in. Bowne told Tay she had not, and he thanked her.
d. Ruth Martin also testified that Tay came to her
while she was at work and said that "if the union got in
he'd have to lay off or fire 15 employees." On another oc-
casion, according to Martin, Tay told her that "if the
union got in he would lose half of the Puritan order or all
of it."
e. According to employee Charles Laughman, after
the first election, George Tay spoke to him about losing
the Puritan business if the Union came in, in which case
"he would have to lay off 15 or 20 people and I would be
one of them.14 He also told me that he was surprised at
me because I had voted against him in the Labor Board
'i Earlier that day, according to Morin's testimony, George Tay had
come to her at work and told her that the F.B.I wanted to see her in his of-
fice. Morin completed her task and was on her way to Tay's office when
he called to her that there was "no F.B.I. in that office that wants to see
you " Morin states that she stated, "George, you sure do lie," to which he
replied, "Ginny, you are the biggest liar." This is one of a series of in-
cidents involving conduct of Tay, by which it is alleged employees were
subjected to abuse and ridicule because of their union activities and sym-
pathies. I t is denied by Tay
'° Respondent was permitted, over General Counsel's objection, to
question its own witnesses, who are employees, as to whether Respondent
had, as to them, engaged in any of the conduct alleged in the complaint,
and Respondent now argues that their negative answers constitute strong
proof that this conduct did not occur. This, of course, does not follow. It
might as easily be argued that Respondent's failure to call other witnesses,
some of whom were specifically identified as present at some of these in-
cidents, indicates that they would have testified adversely to Respondent.
II Kanatzer, the union representative, testified that, when he called
George Tay by telephone to arrange for "a card check," on the day after
sending his letter requesting recognition, dated July 22, Tay said that "he
could lay these people off." In response to Kanatzer's remonstrance that
Tay "wouldn't do a thing like that," Kanatzer admitted that Tay said "he
did not mean it." George Tay denied this. Thomas Tay, his son, testified
he was in his father's office at the time and that the latter did not say this.
14 Laughman asserted that at that time Tay showed him a letter post-
marked "Jeanette," which he read then, but was unable to recall at the
hearing.
714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
election." Laughman states that Tay said "that all he had
to do was to get down II and he knew who the [rest]
were that voted against him and I was one of them."'",
f. Bowne testified that, in the last 2 weeks in July,
George Tay, while at the table at which she was working,
stated to her that he did not know whether she had or had
not signed a card for the Union, "but if you did, the one
who got you to sign it is your worst enemy you ever had."
g. As previously noted, Swartz asserts that Tay, upon
advising her that she was the observer selected by the
Union, also told her that she should not accept the assign-
ment, "if she knew what was good for her."
h. Charles Laughman testified that, on August 29, the
day before the first election, George Tay told him that he
should not go to the union supper scheduled for that even-
ing because Kanatzer , the union organizer , was only try-
ing to cause trouble between them." As Tay walked
away, according to Laughman, he said, "Remember dis-
aster rhymes with Kanatzer." Tay denied saying this to
any employee.
i. Other alleged threats by George Tay are considered
in connection with the alleged discriminatory discharge
of Morin.
It is found that the testimony of General Counsel's wit-
nesses to the matters set forth above is substantially accu-
rate and it is credited. George Tay denied threatening any
employee with respect to the Union, and, either specifi-
cally or in effect, denied telling specific employees that he
would have to lay off 15 or 20 people if the Puritan order
were lost. Tay stated that he might have stated that, if he
lost a large order, he "would have to lay off some peo-
ple," but denied that this was connected to the Union.
Bowne's testimony shows that George Tay did make
threatening remarks related to employee union activities.
Her testimony also makes clear that Tay did tell the em-
ployees that some of the employees would lose their jobs
if the Puritan business were lost. Tay's query of Bowne
as to whether she had heard him say that 15 or so would
be laid off if the Union came in attests to the currency of
this threat in the plant and Tay's awareness of it. 17 This
testimony, the mutual corroboration of the several wit-
nesses that George Tay did make such threats, and the
factors previously discussed persuade the Trial Examiner
that Tay engaged in the conduct set forth above.'"
Respondent asserts, with respect to the Puritan busi-
ness, that , even if the statements had been made as al-
leged, they would constitute no more than valid economic
predictions and thus were not violative of the Act. I do
not agree. It may be that, if Respondent were actually
faced with the loss of business if the Union came in, with
a consequent loss of jobs, it would be within its rights to
reasonably acquaint the employees with the facts,
Is G.C Exh. 2(b) shows that there were I I votes against the Union in
the first election . General Counsel has requested that the record be cor-
rected to reflect the testimony as above . Respondent opposes the motion
on the ground that Laughman misspoke and that this affects his credibili-
ty The Trial Examiner's note, made at the time, is that Tay told
Laughman that "Tay knew the I I who voted for him." Since General
Counsel 's request reflects the clear intent of the testimony, it has been
granted
ifi Respondent had scheduled a dinner in honor of employee Paul
Myers, who was retiring , to be held that same night An office clerical
went among the employees to determine which of them were staying for
Meyers' dinner. When Tay discovered that Morin was not listed as stay-
ing for the M yers' affair, he came to her and remonstrated that she must
remain.
11 Bowne was careful to say that she did not recall Tay stating specifi-
without threats or coercion, so that they might make an
informed choice. Cf. Park Sherman Company, 161
N LRB 1559, 1564. But in this case there was no showing
that any loss of business was actually imminent or even
a possibility. What does appear is that speculation in this
regard was used by Respondent as a vehicle to threaten
the employees in respect to their union activities. This
and the other conduct found above constitute a violation
of Section 8(a)(1).
4. Alleged impression of surveillance
In paragraphs 5(c) and (k) of the complaint it is alleged
that George Tay, in conversations with employees, by
references to "spies," and otherwise, gave the employees
the impression of surveillance of their union activities.
The record shows the following:
a. According to Morin, the day after the union meeting
of August 22, she had a conversation with George Tay,
as follows: "He says, `tinny, I heard there were spies at
the meeting last night.' I said, `George, if there were any
spies there you must have sent them.' He said, `Who are
they?', and I said, `I'm not going to tell you ...."'
b. Laughman asserted that , on this same day, Tay
came to him and told him that "the union man had called
him and told him that I was one of the leaders in the
Union"; "he also said the union man told him I was a spy
for the Company."' "
c. Joann Swartz testified that on the same day that
George Tay spoke to her about acting as an observer at
the first election, he also said to her, "`You know, Joann,
there's somebody going to meetings and telling me about
what's going on,' and he said he said he didn't give a God
damn- what was going on at the meetings, and I told him
`Yes, George, I know there was a spy that goes and
comes back and tell you,' . . . and he said, `Who is it?',
and I said, `Well, George, you know just as well as I do
who the person is,' and I didn't say the name."
d. Employee Ruth Martin testified that, after the first
election, George Tay told her that he knew that she had
voted for the Union. When she asked how he knew this,
Martin stated that Tay replied that he had a machine "he
could see through a wall with." Martin's testimony in-
dicates that this latter remark was not meant, nor was it
taken, as a literal statement of fact.
The matters set forth were denied by George Tay
either specifically or generally. The testimony of the em-
ployee witnesses set forth shows that Tay sought to
spread the impression that there were employees who
were regularly reporting to him on the employees' union
activities at the union meetings, as the Trial Examiner is
convinced was actually the case. It is so found. Without
cally that the Union would be the reason that the Puritan order would be
lost, or for which the employees would be laid off, but she made it clear
that , in the context , that was her understanding of the message conveyed
by George Tay.
II In coming to this conclusion , the fact that Joann Swartz testified in
the criminal proceeding that she had not been threatened by George Tay
has been considered . Her explanation for that previous testimony is per-
suasive and her testimony here is consistent with and corroborated by the
testimony of other witnesses
"' Laughman, on cross-examination, denied that he had volunteered to
spy for the Respondent at union meetings , or that Tay told him not to "do
a thing like that." However, he later agreed that Tay had told him, in the
presence of Morin, that, if he went to the union meeting and brought hack
information to Tay, Tay would fire him.
CARLISLE PAPER BOX CO. 715
question , such conduct, particularly in the context of
threats and other repressive conduct shown by this
record , could only serve to inhibit the free exercise of the
employees ' rights of self-organization as guaranteed by
the Act. It is immaterial whether Tay asked for, en-
couraged , or even discouraged such tale bearing , or even
that he claimed that he was not interested in such infor-
mation .20 What is material is that he engaged in a course
of conduct aimed at "needling" union adherents with the
fact that whatever they did with respect to the Union was
known to him. This conduct, creating the clear impres-
sion that Respondent was engaged in surveillance of the
employees ' union activities , violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
5. Alleged promises of benefit
The complaint alleges (par. 5(e)) that on certain occa-
sions George Tay promised employees benefits if the
Union were not selected as bargaining representative.
a. Morin testified that on the day before the first elec-
tion, while George Tay and Myers (whose retirement
party was that day) were visiting the warehouse, Tay
commented on what a good job Morin was doing to keep
the warehouse clean. Morin states she then asked Tay,
"How about a raise?" In reply, she says, "He said, `I
can't give you a raise until I see if the union gets in. If the
union doesn't get in, I'll give you a raise.' I said, `Okay,
but how about a break [period]?' He said, `I'll give you
a 10 minute break, too."'
b. Joann Swartz related an instance before the election
in which George Tay spoke to her and two other named
employees. According to Swartz, "he had come over and
he had told us that 13 or 18 cents more that we would get
that if the union did not get in, and we told him, well, 18
cents is more, and he said that he thought that we would
go along with it."21 Swartz testified that in this same con-
versation Tay stated that, if the Puritan order were lost,
15 employees would have to be laid off.
The above testimony was generally denied by George
Tay. Respondent further argues it would not have made
"good sense" for Tay to have made such promises,
because it was assertedly not feasible for Respondent to
schedule regular breaks or grant "bonuses." These argu-
ments, and the asserted facts on which they are based,
have been fully considered. In the opinion of the Trial Ex-
aminer , the facts relied upon by Respondent do not make
it improbable that Tay made the statements attributed to
him, and the testimony of General Counsel's witnesses
are credited with respect to these matters. Even if the
plant operations must be maintained on a continuous
basis to prevent hardening of the glue , as Respondent
asserts'22 this would not foreclose institution of a system
of break periods among the employees, nor does it appear
that there was any impossibility of increasing the com-
pensation of the employees, as Tay promised. Nor would
the illegal effect of these promises made when the vote on
representation by the Union was closer at hand be coun-
teracted, as Respondent contends, by the statement in
Tay's mimeographed letter to the employees dated Au-
gust 4, that it was illegal for him to make such promises.
It is found that by the conduct set forth Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. General Counsel
presented no proof that Respondent promised increased
insurance benefits and it is recommended that allegation
of the complaint be dismissed.
6. Alleged harassment of employees
a. The complaint alleges (par. 5(1)) that George Tay
subjected employees to abuse and ridicule because of
their union sympathies and activities . The record reveals
a number of alleged instances of unusual behavior on the
part of George Tay, for the most part affecting Genevieve
Morin . They are denied by Tay. Some of them are con-
sidered elswhere herein, as in footnote 11 above, and in
connection with the discussion of Morin's discharge
hereinafter , and will not be detailed here.
b. The only instance under this allegation relied upon
by General Counsel which does not involve Morin, was
an occasion in which Tay ridiculed Union Respresenta-
tive Kanatzer to Ruth Martin by stating Kanatzer would
look "funny up a tree. " This comment clearly did not vio-
late the Act.
The Trial Examiner also believes that it is not necessa-
ry to consider in detail the evidence concerned with the
allegation of the complaint (par. 5(m)(5)) that Respondent
harassed employees because of their union activities by
criticizing them for previously unnoticed work habits or
deficiencies , in some cases making them cry. This allega-
tion has reference particularly to Joann Swartz . Respond-
ent's activities with respect to her raise certain suspi-
cions because of the abruptness and sharpness of the
change in Respondent's attitude , and the context in which
it occurred , but there is no question but that Swartz made
at least one serious and costly error, or series of errors, on
211 Tay's conduct throughout is marked in the record by a strong pattern
of ambivalence, Thus, though he made much of spies and spying on union
activities , he also asserted he was not interested in hearing about these
matters and forbade Laughman (although apparently not others ) to bung
him information. Although he , on occasion , told Swartz that he wished
that they continue friends , and stated his agreement that she should be
free to vote as she wished, on other occasions he attempted to repress her
union activities . Though he clearly respected Bowne , he also plainly
threatened her if she became a union adherent . This apparently impulsive
inconsistency is also apparent in the case of Morin, to whom Tay's at-
titude , at least before the first election , vacillated between pleasant and
antagonistic . After the election. as discussed hereinafter, Tay became in-
creasingly hostile toward Morin
21 Swartz repeated the substance of this conversation on a number of
occasions . Respondent argues that on one occasion, on cross-examina-
tion, Swartz omitted any reference to the Union in her testimony , thus im-
pairing her credibility. This has been carefully considered. The pertinent
part of that testimony is as follows
Q. Mrs. Swartz, you testified this morning concerning the working
conditions and the union in the plant and you specifically raised the
issue of the bonus of 13 to 18 cents. .
A. That's right.
Q. Now what was said concerning that bonus?
A. Well, there wasn't too much said. We were down there picking
off bad lids and he came over, he was going around to each one of us,
and he came over, and he asked us something about 13 or 18 cents
more, and we said, well , 13 or 18 cents [is] more and he said it is
more , and he said we could go along with it .. .
Swartz stated that this was the whole conversation . Considering the
manner in which the question was raised on this occasion, and the fact that
on all other occasions Swartz specifically stated that Tay connected
Union with these matters , the Trial Examiner concludes that Swartz'
original testimony was not impaired by the above- quoted testimony
'Z There is, however , a luncheon break which must present the same
problem.
716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
one order, after the advent of the Union, which would jus-
tify Respondent in being more critical of work than previ-
ously. Other changes in treatment of employees
generally, and Morin, in particular, are considered
elsewhere herein.
c. It is alleged in paragraph 5(m) of the complaint that
the Respondent engaged in a campaign of harassment of
employees in reprisal for their selection of the Union as
bargaining agent, which included the institution of a
system of warning slips, requiring doctor's excuses for
absences due to illness and changing its previous prac-
tices of permitting employees to make medical appoint-
ments during working hours. In paragraph 5(o) it is al-
leged that Respondent maintained and enforced a rule
restricting activity on behalf of labor organizations which
violated the Act.
(1) The testimony of Respondent's witnesses, as well
as those appearing for the General Counsel, show that
prior to the last part of August or the first of September,
working conditions at Respondent's present plant had not
been formalized in writing, and were somewhat flexible
and permissive. Although Respondent had been in this
plant for about 2 years, it had not previously erected a
plant bulletin board. However, about the last of August
or the first of September, a bulletin board was erected
near the timeclock. One of the first notices posted on the
bulletin board was one requiring employees absent from
work to call in on the first day off, reporting why they
were off and when they would be back, providing that
"Notes from Doctors, etc., should be turned in on your
first day back to work," and requiring that employees
who anticipate that they will be absent from work shall
request permission in advance.
(2) Another notice, posted about the middle of Sep-
tember, advised the employees that, "you are expected to
make doctors', dentist, etc., appointments after working
hours when they have office hours after our working
hours, except in emergencies. "23
(3) Lastly, on a date which is disputed, but which was
certainly before Morin's discharge on September 16, the
following notice composed by George Tay was posted:
We will not tolerate any soliciting in any way, shape
or form from any employee from outside organiza-
tions or on company property. Any person
[solicited], [harangued ] or otherwise approached
should report it at once. Failure to do so will result in
your dismissal.
Laughman testified that the notice had been up about
a month,prior to the time he copied it from the bulletin
board at Morin's request. Employee Quigley, called as a
witness for Respondent, indicated that she had seen the
notice on the bulletin board after the Union started or-
ganizing , "because the bulletin board, I believe, was put
up about the time." George Tay asserted that it was
posted after Morin was discharged and remained posted
for only a few days, when he took it down and destroyed
it. Tay stated that he intended to put up a revised notice,
but never did so.
On the record as a whole, as noted above, it is found
that this notice was posted before Morin 's discharge.
23 It was shown that some employees , including Genevieve Morin, had
turned in doctors ' certificates for absences even prior to the posting of this
notice referred to above . Also, although it appears that at least some of the
older employees were aware that doctors' appointments should be made
after working hours , permission to take off during working hours to see
Both Morin and Laughman credibly testified that Morin
was still employed when he copied it. Laughman gave a
written statement, referred to in his testimony, which was
dated September 16, and which refers to this notice.
While it is not essential to this decision to determine the
length of time this notice was posted, it does not seem
likely that it was posted as long as Laughman's testimony
would indicate. Other than Laughman, no witness refer-
ring to the notice gives any clear evidence of being aware
of it prior to the week in which Morin was discharged.
Morin's credited testimony is that on September 15, be-
fore work, George Tay asked her if she were aware of the
notice prohibiting solicitation which he had posted. It
seems most probable that the notice was copied by
Laughman after this.
(4) Although Respondent's operations had been con-
ducted under the direction of the same person, George
Tay, in the present and prior plant locations for a number
of years, Respondent had not had any system of written
warnings for employees prior to September 1, when the
first such written warning was given to Genevieve Morin,
under circumstances discussed hereinafter. Both George
Tay and Thomas Tay, who had also occupied a manageri-
al position with Respondent for some years, assert that
they had previously considered this change in policy
because, it was stated, employees tended to forget or
distort oral warnings. However, it was stated, nothing
was done about this until an incident with Morin caused
Respondent to immediately institute a system of written
warning notices referred to as "pink slips."
The one characteristic of this concatenation of events
which becomes immediately apparent is their timing.
Thus, coincident with the holding of the first representa-
tion election on August 30, Respondent appears to have
been galvanized into action, providing a bulletin board
and written rules of conduct which Respondent had not
found necessary to publicize for at least the 2 years it had
been in its present plant. Respondent, indeed, does not
even suggest any reason for this surge of unwonted activi-
ty just at this time, except that heretofore noted for start-
ing the "pink slip" system. Further, as considered
hereinafter in connection with the discussion of the
discharge of Morin, and in view of the timing and context
within which the "pink slip" system was instituted, the
Trial Examiner is convinced that this change in policy
was also part of Respondent's pattern of reprisal against
the employees for their activities on behalf of and support
of the Union and so finds.
Although George Tay testified that the notice for-
bidding solicitation "while on company property" ac-
tually permitted solicitation on company property on the
employees' own time, it is plain that this inference cannot
be fairly drawn from the terms of the notice itself, which
Tay stated was a "fair copy" of the notice he posted. It is
clear that the notice prohibited union activity on Respond-
ent's property at any time, and sought to enforce that
prohibition by threat of discharge even of employees who
failed to report such in-plant solicitation. To the extent
that Tay or other witnesses may have asserted a contrary
interpretation, such testimony is not credited.24 The rule
the doctor because of illness of the employee or the employee's children
seems to have been normally given pnor to the notice set forth above.
'' There is evidence that later, in mid -October , George Tay agreed with
Swartz that she could engage in union activities in the plant on her own
time.
CARLISLE PAPER BOX CO. 717
as stated is clearly violative of the Act. Stoddard-Quirk
Manufacturing Co., 138 NLRB 615.
The notices requiring doctors' or other certificates for
absences, and prohibiting medical appointments during
working hours must be considered within this context. In
and of themselves the rules set forth are reasonable,
although apparently less liberal and more rigid than the
preceding unwritten practices, but in the context in which
they were published, and particularly in their timing, they
must necessarily have impressed the employees as
promulgated in retaliation for their union activities. In-
deed, as noted above, Respondent offered no other
reason or necessity for their publication in written form
at the time at which they appeared.
Upon the record as a whole it is found that by the in-
stitution of a system of warning slips, posting its notice
requiring doctors' and other excuses for absences, chang-
ing its previous practices with respect to doctors' appoint-
ments during working hours, and maintaining and enforc-
ing a rule invalidly restricting employee union activity on
Respondent's premises, the Respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of
rights under Section 7 of the Act and thus violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
F. Genevieve Morin's Discharge
1. Events from the first election to September 16
Morin was employed by Respondent on April 27,
196625 So far as the record shows she was considered a
satisfactory employee at least until after the first election.
Morin testified that George Tay complimented her on her
work before the first election and once thereafter told her
she was a good worker. This was not denied by Tay, who
did not contend that the quality or character of Morin's
work was deficient.
The day after the election held on August 30, 1966,
Morin states that George Tay came to her and said, "Gin-
ny, you know the union man has left ... he said he
wouldn't be back either." When Morin stated that she
didn't know about that, she states that Tay replied, "Now
I can even make it hard for you." This is denied by Tay.
The next morning Morin was involved in a situation
which Respondent strongly emphasized at the hearing
and argues in its brief as proof of Morin's unsatisfactory
conduct. According to Morin, she became ill during the
morning and went into the ladies' room to lie on a cot.
When George Tay ascertained that Morin was in the
ladies' room, he sent his secretary, Lillian Kingsborough,
to tell her to come out and go to work, or arrangements
would be made to send her home. Morin indicated that
she wanted to work and came out of the restroom with
Kingsborough. Tay asked Morin when she had gone into
the restroom and, when she said that it was about 8
o'clock or a little after, Tay told her that she had gone in
earlier than that. According to Morin, Tay said, "You
know you are working on my time, you are not working
on union time," and further told her, "You're not sick."
Morin states that Tay asked "Why didn't you ring out
your timecard when you got sick," to which she replied
that she had to vomit and she did not feel like going over
to the timeclock which was some distance away.26 Morin
asserted that George Tay stayed in the area in which she
was for the 2 hours,until noon. During this period, Morin
asserts that Tay told her that he could fire her for not ring-
ing out her timecard when she went into the ladies' room,
to which she replied that Tay was "picking" on her, that
he was "picking on the wrong person.'27 Tay was
"picking" on her, that he considered this a threat and
thereupon took a piece of paper and wrote out the follow-
ing summary of the incident:
At 7:30 a.m.-Sept. 1st Ginny Morin told 2 persons
she was ill and without further notice went to rest
room until we at 9:55 sent Mrs. Kingsborough in to
check - she then came out and stated she went in at
8:30 but did not ring out her work card. She made a
statement to me "That I was talking to the wrong one
in talking to her" clearly a threat. Geo. Tay
Tay testified that he attempted to give this paper to
Morin, but that she refused to take it and let it fall to the
floor; that he thereupon called over employee Monismith
and in Monismith's presence read a copy of the slip to
Morin, exactly as written thereon, including his name,
and had Monismith sign the copy 26 Tay testified that
Morin made no response to this reading, that as to being
"courteous or discourteous," she did not appear "either
way on this particular thing." Tay stated, "she started to
become upset and she seems to have a delayed shock
reaction to some things."
Morin went into the restroom again during the noon
lunch period where she had fellow workers get her some
additional patent medicine. At this point she determined
that she should go home and requested employee Joann
Swartz to call her mother to come get her.29 Morin was
absent from work that afternoon and the following morn-
ing. Upon her return she brought in a doctor's excuse for
her absence. George Tay testified that the office was thus
aware of Morin's absence on the afternoon of September
1, but that she was delinquent in not marking her timecard
to show that she was not at work from 7:30 to 10 a.m.
Tay testified that, if Kingsborough had not brought this to
his attention, Morin might well have been paid for that
25 Respondent adduced evidence that Morin was also employed for a
few days in 1946, which Morin asserted that she did not recall. So far as
appears , Respondent 's only purpose in raising the issue was to show that
Morin did not remember this.
26 George Tay testified that he told Morin to mark her timecard to show
that she had been in the ladies' room from 7.30 to 10:00 and that Morin
made no comment to this. Kingsborough testified that Morin told Tay that
he could mark the timecard if he wanted to. Morin denied that she was
told to mark her timecard . Respondent contends that Morin varied this on
cross-examination. The Trial Examiner finds it unnecessary to resolve
this point , since it is not essential to the decision of this matter , as set forth
hereinafter.
2' Monn also testified that she said he was "talking to the wrong per-
son " Tay testified that Morin said he was "talking to the wrong person
when you talk to me like that "
28 Monismith confirmed his participation in this incident . Morin denied
that the document was read to her by Tay on this occasion.
29 Swartz testified to going to the office , asking permission from King-
sborough to use the telephone, and calling Monn's mother. Apparently as
part of Respondent 's attack on Swartz' credibility , Kingsborough denied
that this occurred.
718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
period.32 Respondent asserts that these actions of Morin
furnish part of the basis for Morin's discharge on Sep-
tember 16.
Within a few days later, according to Morin's undenied
testimony, George Tay said to her that he could have
fired her for not ringing out her timecard the day she was
sick and had gone to the restroom, but that he had done
Morin "a good deed," and "he said, `I was talking to my
attorney last night and my attorney told me to give you
another chance, not to fire you because you are a good
worker."'
On September 14, George Tay testified that he saw
Morin away from her work on two occasions talking to
other employees. He stated, "In addition to the other
times mentioned, I've seen her and verbally warned her
before about not staying at her work position.31 So on this
particular date I decided verbal warnings just weren't
getting through to her. So I ... wrote up a written warn-
ing and brought it out and handed it to her." Tay testified
that he did this on the morning of September 14. Morin
testified that she did not receive this notice until early the
next morning, confirmed by certain notations she made
on the back of the warning slip.32
The warning slip given Morin read as follows (matter
underlined written in on document, which was otherwise
mechanically reproduced):
2nd Warning
Date Sept. 14-1966
Name of Employee Ginny Morin
Offense disrupting production by using company
time to solicit for other organization.
Repetition of this or any other offense may result in
your dismissal.
Signature of Geo. Tay
Tay, however, as noted previously, testified that he did
not hear what Morin was talking about, or know what or-
ganization she was working for, and further denied that
on that date he even knew Morin was active on behalf of
the Union. When asked why, on this and previous occa-
sions, he was critical only of Morin for these conversa-
tions, Tay gave as a principal reason that Morin was the
"ringleader" in these activities.
Also on this date, according to Morin, George Tay ac-
cused her of taking money from a union representative,
and, after her denial of this, said he would send her
flowers because she was going to die. This is supported
by the testimony of Laughman. It is denied by George
Tay.
Thomas Tay testified that on this same afternoon he
reviewed Morin's work file and put a summary which he
had made into her file on that date. Thomas Tay stated
that a review of Morin's file "indicated to me that there
were a number of mentions in her work file, her per-
formance and also that her attendance record was very
poor." Thomas Tay stated that he put an analysis in the
file showing that she was absent from work 23 percent of
the time.33 Tay testified that he considered she was "one
problem" that his father might have while he was away
for two weeks on a tour of duty with the Army Reserve.
He therefore recommended that if there were any more
trouble with Mrs. Morin that she be discharged.
The next morning, Morin relates that, as she was going
in to work with employees Kirtz, Donna Swartz, and
Myers, George Tay came up and asked her if she had
read the notice he had put up "about not talking union on
my premises;" that further, when she said she had not
read the notice, Tay said he had proof she was "talking
union to these girls in there." Morin says that she denied
this and told Tay what she was talking about was none of
his business.34 According to Morin, Tay said he was
going to fire her, to which she replied that he could "just
go ahead." Morin states that as she started to walk away,
30 Respondent argues in its brief that Morn's delinquency in marking
her timecard would have resulted in her being paid for the entire day, if
Kingsborough had not caught the card. This is a misconstruction of the
testimony , caused by Tay's assent to a quite leading and suggestive con-
clusion of counsel, as the following shows-
A. [George Tay] . . So that, they [Respondent's office] had
figured her card for five hours, from 6:55 to 12:00 o'clock, giving her
five hours for that morning.
Q. [Mr. Beckley] Well, what about ringing in after 12 for the rest
of the day , what happened to that time?
A. They apparently knew that she was off that afternoon I think
that she had later brought in a medical certificate . Had she not
brought in the medical certificate, she very easily could have been
paid for the whole day, eight hours - or nine, I think at that time.
Q. So, based on Mrs. Morin 's handling of the card , she would have
received a full day 's pay had it not been caught in your office?
Mr Subnn: Objection ...
A. Yes. That's correct
31 Tay testified that he saw Morin away from her work on two other oc-
casions, talking to other employees . Tay states that, on August 16, he saw
Morin with a group of employees "in a circle and Mrs . Morin was doing
quite a bit of talking to them and everybody was laughing and nobody was
working." Tay asserts that he told Morin to get back to work and that
broke up the group. On August 29, Tay states he saw Morin talking with a
group of employees which broke up as he approached. It does not appear
Tay said anything to Monn on this occasion, or that any employee
was given a written warning slip on either occasion . Tay's testimony did
not support the assertion on Resp. Exh. 39(a) that he had spoken to her
about talking to other employees on August 29. Monn denied that she
had been warned on these occasions.
32 In a previous affidavit given the investigating agent of General Coun-
sel by Morin, it is stated that she received the slip on September 14, which
General Counsel suggests was a clerical error made by the investigating
agent. However, this conflict , like some others litigated at the hearing con-
cern matters which clearly do not have to be reached in order to decide the
critical issues in this case . See, e.g., the conflict between Kingsborough
and Swartz referred to in fn. 29.
33 A document asserted to be Morin's absentee record was marked but
not offered . The record as a whole, however, indicates that the major part
of Morin's absences were due to illness for which she presented a doctor's
certificate and which were excused In addition Respondent points to
several occasions on which Morin rang out from work early. Monn
testified that this was done with the permission of or at direction from Su-
pervisor Sharpe . Morin's explanations were convincing in this respect.
Sharpe 's demeanor and testimony was not and his denials are not credited.
On one occasion Morin asserts that she obtained permission from Thomas
Tay to leave early to bung her mother home from the hospital , which Tay,
supported by Kingsborough , denies. However, he admits, knowing
shortly thereafter of this early leaving and said nothing to Morin about it.
Morin 's explanation of this incident was persuasive and she is credited.
Thomas Tay's testimony and Resp. Exh . 39(b) assert that Tay talked to
Morin on June 13, about her absences and the necessity of obtaining per-
mission to leave early, which Morin denies. There is no evidence of any
absences of Morin -prior tq that date with the exception of two occasions
on which it is found, in accordance with Morin 's testimony , that she ob-
tained permission from Sharpe.
34 General Counsel suggests that this was a reference to the conversa-
tion between Morin , Donna Swartz and Myers who had just come from a
car.
CARLISLE PAPER BOX CO.
Tay said, "Well, get the hell in there, and go to work," to
which she replied she would. Morin asserts that, shortly
after she clocked in for work that morning, George Tay
gave her the pink warning slip previously discussed. The
events related by Morin were denied specifically or in ef-
fect by George Tay.35
2. The events of September 16
According to Morin, George Tay stood around near
her work on September 16, more than usual, and watched
her. During the course of the day, Morin testified, she
saw Tay make a gesture of scorn or derision toward her.
This last was corroborated by Laughman.36
At quitting time that afternoon occurred the dramatic
events during which Morin was discharged. Morin
testified that, after she had rung out her timecard, "I
walked over to the bulletin board and Charles Laughman
was standing there and I stood beside him and I said,
`Charles what is that notice he just put up.' He said, `I
can't find it myself,' ... I was bent over looking at the
bulletin board and I was bent over, somebody came and
hit me." Morin testified that she fell against Laughman
and thereafter straightened and turned to the right. Con-
tinuing, Morin stated, "and I turned around and George
Tay was behind me. I looked at him and I said, `George,
what did you hit me for.' He said, `You're reading the bul-
letin board on my time .' I said, `No, I'm not, I already
rang the timecard out.' He says, `No, you didn't.' So
while he was talking to me about that, he hit me here in
the ribs and he grabbed me by the arms and shaking me
I said, `Wait a minute, George.' I said, `Damn it, you
hit me twice, but you are not hitting me the third time.' He
said, `I can hit you or do anything I want do to, you're in
my place.' So I walked away and went over toward the
line [where employees were in the process of ringing out
and leaving the plant]. The girls were coming through and
he looked over at me and said, `You are fired.' He said,
`Come in the office and get your God damn check.' I said,
`George, I don't want that damn check.' I said, `and
furthermore I was not going into the office with you
because I'm afraid of you.' So I walked out to where the
table was and he came in front of me and ... I was crying
and I was hurt ... and I was getting a hankie out of my
pocketbook ... and he said, `You know, Ginny, I've
been trying to get something on you for a long time and I
did.' He said, `You can't work in here for me and work for
that God damn union man.' So I picked my pocketbook
up and walked out and he walked me clear to the front
door. And I was crying going down over the hill."
Tay's version of the events was: "I try (everyday that
I'm at the plant and ... I can make it and ... I don't get
too busy with some other thing) to go out to the checkout
clock at quitting time and stand there and see if
everybody looks happy and say good night to them and
try to be pleasant to them ... [on September 16] I was
35 Before joining Kirtz , Swartz, and Myers on this morning , Morin had
been talking to employee Dorothy Hill. Hill , called as a witness for
Respondent , denied that she had witnessed the events Morin described
Kirtz, Donna Swartz , and Myers were not called as witnesses.
36 George Tay denied this testimony . He asserted that he was in the fac-
tory that day much less than usual since he spent much of the day with his
son going over matters that would have to be taken care of in his son's
absence from the factory This was confirmed by Thomas Tay.
37 This statement , which is rather critical to Tay's explanation of events
which followed , was not elaborated on direct examination . On cross-ex-
719
a little bit late because I had been talking to my son and
I was in a little bit of a hurry. A few people apparently
had already rang out when I got there ... I could see the
line of people standing and I specifically saw Genevieve
Morin in the line." Tay states that when he got to the line
he saw Morin with her back to him leaning over the bul-
letin board. Laughman was at her left also facing the bul-
letin board, with his back to Tay. Tay continued, "She
was leaning over the bulletin board; and we had had some
things disappear from the bulletin board37 . . . I went
through the line, come up behind Mrs. Morin ... I
reached out and touched her [with his open hand just
about the top of the shoulder blade on her left side] and
said, `tinny, you can't take stuff from the bulletin
board."' Tay denied that he hit or struck Morin and stated
that he touched her entirely on a garment she was wear-
ing. Tay states that Morin did not stagger or fall and
turned to her left, counterclockwise, until she faced :"'n,
not to the right as she testified. Tay testified that in reply
to his statement, Morin replied, "It's none of your God
Damn business what I do. I'm on my own time." Tay
added, "I'm astounded at somebody swearing at me like
this, and I probably said, `You're still on my property.'
... She kept moving around. This whole thing lasted only
a few seconds, a very few seconds. She kept moving
around. She was swearing and cursing under her breath
at me -I mean not under her breath that I can't hear it. I
can hear swearing and cursing, but so many things and
such a jumble that I can't be expected to remember
everything she is saying. And she bears herself up against
me so hard I put my arm out to fend her off. Just as we got
to the line she says, you hit me. `You hit me.' And I said,
`That's a lie. That's a damn lie.' And she got through the
line and she said, `I'll have your ass in jail for this.' And
she kept swearing and cursing at me. I turned around and
said, `I think I've had enough. I don't think any man
operating a business can operate it with the other em-
ployees seeing him held in such disrespect as this.' I
turned around and said, `Ginny, you're fired. Come in the
office and get your check."' Tay states that he doesn't re-
call what she said then, but that he left and went to his
office.38 Tay denied that he walked with Morin to the em-
ployees' exit, or saw her cry or take out her handkerchief
on this occasion.
The General Counsel adduced testimony from three
witnesses, Laughman, Martin, and Bowne, in support of
Morin's version of the incident. Only the account of
Bowne will be considered here. For the reasons previ-
ously given, the Trial Examiner believes that her
testimony is highly reliable and it is credited.
Bowne checked her timecard out that evening at 3:31
p.m., and turned to leave the plant. After taking a few
steps she "saw Mr. Tay coming my way and to me he
looked like he was cross about something." Bowne said
that she thought Tay was angry, "[b]ecause I looked at
Mr. Tay and whenever something doesn't seem to be
right he seemed to color up in the face and that is why I
amination, Tay asserted that "different notices" had disappeared, that he
did not "know particularly which ones," that "[t]hey weren't terribly im-
portant but I just didn't like people taking our notices off the bulletin
board."
38 George Tay, Thomas Tay, and Kingsborough testified that, although
the latter two were in the office at the time, George Tay said nothing to
them about what had occurred. Morin's discharge was confirmed by letter
from George Tay, dated September 16, stating that her check was en-
closed.
720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thought something was disturbing him"; in addition, Tay
was "moving quickly" and "seemed to be in a hurry." As
Bowne turned to follow Tay's passage through the line of
employees at the timeclock, she became conscious of the
fact that she had not deposited her timecard in the recep-
tacle provided for the purpose and returned for that pur-
pose, giving her a view of Tay behind Morin and
Laughman at the bulletin board. At this point, Bowne saw
Tay with his right hand raised with palm open, about the
level of his ear, beginning a sweeping motion downward,
"as if he were going to lay it on her shoulder." As Bowne
momentarily averted her head to put her timecard in the
receptacle, she "heard a crack, it sounded like a slap."39
Bowne continued, "And I turned around and as I did
Genevieve was raising up, she had been stooping over
from the waist. When she raised up and seemed to
stagger40 and she said to Mr. Tay, `George, what did you
hit me for?' and he said `Well, you're reading the bulletin
board on my time.' She said, `I'm not, I rang my card out,'
and then the next thing I saw was Mr. Tay had his hand
on her arm between the elbow and the shoulder and he
told Genevieve that she was to come to the office and get
her God damn check, she was fired. In the meantime -
pardon me - Ginny said you hit me twice - George what
did you hit me for and after that she said you hit me twice
and don't hit me again and then he told her she-was [to]
come to get her check to the office and get her God damn
check, she was fired." Bowne states that Morin replied,
"I am not coming into the office, I don't want that damn
check, I'm afraid of you." At this point Bowne turned and
left and did not see what may have occurred between
Morin and Tay thereafter.
Respondent argues that the testimony of employee
Mary Jane Frysinger establishes that Bowne could not
have seen what she states she saw. I have reviewed Fry-
singer's testimony with care, and, based on her testimony
as a whole and on her demeanor as a witness, I would not
credit her testimony which conflicts with that of Bowne.
In essence, Frysinger, who rang her timecard out at
3:30 p.m., and thus preceded Bowne, testified that she
was in line to ring her card out when she jumped back to
let Tay pass through the line on the way to the bulletin
board where Laughman and Morin were standing. She
states that she saw Bowne standing on tiptoes behind a
pile of boxes, where she could not see the incident. Fry-
singer, whose account of what happened at the bulletin
board area largely supports Tay's testimony, asserts that
she saw and heard part of the altercation before she rang
her timecard out and part of it as she was backing down
an aisle away from the timeclock and more of the en-
counter from her work station to which she retreated.41
The evidence indicates that it is much more probable
that Frysinger's contact with Tay, if any, occurred after
she had clocked out, and whatever she saw and heard oc-
curred thereafter. Frysinger indicated that there were
30 Respondent presented testimony that the plant loudspeaker system
erratically gives off crackling noises and the timeclock makes a sharp
noise. No witness, however, identified either of these noises with the
crack or slap some heard at the time of this incident.
40 Bowne also stated that at this point, Morin "seemed to tilt," and fell
against Laughman, turning to the right to face Tay, Laughman also
testified that Morin fell against him.
41 After Frysinger indicated the path of her retreat, Respondent's coun-
sel, asserting that Frysinger was misled by Respondent's photograph of
the area, expressed doubt that she could see the bulletin board, as she said
she could , from the positions she indicated.
only five employees, including Morin, ahead of her in the
checkout line, just before the incident. Three of these,
Morin, Hill, and Quigley, had clearly clocked out before
Tay reached the line, and it appears that the fourth, Joann
Swartz, had also checked out well before Tay came to the
line. The fifth employee, Hildebrandt, did not testify. It
is indicated that the employees were checking out
quickly. Quigley stated that she and Morin clocked out al-
most simultaneously. This, together with other evidence
noted and Frysinger's lack of credibility generally, is con-
vincing that Frysinger had clocked out before Tay
reached the line.
Lastly, Frysinger admitted that she had previously
stated, in a statement given to the agent of the General
Counsel investigating the charges in this matter, that she
did not see or hear anything connected with the incident.
She explained at the hearing that she gave this knowingly
"false testimony ... because I felt it was one way to stay
out of it."
Another witness produced by the Respondent, Lillian
Walters, who clocked out at 3:31 p.m., asserts that she
saw Tay touch Morin lightly, observed Morin turn to the
left to face Tay without staggering or falling, and that then
"He asked her what she was doing. She said she was on
her own time. He said, `You're still on my property.' And
there were words, but I couldn't hear what Mr. Tay was
saying. He talks in a low voice." Walters testified that she
heard Morin say, "God damn" and "sonofabitch"; as Tay
and Morin walked through the line behind her, Walters
also heard Tay tell Morin to come to the office to get her
check. Later, Walters saw Morin and Tay at a table in the
plant, where she states she saw Morin take out a cigarette
and light it, and tell Tay that she was "going to have your
ass arrested."42
Joann Swartz testified that, the morning after Morin's
discharge, George Tay came to her, "Well, Joann, I got
rid of one and you will be the next one going out, but not
the same way Ginny went out, over the back." Swartz
states that she answered, "George, there won't be no
other way. The only way I always go out is on my own
two feet," and that Tay did not answer. This was denied
by George Tay.
3. Conclusions with respect to the discharge of Morin
It is clear that George Tay was much upset by the
results of the first election, in which a majority of the em-
ployees voted in favor of representation by the Union. He
appears from his own testimony to be a person highly
sensitive of the good will of his employees toward him
personally. This was brought out in his testimony with
respect to the unusual efforts he makes every day to be at
the timeclock to greet the employees as they leave for the
day, "to see if everybody looks happy and say good night
42 Frysinger testified that Morin said this to Tay as the two were walk-
ing along in the plant, approaching Frysinger's table. Frysinger states that
Tay accompanied Monn to the door of the plant and told Morin at that
point to get out, that she was fired and that Morin shouted that Tay had
done just what she wanted him to and she was going to have "his ass ar-
rested." She states she saw Morin smoking a cigarette . Morin denies
lighting a cigarette in the plant or telling Tay she was going to have his
"ass arrested." She also denied the comments outside the plant attributed
to her by Frysinger. Tay, as has been noted, denied any contact of conver-
sation with Morin after they left the timeclock area
CARLISLE PAPER BOX CO. 721
to them and try to be pleasant to them."43 This rejection
of his good will must have been difficult for him. Morin
testified that she saw him crying after the election. Tay
denies this, referring to the fact that he even joked with
Kanatzer after the results were known. However, Tay's
demeanor, the record as a whole, and his own testimony
indicate his rather emotional nature.44 It is found, in ac-
cordance with Morin's testimony, that, after the election,
Tay did give visible evidence of his vexation over the
results.
Thereafter, it appears that Tay's resentment was
directed at Morin in increasing measure. Thus, the day
following the election, Tay told Morin that, now the elec-
tion was over, the union representative would leave and
he could make it hard on her. The next day, Morin
became sick and went to the restroom. It is rather difficult
to understand Respondent's contention that Morin's con-
duct was improper on this occasion. There is no question
that she was sick in this instance, and her actions cer-
tainly appear reasonable under the circumstances. Tay's
rather harsh attitude toward Morin on this occasion,
which appears quite unlike his normal tolerant attitude'45
and his rejection of the notion that Morin was sick, is ex
plicable by his resentment of her union activities, as is
shown by his accusation to her, on that occasion, that she
was "working on my time, not on union time." Nor is
Respondent's argument persuasive that Morin committed
a grave fault in failing to mark her timecard on this occa-
sion. As the record shows, the matter involved was 3
hours or less, and Morin could reasonably believe that
Respondent was aware of and would adjust this matter,
as actually occurred. As George Tay thereafter advised
Morin, Respondent, in view of her past good work, did
not consider that this occurrence justified her discharge.
Later the same morning, however, George Tay decided
that it was necessary, for the first time in Respondent's
history, to give Morin a written reprimand for her con-
duct on that day. Tay asserted that this was occasioned
by the "threat" made to him by Morin. Considering the
basis out of which this reprimand arose, the fairly mild na-
ture of the statement which is asserted to have given of-
fense, and Tay's own recognition of Morin's distraught
condition - Tay referred to her state of "delayed shock
reaction" during this period - it is found that this written
reprimand constituted an additional manifestation of
Tay's displeasure with Morin because of her union activi-
ties, and was not occasioned merely by her conduct on
September 1.46
It is further found that Tay's decision, on September
14, to give Morin a further written reprimand arose out of
his displeasure with her association with the Union and
adherence to it. There is no question but that Tay on this
occasion had reference to the Union when he stated
Morin was soliciting for another organization. Morin de-
nied that she was engaged in such conduct, stating that
she was talking about her work. Tay states that he did not
hear what was said, and apparently made no investigation
of the incident. None of the other employees involved
testified concerning this. Morin's testimony is therefore
credited as to the nature of this conversation.
Also during this day Tay again made "needling" com-
ments to Morin about her-relationship to the Union.
That afternoon, Thomas Tay apparently took particu-
lar note of Morin's file and, assertedly, determined that
she was one employee who might cause trouble during
Tay's projected 2-week absence from the plant. The Tays
agreed that afternoon that Morin should be discharged,
assertedly if she caused trouble again.
It seems plain that this discussion between the Tays
was based on Morin's union adherence and activities, and
that the decision to discharge her at the first opportunity
was grounded on these considerations. As just discussed,
all of Morin's difficulty with Respondent for the previous
2 weeks or more, as shown by the record, had arisen out
of Respondent's resentment at her union activities. No
other reason is shown which would explain why Thomas
Tay reviewed Morin's file on that Wednesday, the same
day Morin was allegedly engaged in soliciting for an
"other organization," as discussed above. So far as is
shown, the file of no other employee was so reviewed. It
is also further strange, and quite unexplained, why
Respondent reviewed Morin's file and made this decision
on that Wednesday, when, according to the testimony of
both Thomas and George Tay, it was not until Friday,
Thomas Tay's last day in the plant, that the two sat down
to discuss the problems that might be occasioned by
Thomas Tay's absence from the plant.
Morin's testimony is credited that the next morning
(after the Tays had decided to discharge her at the next
opportunity), George Tay upbraided her about talking
about the Union, advised her of the notice which he had
posted forbidding solictation on Respondent's premises,
and threatened to discharge her.
On September 16, as the credited testimony of
Laughman and Morin shows, Tay made a derisive gesture
toward Morin during the workday. That afternoon oc-
curred the incident at the bulletin board. There is no
question in the Trial Examiner's mind, based on the
record as a whole, and Bowne's testimony in particular,
that George Tay, upon seeing Morin at the bulletin board
that afternoon with Laughman, concluded that she was
again using his time for her own purposes, and, agitated
by his prior upset with Morin over her alleged use of com-
pany time for union purposes, and conscious of his prior
determination to discharge her if this happened again, of
which he had warned Morin, hurried to Morin and ac-
cused her of reading the bulletin board on his time, rather
43 Further illustration of this concern for the good opinion of his em-
ployees is mirrored in his volunteered statement that, when he stopped his
car near Kanatzer, on July 23, this was not to observe Kanatzer, but in
courtesy, for "[t]hese were my employees and I would like for them to
think I'd treat them well."
44 Two illustrations from Tay's testimony give some index to his emo-
tional state : Thus, he volunteered , when asked whether Morin cried at the
time of the bulletin board incident, that she did not, but that "I almost
did." Further, in denying that he threatened Swartz the day after Morin's
discharge, Tay added that he was still so upset over that incident "that I
would't have enough guts to threaten anybody if they had come at me with
a hammer."
41 Thus, Frysinger testified that, on a previous occasion during which
she was having what can be only described as a temper tantrum in the
plant, "throwing things right and left," Tay temporized with her, asking if
she "hated" him and asking whether she did not like to work for him, until
she started crying and got over her upset. It does not appear that Fry-
singer was criticized for her upset , or for throwing things around on this
occasion.
46 It is found, however, that Tay did read the notice to Morin on this oc-
casion as he and Monismith testified.
722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
than checking out and leaving the plant as the other em-
ployees were doing. Tay's contrary testimony is not
credited.
It also is quite apparent that Tay directed his accusa-
tions at Morin alone on this occasion, and not at
Laughman also, for the same reason that he had previ-
ously criticized Morin alone for allegedly using company
time to talk with other employees in the plant: because
Tay, as he stated, considered her to be the "ringleader."
It is not necessary to determine whether George Tay,
on this occasion, hit Morin so that she was injured.47
Very probably, because he was upset and had been hurry-
ing, he put his hand on Morin with more force than he in-
tended. Morin clearly staggered against Laughman and
almost fell, as Bowne, Morin, and Laughman testified. It
is possible that Morin injured herself in this manner
rather than being struck again by Tay as she clearly
thought. This must have been observed by Tay, who was
immediately made aware that Morin thought she had
been hit and was emotionally upset, as evidenced by
Morin's complaint that Tay had hit her, in fact had hit her
twice, and that she was not going to permit it again. Both
Bowne and Morin testified that it was at this point that
George Tay fired Morin and this is credited.
Walters testified that she heard Morin say "God
damn" and "sonofabitch" in a loud voice, before she was
fired. This is not supported by the credited testimony of
Bowne, or, as to the latter item, by George Tay. Walters'
original affidavit does not mention this and indicates that
Walters did not hear Morin use this language. Walters
also states that she did not see Morin fall or stagger, con-
trary to the account of Bowne and others, and gave as her
opinion that Tay touched Morin lightly and did not harm
her.48 This testimony is not credited. However, the Trial
Examiner does credit Walters with respect to her state-
ment that Tay and Morin proceeded into the plant and, at
a table where they paused, Morin lit a cigarette and told
Tay that she was going to have his "ass arrested ."4, It is
further found that Tay while at the table said to Morin, as
the latter testified, that he had been trying to get
something on Morin and had finally done so, that she
could not work for Respondent while working for the "U-
nion man." Because of the Trial Examiner's complete
lack of confidence in Frysinger's testimony with respect
to these occurrences, her account also of what Morin is
alleged to have done and said outside the plant that after-
noon, which was denied by Morin, is not credited.
From the above, and the record as a whole, the Trial
Examiner is convinced and finds that George Tay ap-
proached Morin at the bulletin board on September 16,
with the intent of discharging her because of his resent-
ment against her union activities, and that Morin gave
him no cause for his action. It is therefore found that
Respondent, by discharging Genevieve Morin and
thereafter refusing to reinstate her, engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
While this conclusion has been reached independently
of the testimony of Joann Swartz as to the statements
made to her by George Tay on September 17, Swartz'
testimony as to that conversation is credited and supports
the conclusion reached.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The following unit of Respondent's employees is
appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees including
truckdrivers and print shop employees at the
Respondent's Carlisle, Pennsylvania, plant, but ex-
cluding all office clerical employees, guards and all
supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
4. Since November 10, 1966, the Union has been and
continues to be the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act.
5. The Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3),
and (5) of the Act, which unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3),
and (5) of the Act, it will be recommended that the
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of
the Act.
It will be recommended that the Respondent offer
Genevieve Morin immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or substantially equivalent position, without preju-
dice to her seniority and other rights and privileges, and
make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suf-
fered by reason of the discrimination against her to the
date of offer of reinstatement, less interim earnings, and
in a manner consistent with Board policy set out in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Crossett
Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, to which shall be added
interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum as prescribed
by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716.
In making the above recommendation, the Trial Ex-
aminer has considered the fact that Morin, after being
discharged, lit a cigarette in the plant and told George
Tay in crude language that she would have him arrested.
Respondent contenas that this justifies it in refusing
Morin employment. However, the record shows that
Respondent has not inflexibly observed its no-smoking
rule in the plant. Moreover, it does not appear that the
lighting of the cigarette was a deliberate act of defiance,
but quite probably was a reflex action caused by the
rather traumatic experience immediately preceding,
which itself was the climax of a period of harassment of
Morin sufficient to exacerbate steadier nerves than I
judge her to possess. Her comment to Tay that she was
going to have him arrested, though crudely put, was also
47 Tay was acquitted in the criminal proceeding of assaulting Morin.
48 In both her testimony and her affidavit Walters also stated that Tay
grasped Monn's garment . She is the only one to so testify.
49 Although no reliance is placed on Frysmger's testimony, it is noted
that on this point her account substantially parallels Walters '. Morin
agreed that she threatened to have Tay arrested, but not in these terms.
Tay's testimony that such statement was made before Monn's discharge
and that he discharged her for cursing is not credited
CARLISLE PAPER BOX CO. 723
a natural consequence of these same emotional ex-
periences, as were Morin's tears, which she testified were
her reaction to the events. It is therefore concluded that
by these actions Morin is not disqualified for reinstate-
ment as recommended above.
It will also be recommended that Respondent preserve
and make available to the Board or its agents, upon
request, for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records and reports
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due and the
right to reinstatement under the terms of these recom-
mendations.
Respondent's posted no-solicitation rule has been
found to be invalid and it will be recommended that the
rule be rescinded. Respondent's two other written rules
considered herein, and its system of written reprimands
are not unreasonable on their face, but violate the Act
because they were published in order to interfere with,
restrain, and coerce employees in the exercise of their
rights under the Act, and are more stringent and less per-
missive than Respondent's prior practices. It will not be
recommended that these rules be rescinded, but it will be
recommended that such rules not be instituted, ad-
ministered, or enforced in the future in a manner which
will interfere with, or for the purpose of interfering with,
employees in the exercise of such rights.
In order to make effective for the employees of the
Respondent the guarantee of rights contained in Section
7 of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent
cease and desist from, in any manner, infringing upon the
rights guaranteed in that section.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the entire record in this case, it is
recommended that Respondent , Carlisle Paper Box Com-
pany, Carlisle , Pennsylvania , its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
employees in order to discourage membership in and sup-
port of United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North
America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge , layoff, or
other reprisals if they become or remain union members
or give assistance or support to a union.
(c) Threatening , instituting , or enforcing rules or con-
ditions of employment for the purpose of discouraging, or
in a manner which will discourage union membership or
union activities , or otherwise penalizing or harassing em-
ployees because of their exercise of rights under Section
7 of the Act.
(d) Interrogating employees concerning union mem-
bership or union activities in a manner violative of Sec-
tion 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
(e) Promising employee benefits in order to discourage
union activities or membership.
(f) Engaging in conduct creating the impression of sur-
veillance of union activities of employees.
(g) Threatening employees that they will lose work if
they select a union to represent them in the plant.
(h) Subjecting employees to ridicule or embarrassment
in order to discourage union activities or membership.
(i) Reprimanding or issuing written warnings to em-
ployees for the purpose of discouraging union activities
or membership.
(j) Continuing in effect or enforcing the rule against
union solicitation or activities discussed herein which was
posted by Respondent in September 1966.
(k) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Glass
and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO, as
the exclusive bargaining representative in the appropriate
unit set forth herein.
(1) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Offer to Genevieve Morin immediate and full rein-
statement to her former or substantially equivalent posi-
tion without prejudice to her seniority, or other rights and
privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings
she may have suffered by reason of Respondent's dis-
crimination against her as set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with United
Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the unit herein found appropriate, with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment, and, if an agreement
is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment.
(c) Preserve and make available to the Board or its
agents, upon request, the records necessary to determine
the adequacy of reinstatement of Genevieve Morin and
the adequacy of backpay due her, as set forth in the sec-
tion of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Rescind the written rule forbidding union solicita-
tion and activities posted in September 1966.
(e) Post at its plant at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."50 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 4, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.51
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that all allegations of
unfair labor practices in the complaint except for the un-
fair labor practices herein found be dismissed.
50 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
si In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith."
336-845 0 - 70 - 47
724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against employees in order to discourage member-
ship in or support of United Glass and Ceramic Wor-
kers of Noth America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge,
layoff, or other reprisals if they become or remain
union members or give assistance or support to a
union.
WE WILL NOT harass or penalize employees
because of their membership in or activities on behalf
of a union by the institution or enforcement of rules,
changed working conditions, or otherwise.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning
union membership or activities in a manner that will
interfere with the rights of employees under the Act.
WE WILL NOT promise employee benefits in order
to discourage union activities or membership.
WE WILL NOT engage in conduct creating the im-
pression of surveillance of union activities of em-
ployees.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that they will
lose work if they select a union to represent them in
the plant.
WE WILL NOT subject employees to ridicule or em-
barrassment in order to discourage union activities
or membership.
WE WILL NOT reprimand or issue written warnings
to employees for the purpose of discouraging union
activities or membership.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind the written notice posted on the
bulletin board which prohibited employees from en-
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gaging in union activities on plant property on non-
work time, and WE WILL permit employees to engage
in union activities on plant property on nonwork
time.
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with
United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all
our employees in the appropriate bargaining unit
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment, and, if an agreement is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
The appropriate bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees
including truckdrivers and print shop employees
at the Company's Carlisle, Pennsylvania, plant,
but excluding all office clerical employees,
guards and all supervisors within the meaning of
the Act.
WE WILL offer Genevieve Morin immediate and
full reinstatement to her former or substantially
equivalent position without loss of seniority or other
rights and privileges, and WE WILL make her whole
for any pay she lost because of the discrimination,
with interest.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of United
Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America,
AFL-10, or any other labor organization.
Dated By
CARLISLE PAPER Box COM-
PANY
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1700 Bankers
Scurities Building, Walnut & Juniper Streets, Philadel-
phia, Pennsylvania 19107, Telephone 597-7601.