Cleveland Veneer Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 21, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 617 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of INDIANAPOLIS WIRE-BOUND Box COMPANY, D/B/A_
CLEVELAND VENEER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF-
AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 39-CAD2.Decided April 21,1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On October 12, 1949, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his-
Intermediate Report 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 copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter.the Respondent filed-
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The..
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter--
mediate Report, the ' exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda--
tions of the Trial Examiner, except insofar as they are inconsistent.
with the Decision and Order herein.
1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent.
kept the activities of both the Union and its employees under surveil-
lance in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
The unlawful surveillance, which is more fully described in the
Intermediate Report, consisted of the following: (a) The attendance-
of Division Manager Tousek and Superintendent Pierce at the first
union meeting at the Santa Fe Depot; (b) Pierce's attendance at two,
or three later union meetings at the depot; (c) the presence of Tousek.
on three occasions, after the union meetings had been moved to the
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel.-
[Members Houston, Reynolds , and Murdock.]
89 NLRB No. 74.
617
1618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hollis store, in proximity to the store at the time of union meetings,2
and on one such occasion Tousek's request for, and later acceptance of,
.a report from employee Steward on which employees attended the
meeting; (d) the presence of Pierce on at least two other occasions in
proximity to the Hollis store at the time of union meetings; 3 (e)
Pierce's request for, and acceptance of, the names of the union em-
ployees from employee Clay on January 29, 1949, when Clay asked for
• a loan; and (f) the action of Pierce, after the union meetings were
moved from the Hollis store to the "Home Help Club," in ordering
Steward to attend two or three meetings at the club.'
2. We also agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Re-
spondent made promises of benefits to its employees if they would
eliminate the Union and threats of reprisals for adherence to the
Union, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1).
The Respondent engaged in this unlawful conduct by virtue of :
(a) Tousek's first speech to the employees, in which he said that a
number of planned benefits for the employees were being withheld
because of the presence of the Union, but that these benefits would be
granted if the employees "got rid" of the Union; (b) like statements
made subsequently by Pierce to small groups of employees; 5 (c)
Foreman Gray's 6 statement to a group of employees a day or two
before the Board election that he "would bet that if this place goes
nonunion, we would get a nickle to a dime raise, in less than a week,"
and Gray's statement to employee Haile 2 or 3 days before the election
that "everybody was up for a raise, but if the Union came in, I
doubted if they ever got the raise"; 7 (d) General Manager Barnhill's
statement in the presence of employee Steward on the day before the
2 We agree with the Respondent 's contention that the number of such occasions does not
support the Trial Examiner's finding that Tousek was "frequently " seen engaged in such
- conduct, and , accordingly , we do not adopt that finding.
3 The evidence indicates that the number of such occasions may have been much greater,
but because this is not firmly established by the record, we do not adopt, as also urged
by the Respondent , the Trial Examiner ' s findings either that Pierce was "frequently" or
"often " seen on such occasions.
4 Pierce 's action in this: connection went beyond a mere , request of Steward to attend
one meeting , as found by the Trial Examiner.
6 Although the record indicates that this occurred on several occasions , it is not clear
that Pierce "frequently" engaged in such conduct , as found by the Trial Examiner.
- Accordingly , we do not adopt that finding.
6 Although the finding of the Trial Examiner , "that it appeared to be admitted" that
Gray, Warren Anderson, C. A. Pierce, and W. H. Kornegay were supervisors, may be
:somewhat questionable , the record shows clearly that all four have the authority to
transfer employees and to effectively recommend their discharge , and are therefore, con-
trary to the contention of the Respondent, supervisors.
' The Trial Examiner does not mention the latter incident.
CLEVELAND VENEER COMPANY 619°
election that he would give $500 and a 5- or 10-cent an hour wage in-
crease fora nonunion vote in the election the following day; s and (e)
Tousek's conversation with employee Thomas on the day before the-
election, in which Tousek impliedly, if not expressly, told Thomas,
that the Respondent would help him financially with respect to his
wife's pregnancy, as it had done before, only if he did not join the
Union, but would not do so if he did join the Union .'o
We do not, however, consider the following conduct of the Re-
spondent as being violative of Section 8 (a) (1) : (a) Tousek's speech
to the employees on the day before the Board election; (b) Tousek's.
instructions to employee Hadnot immediately after the speech and
the next morning as to how she could vote against the Union; and
(c) Tousek's explanation to employee Thomas immediately after the
speech as to why the Respondent was against the Union. Tousek's-
speech and the explanation thereof to Thomas, although expressing
antiunion sentiment on the part of the Respondent, contained no
threats of reprisal or promises of benefit, and were therefore, protected
expressions of opinion under Section 8 (c) of the Act."' And Tousek's.
instructions to Hadnot as to how she could vote against the Union
were not coercive in view of the fact that the instructions were given on.
both occasions in response to Hadnot's request that she be shown the-
actual mechanics of registering what was apparently a preconceived-
determination to vote against the Union.
3. 'The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
also made threats to shut down the plant in violation of Section.
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
One such threat was Tousek's query of employees Clay and Bartee
as to whether they would go to Mississippi to open another mill in
case the Cleveland mill shut down. Clearly implicit,in this query.
was a threat to shut down the plant. And it was also clear that the-
threat was predicated on, and might be carried out in retaliation for, a,
possible prounion vote in the Board election, and was therefore
coercive. The threat was made on the night immediately following-
I This statement was made only to Tousek in the presence of steward ; it was not made
to "Tousek , some of the foremen and Steward ," as found by the Trial Examiner.
0 Thomas testified that Tousek explicitly made this statement . Tousek did not so testify,
but his testimony establishes that he at least clearly implied that continued help of this.
kind would turn on Thomas' adherence to, or rejection of, the Union.
10 We do not agree with the Trial Examiner that the last statement in Tousek's speech
constituted a direction , if not an order , to vote against the Union . This statement was
simply a strong reassertion by way of conclusion of the previously stated antiunion
opinion of the Respondent , which nevertheless remained an expression of opinion that con-.
tamed no threats of reprisal or promises of benefit.
(620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the election and Tousek impliedly agreed that the threat turned on
:a prounion vote."
Similarly, Tousek's like query of employee Steward at about the
same time was coercive.12 This query too came on the heels of the
election, and was plainly an implementation of Tousek's prior state-
ment in the presence of Steward immediately after the election, that
the president and owner of the plant had told Tousek that "before he
would bargain with the CIO union that he would absolutely tear
.[the plant] down and move it to Mississippi." 13
The record, however, does not support the Trial Examiner's finding,
that "on one occasion prior to the election Pierce stated to a number
,of employees that if the plant went Union, he would shut it down
tbecause he would not work with the damned CIO." Accordingly, we
-do not adopt that finding, or the conclusion of law that the Respond-
ent thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1).
4. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
removed the drier heaters on January 27, 1949,,as part of its campaign
to coerce its employees and convince them that working conditions
would be worse with the Union in the plant, thereby violating Section
'8 (a) (1).
It is clear that the Respondent was so motivated in removing the
heaters, and that this action was calculated to have such an effect on the
employees, in view of the fact that the action was taken, without warn-
ing, on the very day that the Union won the Board election, and in
-view of Pierce's subsequent statement to the employees, that "the
Union could furnish the heat now," and the employees would have to
.go to the Union for their heat. Moreover, as pointed out by the Trial
Examiner, no other plausible explanation was offered by the Respond-
ent for the sudden removal of the heaters at this particular time.
5. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
also tightened up its loan policy immediately after the Board elec-
tion 14 as part of its campaign to interfere with, restrain, and coerce its
employees in the exercise.of their rights under Section 7 of the Act,'
thereby violating Section 8 (a) (1).
11 This implied agreement is found in Tousek ' s remaining silent when Bartee stated, in
reply to Tousek ' s query , that Bartee would go to Mississippi because "he would do anything
against the Union."
13 The Trial Examiner fails to state that it was Tousek who made this query of Steward.
f 13 The Trial Examiner fails to mention this prior statement by Tousek or to make any
inding thereon. We find it to be an additional violation of Section 8 (a) (1).
14 The record does not support the findings of the Trial Examiner that the Respondent
both ordered and effectuated a "tightening up" of its loan policy on January 28, 1949.
The record does show , however , that orders to this effect were given "immediately after"
the election , and that the new policy was actually put into practice on January 29, 1949, the
latter being evidenced by a refusal on that date to give employee Clay his usual Saturday
night loan.
CLEVELAND VENEER COMPANY . 621
The circumstances surrounding the change in the Respondent's loan
policy were almost identical to those surrounding the removal of the
.heaters. The change occurred, without prior warning, within 2 days
after the victory of the Union in the election. Pierce, in similar
fashion thereafter told the employees that they could make their loans
from the Union or the union organizer. And again the Respondent
offered no plausible explanation for the sudden change in its loan
policy at this particular time. These circumstances therefore like-
wise compel the conclusion that the loan policy was tightened up in
retaliation for the employees' prounion vote in the Board election.
6. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
discriminatorily discharged Leo Hollis on October 5, 1948, in violation
of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
Hollis was one of the most active members of the Union. He at-
tended the early union meetings at the Santa Fe Depot, and he became
an unofficial organizer for the Union, distributing union literature and
signing employees to membership. In addition, the union meetings
were being held in his store at the time of his discharge. The Respond-
ent was well aware of all this through its unlawful surveillance of the
employees' union activities. Moreover, Hollis was discharged with-
out notice or explanation, and the Respondent offered no plausible
explanation at the hearing for his discharge.15 The only reasonable
conclusion that can be drawn from these circumstances is that Hollis
was discharged because of his membership in, and activities in behalf
of, the Union.',' And, as pointed out by the Trial Examiner, the dis-
criminatory discharge of the owner of the building, in which the Union
had held one previous meeting, 4 hours before the scheduled opening
of the second meeting in his building was bound to have a particularly
coercive effect on those in attendance at the second meeting 17
7. We also agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Re-
spondent discriminatorily discharged Cora Stots, Easter Buckley,
15 We , like the Trial Examiner , reject the Respondent 's contention that it discharged
Hollis because his job was completed in view of the evidence that, although Hollis was not
.directly replaced by any one full-time employee, the work that he had been doing was
;thereafter continued by others , either by working overtime or in slack periods.
is Because his supervisory status at the time of Hollis' discharge is not clearly shown,
,we do not rely on Office Manager Roederer ' s statement at that time , that Hollis had
,distributed union literature in the plant and "that we will not stand for ," for the purpose
,of establishing either that the Respondent had knowledge of Hollis ' union activity or
,discharged him for that reason.
17 It is true , as pointed out by the Respondent , that Hollis erroneously testified that he
,was discharged the day after the second union meeting at his store . We are of the opinion,
however , in view of the small margin of error , that this represented an honest mistake of
recollection and not an attempted falsification of facts, particularly since the discharge
of Hollis on the day after, rather than the day before the second meeting, would have
tarried the same implications,
622 . DECISIONS -OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Leevia Jones, Rosa Timmons, Jessie-Crawford, and Prince Connor on+.
January 1, 1949.
Like the Trial- Examiner, we are convinced that the Respondent.
itself disclosed the true reasons for these discharges by Tousek's state-
ment to employee Steward on the day before the discharges that these.
employees were selected for discharge because the Respondent "knew
that they would vote for the Union," 18 and Pierce's statement to,
Buckley at the time of her discharge that he was laying off these em-
ployees because he knew that they "had all joined the Union." Also
significant, as pointed out by the Trial Examiner, was Tousek's recon-
sideration of his original determination to discharge all the women
employees, all of whom except Bertha Hadnot were admittedly known
by the Respondent to be union members or sympathizers, and his ulti-
mate decision to retain Hadnot, who was known to be antiunion 19,
and to discharge instead James Rogers, who was known to be pro--
uLill 1 011.20
These circumstances clearly show that the Respondent selected these-
employees for discharge on the basis of their union membership or-
sympathy.21
8. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
constructively discharged Charles Driver, Ernest Dixon, and Bonnie.
Howard on February 1, 1949, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the-
Act.
As found above, the Respondent removed the drier heaters on
January 27, 1949, the day the Union won the Board election, as part
of its campaign to make working conditions worse for the employees:
in reprisal for their prounion vote in the election, thereby violating-
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. By this action, the Respondent also,
discriminated against the drier employees in regard to a condition of
their employment to discourage membership in the Union. Moreover,
the removal of the heaters would cause hardship and physical suffering;
to the drier employees,22 and therefore represented a substantially
"Contrary to the finding of the Trial Examiner, this statement was denied by Tousek...
However, we adopt the Trial Examiner's crediting of Steward's testimony that this
statement was made.
"This was clearly demonstrated by Hadnot's request on the day before, and again ons
the morning of, the election, that Tousek show her how to vote against the Union.
20 Tousek admitted having seen Rogers at a union meeting.
21 Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the Respondent's contention that the-
discharges were necessitated by a curtailment of production.
We do, however, adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that Connor's eviction from a:
company-owned house shortly after his discharge stemmed from the same discriminatory
causes as his discharge.
22 The drier employees are required to handle wet }veneer without using gloves, which,
-causes'"their hands to get cold during cold weather. The heaters had been maintained to,
alleviate this situation, and their removal at this time thus would cause hardship and'
physical suffering.
CLEVELAND VENEER COMPANY '_ 623
-prejudicial alteration of this condition of their employment. Ac-
•cordingly, when Driver, Dixon, and Howard left their employment on
February 1, 1949, because they would not subject themselves to this
discriminatory action against them, they were thereby constructively
,discharged in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) 23
9. We also agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that Duke Haile
was discharged on May 9, 1949, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3).
The Respondent knew for some time prior to his discharge that
Haile was very active in the Union, but Haile had been reporting to
both Tousek and Pierce during this period concerning the activities of
the Union. On May 5, 1949, however, when Pierce asked the drier
employees whether they would go to the Union for help if the plant
closed, Haile, who was wearing his union button inside his shirt,
brought it into sight and said "that Union button might look good to
all of us before this is over." This was the first time that Haile had
ever shown his union button openly. Within a few hours, Haile was
called into the office and told by Tousek that the pay increase which
Haile had gotten some 10 weeks earlier was all a mistake, and, that
the Respondent would have to retract it and reimburse itself for the
additional money already paid him. The evidence indicates, however,
that Haile's wage increase was not the result of any mistake.24 Ac-
cordingly, Haile protested the action vigorously on the ground that
he had gotten an honest raise. On May 9, Haile was discharged, not
because of anything connected with the wage increase, but allegedly
because he had said on May 5 that he was going to quit anyhow.
As we interpret these circumstances, however, we think it clear that
the Respondent was otherwise motivated in discharging Haile. Be-
cause of his reporting to the Respondent concerning union activities,
the Respondent originally considered Haile as an undercover agent
for it," as found by the Trial Examiner, or at least as not being as
genuinely prounion as his outward activities would seem to indicate.
The incident of May 5, however, was a clear indication to the Re-
spondent that Haile had-been more genuinely enthusiastic about the
Union than the Respondent had suspected, or at least now was so.
Because of his newly displayed bona fide adherence to the Union by
Haile, the Respondent decided to terminate his employment. The
See Pacific Powder Company, 84 NLRB 280.
We base this finding on the fact that ( a) Haile's wage increase was given to him
shortly after lie was promoted to "head bundler," (b) it is unlikely that such a mistake
would not be discovered for 10 weeks, and (c) the Respondent's contention that Pierce
had no authority to grant the increase is refuted by the fact that Pierce authorized an
increase for employee Hadnot about the same time.
21 It should also he noted that Haile was with employee steward on the occasion when
Tousek requested Steward to attend a union meeting at the Hollis store and to give him a
report on those in attendance at the meeting.
624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent at first on May 5 employed the pretext of an alleged mis-
taken wage increase as a means of inducing Haile to resign. When
this stratagem failed in its purpose, the Respondent discharged Haile
outright on May 9. Haile, however, had been induced by the retrac-
tion of the wage increase to say that he was going to resign, and this,
was utilized by the Respondent in an attempt to establish a lawful.
reason for the discharge.
Accordingly, we find that the real reason for Haile's discharge was
his newly displayed bona fide adherence to the Union. We are unable
to accept the Respondent's assertion that Haile was discharged because
of his previous declaration of an intention to resign as the real reason
for the discharge in a situation, such as this, where that declaration
was directly caused by a discriminatory attempt to induce him to resign
by means of retracting a wage increase falsely alleged to have been
made by mistake.26 The discriminatory attempt to induce Haile to
resign, having failed in its purpose, was obviously followed up by an.
outright discharge shortly thereafter that was likewise discriminatory.
10. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent,
discharged L. Thomas, Jr., on February 2, 1949, in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3). In our opinion, however, Thomas was not construc-
tively discharged as found by the Trial Examiner, but was actually
discharged.
On February 1, 1949, as Dixon, Driver, and Howard left the plant
because they could not work without the heaters, Pierce stated to,
Steward : "There goes three of our Union men. Now if we can get
rid of J. B. Green, Walter Ford, and Lee Thomas, Jr., that will be
just about all of the button boys 27-they will all be gone." On the
very next morning, Pierce ordered Thomas to move a "buggy" alone,.
a job which requires at least two men, but which is generally done by
four men.28 Thomas said he could not do this alone, but Pierce reiter-
ated his order. Thomas then attempted to lift the 'buggy" with the
aid of a plank, but Pierce said he didn't want him to use a plank..
26 Accordingly , we also find that the retraction of Haile's wage increase was a dis-
criminatory change in a condition of Haile's employment, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3).
We shall, therefore, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, not only order the
Respondent to repay to Haile the sum total of the wage increase already paid to Haile,
but which was deducted from Haile's pay checks on the day of his discharge , as recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner, but we shall also order the Respondent to include the
wage increase in the sum to be paid Haile to make him whole for his loss of pay
between the date of his discharge and the date of the Respondent ' si offer of reinstate-
ment to Haile , and to offer Haile reinstatement at a rate of pay to , include the wage
increase. We find it unnecessary, however, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act,
to order the Respondent to pay Haile interest on the money deducted from Haile's pay
checks on the day of his discharge , as recommended by the Trial Examiner.
n Following the election the union 'members wore union buttons.
28 A "buggy " weighs between 250 and 300 pounds.
CLEVELAND VENEER COMPANY 625,
Thomas again said that he could not do the job alone, and Pierce told
him that if he couldn't, to "go on home." Thomas then objected to.
Pierce cursing him,29 and said that he would rather go home than have-
Pierce curse him, to which Pierce replied, again with profanity, "that's.
what I mean; you go home." Thomas then left the plant."'
In view of Pierce's stated intention on the previous day to get rid
of Thomas and the other two remaining union members, we find that
Pierce's order that Thomas perform an unreasonably difficult, if not a
physically impossible task, was deliberately contrived by the Respond--
ent to rid itself of Thomas because of his union membership. As in
the case of Haile, the Respondent was also attempting to create thereby
a lawful reason that might be utilized to justify Thomas' discharge
in this case, an expected but justified refusal by Thomas to comply
with the order. Under such circumstances, however, insubordination
is no defense,31 particularly where, as here, it is the result of an order
that is unreasonably difficult, if not impossible, to obey. Accordingly,
we find that the real motive behind Thomas' discharge was his union
membership.32
We conclude that Thomas was actually discharged, and not merely-
constructively discharged, by virtue of Pierce's order, after Thomas'"
second refusal to lift the buggy alone, that Thomas "go on home." Al-
though precise language to the effect that Thomas was actually being-
discharged was not used, such an intent was clear, as was emphasized.
by Pierce's further statement to Thomas that "that's what I mean;
you go home." Thomas did say that he would rather go home.
than have Pierce curse him, but this statement was made after Pierce
had already effected the discharge by telling Pierce to "go on home."-
In any event, this statement by Thomas was simply one of opinion or
intention and did not constitute an actual quitting by Thomas. More-
over , Thomas left the plant only after Pierce for the second time or-
dered him to "go home." Under such circumstances, we think it clear,
that Thomas did not quit, but was actually discharged.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, International
' All of Pierce 's remarks had been accompanied by profanity.
20 Because Pierce refused to give him his check at this time , Thomas returned to the plant
for it that afternoon , at which time Pierce again told Thomas that he couldn ' t work any
longer.
"L & H Shirt Company, Inc., 84 NLRB 248.
31 Cf. L & H Shirt Company, Inc ., supra.
c626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wire-Bound Box Company, d/b/a Cleveland Veneer Company, and
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Engaging in surveillance of its employees' activities in Inter-
national Woodworkers of America, CIO, or in any other labor or-
ganization ;
(b) Making promises of benefits to its employees in return for their
disavowal of the above-named, or any other, labor organization, or
making threats of reprisals to its employees in return for their ad-
herence to the above-named, or any other, labor organization ;
(c) Discouraging membership in the above-named, or any other,
-labor organization of its employees, by discharging, constructively
.discharging, refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or by discrimi-
nating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of em-
ployment or any term or condition of their employment; and
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
-its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Woodworkers of
America, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain colectively
:through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con=
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all of such ac-
•ticities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a, condi-
tion of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies- of the Act :
(a) Offer to Leo Hollis, Cora Stots, Easter Buckley, Leevia Jones,
Rosa Timmons, Jessie Crawford, Prince Connor, Ernest Dixon,
Charles Driver, Bonnie Howard, Lee A. Thomas, Jr., and Duke Haile,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
'equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges and make each of them whole in the manner
:set forth in that section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The
remedy" ; 33
(b) Provide the drier employees with some safe method of warm-
ing themselves during working hours equivalent to that which they
enjoyed prior to the removal of the heaters;
(c) Permit the employees to borrow small sums of money from it
to the same extent and under the same regulations as was done prior
to the time that the Respondent "tightened up" its loan policy;
33 In the case of Haile, reinstatement is to be offered, and he is to be made whole for
.loss of pay, in accordance with footnote 26, supra.
CLEVELAND VENEER COMPANY 627
(d) Post at its plant in Cleveland, Texas, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto and marked Appendix A.34 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and main-
tained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material; and
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in
writing within ten (1.0) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL E]IIPLOY RH:9
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of our employees' activities
111 INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or in any other
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT make promises of benefits to our employees in
return for their disavowal of the above-named, or any other, labor
organization, or make threats of reprisal to our employees in
return for their adherence to the above-named, or any other, labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the above-named, or
any other, labor organization of our employees, by discharging,
constructively discharging, refusing to reinstate any of our em-
ployees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
their employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL
WOODWORKERS of AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organization,
to bat-gain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
'" In the event this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted in the notice, before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER," the
words, "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STA'L'ES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
889227--.51-vol. 89--41
628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to
refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized
in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL provide our drier employees with some safe method
of warming themselves during working hours equivalent to that
which they enjoyed prior to the removal of the heaters on January
27, 1949.
WE WILL permit our employees to borrow small sums of money
to the same extent and under the same regulations as was done
prior to, January 27, 1949.
WE WILL offer Prince Connor immediate occupancy of his
former or equivalent living quarters in a company-owned house
on the same terms accorded other employees together with a
financial adjustment for any losses he may have suffered by reason
of the eviction.
WE WILL offer to the employees named below immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Leo Hollis
Cora Stots
Easter Buckley
Leevia Jones
Rosa Timmons
Jessie Crawford
Duke Haile
Prince Connor
Ernest Dixon
Charles Driver
Bonnie Howard-
Lee A. Thomas, Jr.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not dis-
criminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment against any employee because of membership
in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
INDIANAPOLIS WIRE-BOUND Box COMPANY,
D /B/A CLEVELAND VENEER COMPANY, Employer.
Dated ----- By------------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
CLEVELAND VENEER COMPANY 629
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Messrs. James P. Wolf and Joseph A. Jenkins for the General Counsel.
Paul Y. Davis , of Indianapolis , Ind., for the Respondent,
Paul C. White , of Marshall , Tex., for the I. W. A.
,S'TATE`MENT OF THE CASE
Upon a first amended charge duly filed June 9, 1949, by International Wood-
workers of America, CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called respectively the General Counsel
and the Board, by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth,
Texas), issued his complaint, dated July 8, 1949, against Indianapolis Wire-
Bound Box Company, d/b/a Cleveland Veneer Company, herein called the
Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in, and was engaging
in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a),
subdivisions (1) and (3), and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint and amended charge, together with notice of hearing
thereon, were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, in substance, alleged
that (1) the Respondent discharged, or caused the resignation of, a number of
its employees on certain specified dates and thereafter refused to reinstate said
employees because of their union activities and because they joined or assisted
the Union, or engaged in other concerted activity for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection ; and (2) the Respondent, by various
enumerated acts set forth in said complaint, interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
Prior to the hearing, the Respondent filed an answer admitting in general
the allegations of the complaint as to the jurisdiction of the Board but denying
the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Conroe, Texas, from July 26 to
August 3, 1949, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by
the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were
represented by counsel and the I. W. A. was represented by its organizer. All
parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard,' to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence per-
taining to the issues. Oral argument at the conclusion of the hearing was
waived, subsequently the Respondent filed a brief which has been considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Indianapolis Wire-Bound Box Company is a corporation duly organized
and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Indiana and authorized to do
business in the State of Texas since July 8, 1937. The Respondent maintains
its principal office and place of business at 1300 Beecher Street, Indianapolis,
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Indiana, and operates plants in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, including the
Respondent's plant at Cleveland, Texas. The Respondent is now and has been
at all times material herein continuously engaged at its plant at Cleveland, Texas,
in the purchase of lumber, the processing of veneer from such lumber, and the
shipping of this veneer to its plants in Mississippi and Louisiana. In the course
and conduct of its business, the Respondent causes, and has continuously caused,
a substantial amount of materials used in the manufacture, sale, and distribution
of veneer and related products to be purchased, delivered, and transported in
interstate commerce from and to the States of the United States other than the
State of Texas from its Cleveland, Texas, plant.
The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Woodworkers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE -UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES '
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Surveillance
In the latter part of July or the beginning of August 1948, the Union, in the
person of Paul C. White, organizer, started its campaign to organize the employees
of the only manufacturing plants in the little town of Cleveland, Texas: Two
veneer plants and one sawmill. This campaign commenced with an outdoor
meeting in an open space near the Santa Fe Depot at which White spoke to
the assembled employees and townspeople over a public address system attached
to his automobile. This was a well-advertised meeting. Among the first persons
to arrive at the meeting were Alfred L. Pierce, Respondent's mill superintendent
in charge of operations at the Cleveland mill, where the employees were pre-
dominantly Negro, who brought with him, in the Respondent's pick-up truck,
Foreman Marion (Dood) Jones, C. A. Pierce, W. J. Gatewood, and machinist
Leon Richards. Pierce parked close by the organizer's parked automobile. E. B.
Tousek, Respondent's division manager in charge of its plants at Cleveland, Texas,
and Pineville, Mississippi, joined the Pierce party a little later. The presence
of these supervisory officials of the Respondent was noted by a number of the
employees present.
Thereafter, I. W. A. held meetings every Tuesday night in this same open space
near the depot until the weather required an indoor meeting place. Although
he admitted that he did not believe in unions himself, Superintendent Pierce con-
tinued his attendance at the union meetings for two or three meetings, each time
arriving in the company pick-up truck which he parked close by the organizer's
automobile.
Sometime in September 1948, the union meetings were moved to an empty store
building owned by employee Leo Hollis. This building is located among a few
small business buildings on the outskirts of Cleveland, about 300 yards from the
Respondent's plant, and consisted at the time of an empty store facing onto the
highway in the rear of which Hollis had his living quarters. On one side of
the Hollis store, about 12 or 15 feet removed therefrom, is the Galloway Drug
Store and about equally distant on the other side is a radio repair store beyond
which is a garage and automobile sales building.
CLEVELAND VENEER COMPANY 631
After the union meetings had been moved to the Hollis store, Tousek and
Pierce were frequently seen in close proximity to the store at the time of those
meetings, either standing nearby or sitting in parked automobiles.
On the occasion of one of these union meetings, Tousek was standing between
the Galloway Drug Store and the Hollis store, facing the employees going into
the Hollis store for the meeting. On another such occasion, Tousek was seen
within a foot or two of the side entrance to the Hollis building, which leads
directly into the room in which the meeting was in session. To have reached
this spot located toward the rear of the Hollis building, Tousek had to trespass
some 15 feet or more on to private property. Upon the discovery of Tousek at
this spot, the organizer ordered the door closed.
On another similar occasion, Tousek was sitting in his parked automobile about
100 yards down the street from the Hollis store watching the employees gathering
for the lneeting. Employees Duke Haile and Wayne Steward walked up behind
him while he was so engaged and spoke to him as they passed his automobile.
A few, minutes later while Steward was standing in front of the Hollis store,
Tousek approached him and urged him to attend the meeting and to report back
to Tousek who had attended it. When Haile, Steward, and employee James
Rogers' left the building at its conclusion, they found Tousek standing a few
feet away; from the store. The following morning, Steward reported to Tousek
the names of the employees who were in attendance at the meeting?
On the Tuesday nights of union meetings, when Tousek was not in the vicinity
of the Hollis store, Pierce was often seen in a car parked either directly in front
of the store, as on one occasion, or within 30 feet as on another occasion. On
one such time, Pierce stood and talked to Mrs. A. J. Phillips while her husband
attended the meeting. On this occasion, Pierce admitted looking into the meet-
ing room but testified that the only person he recognized in the crowd was Mrs.
Phillips' husband.'
The Respondent also kept itself well informed as to the activities of the Union
and of the individuals active therein. Both Tousek and Pierce testified that they
were told by employees whenever and wherever meetings were to be held as well
as what occurred there. Frequently, these reports were received when employees
applied to the Respondent for loans of small amounts of money.'
In addition to inquiries made of employees by Respondent's supervisory per-
sonnel, Pierce used to drive around the Negro quarter to see if the employees
I All of these employees were later discharged , although Rogers was subsequently
reemployed.
2 Tousek denied requesting Steward to report the names of the employees at the meeting
although he acknowledged that on several occasions Steward had done so. Tousek
attempted to explain his presence on this occasion on the ground that he had started to
look at an automobile he had learned was for sale but had been attracted by the crowd
gathering in front of the Hollis store and so had parked his automobile in order to see what
the excitement was about . He had then returned to the plant forgetting to look at the
automobile allegedly for sale and had returned to the drug store sometime later for aspirin,
at which time he was seen by Haile, Steward , and Rogers at the conclusion of their meeting.
Tousek 's forgetfulness of both the automobile and of the aspirin makes this attempted
explanation highly dubious as does the fact that Tousek actually accepted Steward ' s report
the next morning.
8 Pierce's explanation of his presence in this vicinity on these occasions was that he was
going to transact business at the drug store.
' Tousek contended that the employees "volunteered " this information but his testimony
in this regard does not coincide with the request he made of Steward, nor with the Pierce-
Clay episode.
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were at home for, if they were not, Pierce told Steward, "they were bound to be
at the Union meeting."
On January `29, 1949, the Saturday following the representation election of
January 27, 1949, when the Union won the right to represent the employees at the
Respondent's plant, Clay, as was his almost habitual custom on Saturday nights,
asked Pierce for a loan of $2 from the Respondent. Pierce indicated that he
could not make this loan but stated that, if Clay would tell him the names of
the Union employees, he might be able to arrange it.` Clay answered that he
could not do that but could, and did, tell Pierce the names of those employees
who were wearing' union buttons. After he had been given those names, Pierce
reiterated that the company rules prohibited such loans and told Clay to go
get his money from the union organizer.'
Subsequently, the union meetings were again moved from the Hollis store to
the "Home Help Club," a Negro organization with a meeting place in the Negro
quarter of the town. Steward, who was then the Respondent's bookkeeper, was
requested by Tousek to attend one of these meetings at the club and Pierce
requested Goodall, a Negro lead man, to guide Steward to the club. However
both Steward and Goodall were refused admission to the meeting.'
Both Tousek and Pierce denied that their presence so often in the immediate
vicinity of union meetings was for the purpose of spying on the Union or on the
employees. However, even in the absence of the solicitation of information from
Steward and Clay,'the presence of these officials on meeting nights was too fre-
quent and in too close proximity to the union meetings to have been purely for-
tuitous or coincidental. Both testified that they attended the original meeting
out of mere curiosity and that their presence at the vicinity of the Hollis store
had to do with business which they were transacting at the drug store. They
also testified that they were able to identify almost none of the employees present
at the meetings because the meetings were held after dark. However, Pierce was
able to testify that townspeople were in attendance at the meetings at the Santa Fe
Depot. The employees were able to see the Respondent's officials. If townspeo-
ple could be identified at those meetings and in that light, so could the employees.
Respondent's officials made no efforts to hide their presence, parking in con-
spicuous places apparently for the purpose of exploiting their presence near the
meetings designed for the employees in order to frighten those employees.
In the light of all the evidence, the undersigned is convinced, and finds, that
the Respondent kept the activities of both the Union and of its employees under
close surveillance for the purpose of interfering with, restraining, and coercing
the employees in their rights to form, join , and assist labor organizations as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Speeches
Almost immediately after the union meetings were moved to the Hollis store,
Respondent ' s campaign of interference and coercion was augmented . On Tues-
" The Respondent 's loan policy will be discussed hereinafter at greater length.
6 Pierce told several different versions of this episode , commencing by denying the fact
that they had ever refused Clay a loan, but later admitting that he had refused to loan
money to Clay . In this, as in most of the rest of his testimony , Pierce proved to be a very
forgetful and changeable witness, in whose testimony the undersigned could place little
credence.
7 Pierce's version of this differs from that found above, although he acknowledges that
he suggested Goodall to Steward as a guide to help him locate the club house. Tousek also
denied making this request of Steward.
CLEVELAND VENEER COMPANY 633
day, October 5, 1948, at about 4 p. m., just prior to the second union meeting to
be held in the store building, the Respondent discharged employee Leo Hollis,
the owner of the building.' The discharge of the owner of the building in which
the Union was then meeting must necessarily have had a coercive effect when
announced to the employees attending that meeting.
Promptly after the meetings started in the Hollis store, Tousek called the em-
ployees together in the mill shed and spoke to them. In this speech, Tousek ex-
plained that the Respondent had learned that the meetings were then being held.
in the Hollis store and that he wanted the employees to know that the Respondent
was not obstructing the holding of the representation election as the Union
claimed, but that, as soon as the Board could process the Union's petition for
certification, the election would be held. He then told the employees that the
Respondent had been planning a number of benfits for the employees, such as
company-paid insurance and hospitalization, the construction of more low rental
housing, and a possible wage increase but that the Respondent could not go for-
ward with these plans while the Union was around. Tousek stated that, as soon
as the employees "got rid of the C. I. 0.," the Company would go ahead with the
installation of these intended benefits. Tousek stressed the fact that Respondent
wanted to give the employees the company-paid insurance, low rental housing, and
pay raises but was prevented from so doing by the presence of the Union. He
further stressed the fact that `,`fooling around" with the Union would do the em-
ployees no good, that there was nothing to the Union, and added that the em-
ployees could get rid of the Union if they would quit attending the union meet-
ings and thereby show a complete lack of interest in it.
Tousek then turned to Prince Connor,' a Negro who was very active in the
Union acting as liaison man between the Negro employees and the organizer and
in signing up Negro employees to membership, and stated that he was "surprised
to see" Connor at the union meeting at the Hollis store." After telling Connor
in the presence of the other employees that he (Tousek) did not want the Union,
Tousek ended this conversation with Connor with the admonition that "later on
there is going to be a change made." 11
Following this talk by Tousek, Pierce frequently spoke to small groups of
employees as he walked around the mill, informing them that Tousek had a
number of plans on his desk which would benefit the employees and which the
Respondent wanted to put into effect but could not do so so long as the employees
continued to "fool around with the CIO" and so long as the CIO continued to
organize . Pierce mentioned both the insurance and possible pay increases in
these various conversations.
A.day or two before the election of January 27, 1949, Foreman Gray, who had
been following General Manager Barnhill of the parent corporation around
8 This discharge will be treated hereinafter.
° At the hearing Connor spelled his name both "Connor" and "Conner."
80 Tousek denied having made this statement as well as the other statements contained in
the paragraph.
11 Tousek testified that he made this talk merely to dispel the union report that the
Respondent was obstructing the holding of the election and that the insurance , housing,
and pay increases were brought up by questions asked by Jones, a foreman , Goodall, lead
man, and some unknown person . The undersigned doubts if any questions were asked at
that meeting as none of the employee witnesses could remember any and because none of
these alleged benefits (except possibly insurance ) were known to any of the employees.
Even if the benefits of which the employees were told they were being deprived by reason
of their union activity were brought to the attention of the employees by these alleged
questions , it would not lessen the unfair labor practice of promising benefits to the employees
in return for the cessation of union activity in any way.
63.4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the plant on an inspection trip, told a group of employees : "Boys, if I were a
betting man, I would bet that if this place goes non-Union, we would get a
nickel to a dime raise in less than a week ." Barnhill had told Gray previously
that the men were in line for a raise. However no raises were given despite
Tousek's, Pierce ' s, and Gray 's statements.
On January 26, 1949, the day before the scheduled election, Barnhill told
Tousek, some of the foremen, and bookkeeper Steward, that he Would give $500
and a 5- or 10-cent an hour wage increase for a nonunion vote in the Board
election the following day.12
On the afternoon of this same day, Tousek gave another talk to the employees
assembled for the occasion in which he reiterated to the employees that "no
Union could possibly get you more than the employees already had," l3 and
that the employees did not need a representative as they could always come
and talk to him. He then extolled the Company for raising wages, giving paid
vacations and bonuses, and pay for nonworked holidays "without urging or
coercion from anyone." He stated that the Respondent had rushed the rebuilding
of the Cleveland plant after the fire of May 1, 1948, solely in order to return
the employees to work-and not for the veneer which the plant manufactured.
He added: "Right now, we should be shut down in order to give Fernwood (the
company's box factory to which the veneer from the Cleveland mill is shipped)
a chance to come out from under the huge supply of veneer that they have." 14
He then inquired if the employees knew what the Union would cost them in
initiation fees, dues, fines, and assessments, and if they knew they could be
assessed to help pay for strikes of other unions in other locations, especially
in Detroit. After deriding the Union for the contract proposals made to another
mill and after reminding the employees that all unions become involved in strikes
and that strikes cause losses of pay requiring years to recoup, he ended his
talk with the following:
It's easy to unionize-you get lots of willing help any time you make up
your mind. It's mighty hard to undo it, once it's done. It's like the itch-
it sneaks up on you and you've got it, but it takes a lot of doing to get shut
of it. Let me say again, your best interest lies in voting "no"-on the right-
hand side of the ballot. Believe me, I know. And remember, anything you
have said or anything you have signed does not bind you, you can change your
mind up until the time you drop your ballot in the box. Remember-vote-
on the right side-mark the "0."
After Tousek had finished, Bertha Hadnot asked Tousek how she could vote
against the Union. Tousek carefully explained again to her that to vote against
the Union, the employee should mark an X in the box underneath the letter "O"
contained in the word "no" on the ballot. This further instruction coincided
exactly with the last statement made by Tousek in his prepared talk which consti-
tuted a direction, if not, an order, to vote against the Union 11
12 Barnhill did not deny that he made this statement or his earlier one.
is This appears to conflict with Barnhill ' s statements.
34 This contention of the Respondent will be discussed under the discharges of January
1, 1948.
15 The following morning at 6 a. m. Hadnot was in Tousek 's office at the plant where
Tousek again showed Hadnot how to vote against the Union . Early in February Hadnot
was rewarded with a 5 -cent increase in wages, her second such increase in a period of less
than 3 months . The other women employees who all were union members , had been
discharged on January 1, 1949.
CLEVELAND VENEER COMPANY 635
At the conclusion of his speech Tousek asked if there were any questions.
Employee L. A. Thomas inquired : "As you have said that the Union wasn't going
to benefit us any and make our working conditions worse and not raise the pay,
why is it that the Company is against the Union?" Tousek answered that he
thought the Union was bad for both the employees and the Respondent for the
necessity of having to deal through an intermediary and in accordance with a
union contract would prevent personal dealings between the employees and the
Respondent, and that thereby the employees would suffer. The meeting then
broke up.
However, Tousek saw Thomas as Thomas was checking out of the plant that
evening and, desiring to clarify the point lie had made in his speech, called
Thomas over. Tousek recalled to Thomas the time of his wife's first pregnancy
when Thomas had come to him. "with tears in his eyes" requesting financial
help in getting his wife into a hospital. Tousek then reminded Thomas how
the Respondent had taken his wife to the hospital and taken care of her without
"any fuss." Tousek went on to explain that, if there had been a union contract
in existence then, the Respondent could not have clone that for, if it had done it
for one employee, it would have had to do it for all which the Respondent could
not have afforded.18 Thomas then stated that this time he was going to be able
to take care of his wife's then pregnant condition of which Tousek was aware.
Tousek ended the conversation by saying : "That's fine, I hope you are, but you
had better give it some thought between now and morning." 14
This clarification of the meaning of his speech clears up any possible doubt
as to the meaning which Tousek intended to convey therein to the employees.
Just as at the time of the first speech Tousek had attempted to coerce and inter-
fere with the employees' freedom of choice by enumerating the benefits which
the Respondent had planned for its employees when the Union would no longer
be at the plant, so Tousek intended to interfere in this second speech by imply-
ing that the presence of the Union in the plant would cause the withdrawal of
the benefits which the employees had been receiving theretofore. According to
Tousek's own interpretation of his speech, this speech, as well as the earlier one,
contained threats of reprisal and promises of benefits to the employees in return
for their withdrawal from the Union and was therefore clearly coercive and not
protected by Section 8 (c) of the Act as claimed by the Respondent. Viewed in
the light of all the circumstances surrounding his speech, the discharge of Leo
Hollis, the surveillance of union meetings, the sudden discharge of all the union
women employees and Prince Connor on January 1, the retention of the only
nonunion woman employee in the plant, as well as the many antlupion state-
ments made by Respondent's supervisory personnel, the last paragraphs of
Tousek's speech amounted to an order upon the employees to vote against the
Union or to subject themselves to the type of coercion, intimidation, and inter-
ference in which the Respondent had previously been engaged. The subsequent
withdrawal of beneficial working conditions following the election in which the
employees selected the Union as their bargaining agent despite the Respondent's
campaign, proves the truth of the above finding.
The undersigned finds that the surveillance of union meetings, the promises of
benefits to the employees as soon as the Union was eliminated, the threats of
' Thomas ' version of this conversation is almost identical with that of Tousek except
that, according to Thomas, Tousek was a bit more explicit , stating : "If you go and join
the Union , we cannot put your wife in the hospital" and "if you join the Union , we can't
help you."
17 Obviously a reference to the election on the following morning,
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
poorer working conditions if the Union succeeded , the discharge of the owner
of the building used for union meetings , the discharge of all the union women
graders while the one nonunion woman employee was retained , constituted a
campaign of interference , restraint , and coercion to deprive the employees of the
rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act.
3. Threat to remove the plant from Cleveland
On the evening of January 27, 1949, when it appeared that iii all probability
the Union had won the right to represent the employees at the Respondent's
plant despite the fact that the Respondent had succeeded in eliminating a
number of union votes by the discharges of January 1, 1949, and in having a
number of its foremen vote in the election, Tousek and Pierce appeared at
the home of employee Jim Clay and asked him where they could locate employee
Weston Bennett, a keyman in the operation of the plant. When Clay said that
he could locate Bennett, Clay was invited into the automobile and the men set
off to find Bennett. Not finding Bennett the party went to the home of Chester
Fletcher where Tousek talked to him without Clay being present. Then, with
Clay, went in search of Otis Bartee, another keyman known to be antiunion.
On this occasion when Bartee was located, Clay went into the house with Tousek
and Pierce. Tousek told them that he was picking the oldest hands at the mill
to find out if they would go to Mississippi to open another mill there in case
the Cleveland mill shut down. Clay told Tousek that he would go and, when
Bartee was asked if he would go, Bartee replied, "Yes, I would go ; I would do
anything against the Union."
About the same time Bookkeeper Steward was asked if he would go to Missis-
sippi to open a mill there if the Cleveland mill was closed.
On one occasion prior to the date of the election, Pierce made the statement
to a number of employees that if the plant went Union, he would shut it down
because he would not work with the damned CIO.
Although the Cleveland mill was never closed, it is obvious that these threats
to shut down the plant were made in order to interfere with, restrain, and coerce
the employees into deserting the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
4. Changes in working conditions
a. Removal of the heaters
The Respondent's plant at Cleveland, especially the mill and the drier, is
housed under a quonset-shaped roof without sidewalls. At least since 1947 when
Tousek became manager of the Cleveland mill, the Respondent had maintained
gas heaters at both ends of the drier during the winter season in order that the
employees could warm themselves during working hours. Both veneer plants
in Cleveland had been forced to provide heat for their employees during the
cold season because the men are required to handle wet veneer without using
gloves causing them to get cold. For many years, it had been customary for
the employees working at the Cleveland plant to repair to the boiler shed in order
to warm themselves during the cold weather also. This was a long and well-
establishedcustom among the employees and known to the Respondent.
Many months prior to January 27, 1949, the Respondent had reinstalled the
gas heaters at both ends of the drier so that these heaters would be available
for the use of the men working the drier which generally operates 24 hours
a day. ,
CLEVELAND VENEER COMPANY 637
These heaters had been used during the winter of 1948-1949 to and including
the morning of January 27, 1949, the day on which the Union won its election.
Following the election on the morning of January 27, the two heaters were sud-
denly removed upon the orders of the Respondent. Since that time, the heaters
have never been replaced and the employees have been denied the privilege of
repairing to the boiler shed in order to warm themselves. Thus, the employees
have been deprived of the means of warming themselves during working hours,
a condition of work which they had enjoyed for many years prior to the
election.
Significantly, when Pierce was asked by the employees about the heaters
and the lack of heat, Pierce told them that the "Union could furnish the heat,
now" and that the employees would have to go to the Union for their heat '
Following the election, Pierce refused to allow the employees to go to the
boiler room for the purpose of getting warm and would order any employee, who
went to the boiler room for that purpose, out of the boiler room.
Upon orders from Pierce, the shift foremen also refused to allow the employees
under their supervision to go to the boiler room to get warm except that, on
occasions on especially cold nights, a foreman did grant such permission to some
of the employees. At the hearing, Pierce insisted that such foremen were dis-
obeying orders of long standing in allowing the employees this privilege.
At the hearing, the Respondent maintained: (1) That the rule prohibiting
employees from warming themselves at the boiler shed was a long-established
rule of the Respondent; (2) that the heaters at the end of the drier had been
removed long before January 27, 1949; and (3) that the heaters at the ends of
the drier were removed solely as a safety precaution against fire.
As to the Respondent's first contention, if there ever had been a rule against
the use of the boiler shed by the employees for the purpose of warming themselves,
it had long before fallen into disuse as it was common practice and well known to
the Respondent that the boiler shed was being used for this purpose by its em-
ployees. Furthermore, until after the election, none of the Respondent's super-
visory force even attempted to enforce any such rule. Immediately after the
election, however, the supervisory force was instructed to enforce the rule. There
is no showing that the practice was any more dangerous after the Union had won
the election than it had been prior thereto.
As to the Respondent's second contention, the evidence is convincing that the
heaters were in use on the morning of January 27, 1949. Although Tousek had
testified on direct examination that he ordered Pierce to remove the heaters in
the early part of January, it is apparent, from Tousek's own testimony on cross-
examination, that the heaters were not removed at that time and that the heaters
remained available even on the morning of January 27, A wholly disinterested
witness, Weston Bennett, testified positively that he Warmed his hands at the
heater at the tail end of the drier while on his way to vote on January 27. This
testimony corroborates that of other witnesses and convinces the undersigned that
the heaters were in place and in use on the morning of January 27.
As to the Respondent's third contention, Tousek testified that early in January
1949, he was informed that a fire had been started by the heater at the tail end
of the drier and that thereupon he ordered the two heaters removed instantly.
Certainly, the Respondent would have the right to remove the heaters as a safety
measure without the commission of an unfair labor practice if that were the
case. However, the evidence in this instance does not justify that conclusion.
"Pierce denied making the above statements.
638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The facts, as testified to by the Respondent's own witnesses, show that early in
December 1948, there was a fire at the feeder end of the drier possibly started by
the heater there and that, on this occasion, the fire was extinguished and the
heater put back in use without comment. Furthermore, the facts regarding the
fire set by the heater at the tail end of the drier show that the watchman who
discovered it, extinguished it, put a few more bricks under the heater, and relit it
the very same night. The facts further show that, despite Tousek's testimony
regarding the alleged emphatic nature of his order to remove the heaters, Pierce
was so unimpressed thereby that the heaters were in use for at least 2 weeks
thereafter and were still connected at 6 a. in. January 27, according to Tousek's
own testimony-and, according to the reliable testimony of the other witnesses,
were actually in use in the building at least until after the Union had won the
election on January 27. The undersigned does not believe that the heaters were
ordered removed before January 27 nor that the heaters were removed to protect
against fire. The Respondent made no attempt to explain why, if the fires were
caused by defects in the heaters as claimed, new heaters have not been installed.
Nor did the Respondent attempt an explanation why, if the fire hazard were so
great, the first alleged fire was treated in such cavalier fashion. Nor do the
alleged fires explain the sudden refusal of the Respondent to allow the employees
the right to get warm in the boiler room.
Under all the circumstances, the undersigned is convinced and finds, that
the heaters were removed on the Respondent's orders on January 27, 1949, as
part of the Respondent's campaign to coerce and intimidate its employees and
to convince the employees that working conditions in the plant would become
worse with the Union in the plant.
b. Respondent's loan'policy
Respondent pays its employees each Saturday . This payment represents the
money earned by the employee during the week ending the previous Saturday,
thus the Respondent always retains 1 week's pay due the employees.
For many years, it has been the Respondent ' s practice to allow employees to
borrow small amounts of money up to $10, secured by the week 's earnings re-
tained by the Company. The Respondent secured repayment ,of the loan by de-
ducting that amount from the wages to be paid the employee on the following
Saturday . With some employees , borrowing small amounts of money became
almost a weekly custom.
However , on January 28, 1949, the day following the election in which the em-
ployees, selected the Union as their bargaining representative , Tousek suddenly
ordered a "tightening up" of this loan policy and that the customary small loans
were to be discontinued.
Although counsel for the Respondent attempted through a question to fix the
date of this change as early as October 1948 , none of the Respondent ' s witnesses
denied that the change occurred on January 28, 1949, and , in fact, admitted
that the policy had been "tightened up." 19
As has been found heretofore , when refusing to grant such customary loans
immediately after January 27, 1949 , Pierce told the employee that he could
get his money "from the Union" or from the union organizer from then on.
Although Tousek without doubt was correct in stating that the practice had
become inconvenient and burdensome to the Respondent , still that does not ex-
39 Tousek testified that originally the loans had been restricted to "new employees."
Obviously , this restriction had been abandoned years before.
CLEVELAND VENEER COMPANY 639
plain why the practice was suddenly changed the day following the Union's
victory at the election. Surely, the practice was as burdensome before the elec-
tion as it was afterwards. Again, the timing of the change is important. Cer-
tainly, the union election acted as a catalytic agent upon the Respondent about
both the loans and the heaters. Very apparently, the Respondent was making the
working conditions of the employees as uncomfortable as possible after Jan-
uary 27 in conformity with Tousek's oral prognostication and in retaliation for
the votes in favor of the Union.
The undersigned, therefore, finds that the Respondent removed the heaters on
January 27, 1049, and tightened up its loan policy on January 28, 1949, as an in-
tegral part of its campaign designed to interfere with, restrain, and coerce the
employees in violation of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
B. The discharges
1. Leo Hollis
Leo Hollis commenced his employment with the Respondent in 1941 and con-
tinued that employment off and on. until his discharge on October 5, 1948. His
last period of employment as a millhand commenced in April 1948. Some 30
or 40 days prior to his discharge, Hollis had requested a transfer from his job
as a millhand due to an infection in his hands caused by handling wet veneer
and was thereupon assigned to cleaning up the yard and plant with a tractor
and wagon.
Hollis attended the union meetings at the Santa Fe Depot and joined the
Union at one of those early meetings. He became an unofficial organizer for
the Union, distributing union literature and signing employees to membership.
Sometime in September when the Union required an indoor meeting place,
Hollis' offer of his vacant store for that purpose was accepted. As has pre-
viously been found, the Respondent promptly learned of that fact and continued
keeping the Tuesday night meetings after their transfer to the store under
surveillance. ,
On the afternoon of October 5, 1948, a Tuesday, Hollis was working at the
plant as usual. In the course of his duties he took a piece of veneer to Fore-
man Gray to find out from him how it should be cut.-1 Gray was talking to
some unknown individual as Hollis walked up behind them and stopped. While
Hollis waited for him to finish, he heard Gray say: "If there isn't something
clone, this place is going Union." The unknown individual answered that he
would tend to it.21
That same afternoon about 4 p.m. Hollis was called to the office where the
Respondent discharged him without previous notice. As Office Manager Roed-
erer := countersigned the check for Hollis, he remarked to Bookkeeper Steward
that Hollis had distributed union literature in the plant and added : "That we
p At the beginning of the hearing the Respondent contended that Tousek and Pierce
were the only supervisors in the plant. However, by the end of the hearing, it appeared
to be admitted by all that R. L. Gray, Warren Anderson, C. A. Pierce, and W. H. Kornegay
were supervisors and, therefore, the undersigned will not discuss the evidence upon which
their supervisory status was based.
21 Gray testified that he could not " remember" this conversation . Hollis further testi-
fied that, in the same conversation between Gray and this unknown individual , mention
was made of the fact that the Union was meeting at the Hollis place . As it is clear that
the Respondent was aware of that fact , the undersigned makes no finding as to whether it
was mentioned in the conversation referred to above or not.
22 Roederer was laid off the following day.
640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
will not stand for." 23 Although Hollis stated at the time he received his check
from Roederer that the Company was firing him for union activities, the Re-
spondent did not choose to give him any explanation for his discharge.
Following the first meeting at the Hollis store, as previously found, Tousek
made his first speech wherein he promised the employees benefits as soon as
they got rid of the Union and urged them to show their disinterest in the Union
so that the Union would leave. Four hours before the beginning of the second
union meeting at the store, the Respondent discharged the employee who owned
the store in which these union meetings were being held without explaining the
reason therefor.
At the hearing, the Respondent contended that it discharged Hollis because
his clean-up work had been finished and because he did not want to work
handling wet veneer because of the infected condition of his hands, so that
there was no other employment available for him. On direct examination,
Tousek stated that on October 5 it seemed to him that the work Hollis had been
doing "was pretty well done" and that there was not very much more work of
that sort remaining, so that he decided to eliminate the job at that time. On
cross-examination, however, Tousek testified that "the mill was shining like
a new dime" when he decided to discharge Hollis. The facts show, however,
that, although Hollis was not directly replaced by any one "full time" employee,
the work which he had been doing was thereafter continued by others, either
by working overtime or in slack periods. It, therefore, appeared that there
remained work for Hollis to do. The undersigned is, therefore, unable to believe
that Hollis' job suddenly evaporated by completion on October 5, 1948.
The discharge of Leo Hollis without notice, without explanation, and without
any other apparent cause than the fact that he was the owner of the building
in which the Union had held one previous meeting, coining as it did suddenly 4
hours before the scheduled opening of the second union meeting to be held in
his building, speaks for itself. It clearly indicates the Respondent's disapproval
of his having let the building to the Union for union purposes. A more effective
method of proving and announcing to the employees the dangers implicit in
union adherence is almost impossible to conceive. Actions often speak louder
and more effectively than words. The news of Hollis' discharge would neces-
sarily be brought home immediately to those very persons most directly to be
affected by such coercive tactics. Because of the ownership and use to which
his building had been, and was being, put, Leo Hollis at this time was the symbol
of the Union. His discharge at this time and for no other apparent cause
clearly proved to the employees the Respondent' s feelings toward the Union and
those of its employees who adhered to the Union. Those in attendance at the
meeting held 4 hours after Hollis' discharge were those persons most vulnerable
to any future coercive antiunion action by the Respondent upon whom the news
of the discharge of Leo Hollis for allowing the Union the use of his building
for the purpose for which it was then being utilized would be most effective.
Therefore, the undersigned finds that the discharge of Leo Hollis on October
5, 1948, was caused by his membership in, and activities on behalf of, the Union
and was for the purpose of interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in order to discourage membership in the Union.
20 Roederer was not called as a witness nor was he shown to be unavailable . During
the absence of Tousek in August 1948 while he investigated the possibilities of another
position , Roederer was in charge of the office . Upon Tousek ' s return to the Respondent
in early September 1948 Roederer continued to act as clerk in charge of the office.
CLEVELAND VENEER COMPANY 641
2. The discharges of January 1, 1949
On January 1, 1949, the Respondent discharged Cora Slots, Easter Buckley,
Leevia Jones, Rosa Timmons; 4 Jessie Crawford, Prince Connor, and James
Rogers.
On December 29, 1948, the Board issued its Order directing an election among
Respondent ' s employees to determine the question concerning representation.
This Order was received by Respondent in due course of the mail on or about
December 31, 1948.
By letter dated December 27, 1948, Tousek was asked "to curtail production
immediately" by O. F. Bierbaum, manager of Respondent's box factory which
was the Cleveland plant's sole customer, because of excess inventory and
congestion caused by the storage of such inventory at the box factory 26
On December 31 Tousek and Pierce discussed laying off part of the personnel
and made up a list of persons to be discharged. While discussing those to be
laid off Tousek stated that they were discharging the persons on the list because
they "knew that they would vote for the Union." 29
On January 1, 1949, the Respondent discharged Cora Slots, Easter Buckley,
Leevia Jones, Rosa Timmons, Jessie Crawford, women, together with Prince
Connor and James Rogers. .
The first five were employed as graders who eliminated the bad pieces of
veneer as they traveled down the grading table from the lathe to the drier.
They also operated the'slitters and, occasionally, the ripsaw. Respondent also
employed some men as graders. The lead man in the crew was Ed Goodall.
In making the determination of the individuals to discharge, Tousek first de-
termined to discharge all the women employees, all of whom except Bertha
Hadnot were known by the Respondent to be members of the Union 27 but re-
considered and decided to retain the antiunion Bertha Hadnot in place of James
Rogers whom Tousek had seen attending a union meeting. Connor, of course,
was a particularly prominent member of the Union in signing Negro employees
to membership and as liaison man between the organizer and the Negro employees.
On December 31, 1948, Buckley had asked Pierce for a company loan of $5.
Pierce agreed telling her to get her money the following day in the office. When
Buckley appeared the next morning, Pierce told her of the layoff and gave her
the checks due her. As Buckley left the office, Pierce followed her and told her
that the reason he was laying them off was because he knew that they "had all
joined the Union." He added, "I know you all have been going to the meetings
at Hollis' and that's why I can't work you all, on account of the Union. I am
not going to have that-I can't work you with the Union. I am not going to
have the damn CIO Union in my place." 2e
24 This name is spelled both "Timmons " or "Kimmons" in the transcript.
21 This letter is unique in several aspects : ( 1) Bierbaum had no authority over Tousek
who received his orders directly from Indianapolis ; ( 2) this is the only order Tousek ever
received from Bierbaum ; and (3 ) the request has never been countermanded although the
Cleveland mill was in full production by February.
26 This is one of the few statements attributed to either Tousek or Pierce which remained
undenied in the record.
2' Crawford who was rehired about the middle of December 1948 , had announced at the
grading table that she was going to vote for the Union. Steward had reported the mem-
bership of the remainder.
21 Pierce denied making this statement.
0
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When Stots came to the office for her checks, Pierce was alone in the office and
told her that he was laying her off but not to worry, that, if she "would not
fool around with the CIO," she might be rehired but that he was laying her
off because she was fooling around with the CIO.
In his testimony Tousek attempted to justify the discharges of all the women
on the ground that the Company had a policy against employing women for they
could not work all over the mill, were more difficult to ask to work at nights,.
and could not handle the "cores," the remains of a log after the lathe is finished
with it. It would appear that this "policy" was promulgated for the occasion
as the Respondent had employed women graders for many years extending even
beyond Tousek's managership and it was not in force when Respondent rehired
Jessie Crawford during the middle of December 1948. As for Tousek's other
criticisms, graders very rarely have to work overtime as one 8-hour shift on the
grading table is sufficient to keep the drier working 24 hours and graders do
not have to handle the cores. If the curtailment order was bona fide, certainly
overtime was not to be contemplated for some time.
The retention of Bertha Hadnot, a woman, however, proves. that the "policy"
was based not so much on sex as on probable voting preference. The women
discharged were known to Tousek to be union members or sympathizers. Had-
not was known to be antiunion. Tousek had reason to believe that Rogers was
prounion having seen him attending a union meeting. Hadnot was therefore
retained in preference to the union women and to the probably prounion Rogers
allegedly so that she could sweep out the offices, a 15- or 20-minute job which
any of the other women, or even Rogers, could have done.2° This selection indi-
cates the discriminatory basis for selecting those to be discharged.
Prince Connor was laid off by the Respondent at this same time. He was not
told the reason for his layoff.
Connor had first been employed by the Respondent in August 1941 and had
worked steadily until sometime in 1946 when he suffered a back injury. There-
after, he returned to work as a millhand but subsequently requested a change to
easier work because of his injury. He had then been assigned to tend the
"hog," a machine for cutting scrap veneer into small pieces of wood so that it
could be used as fuel in the boiler.
Connor had been extremely active in the Union, as heretofore found, as liaison
man between the organizer and the Negro employees. Also, he was personally
responsible for signing up a number of the Negro employees to membership in
the Union. His activties were well known to the Respondent. It will also
be recalled that, at the time of Tousek's first speech to the employees, Tousek
had singled Connor out to express his "surprise" that Connor should be attending
the union meetings at the Hollis store. There could be no doubt as to how
Connor would vote.
At the time of Connor's discharge he was renting one of the company-owned
houses at a rental of $1 per week. Soon after his discharge he was requested
to vacate the house as it was needed for employees of the Respondent. Connor
paid the bookkeeper the sum of $3 for 3 weeks' rent. This money had been
borrowed from the union organizer. When Tousek learned of this payment,
he ordered the money returned to White which was done. Immediately thereafter,
21 In addition Hadnot received increases in pay from 50 cents per hour to 60 cents
between December 1948 and February 1949.
CLEVELAND VENEER COMPANY 643
Tousek evicted Connor from the house 30 This eviction stemmed from the same
discriminatory causes. as resulted in Connor's discharge.
The Respondent contended that Connor had been discharged because he was no.
longer needed to tend the hob, a job which Tousek described as "entirely un-
necessary," and had not been replaced. However, the facts showed that Connor-
had, in fact, been replaced in this particular job which is an essential job at.
the plant.
Furthermore, the Respondent contended that the discharges of January 1
were motivated by the requested curtailment of production. Assuming for the
moment the validity of this contention, still. that would not constitute a defense
in this case because of the discriminatory basis upon which the employees were
selected for discharge.
Also Tousek was emphatic about the fact that be operated the mill at all
times with the minimum necessary number of employees due to the strict orders.
he was continually receiving from the Indianapolis office demanding economical
operation. Therefore he employed no employees above the number required to-
operate the plant. In this situation a curtailment in production will not entail.
a reduction in the number of employees. On the contrary it will require a
reduction in. the number of hours of operation rather than a reduction of
staff.
That was true in the instant case. The discharge of the 5 women graders re-
sulted in the transfer of 1 shift of 4 drier operators to grading causing the
other 2 drier shifts to work 12-hour shifts instead of the usual 8-hour with the,
extra 4 hours being paid for at overtime rates. Connor's job being an essential
one like the graders was also soon filled. Subsequently the Respondent has.
employed 20 or 30 new employees but Rogers was the only one rehired.
The production records of the Cleveland plant" together with the speed with,
which on January 27 Tousek set about recruiting an antiunion crew to open
a new mill in Mississippi if the Respondent should decide to close the Cleveland.
plant is unrebuttable proof that Respondent required the Cleveland production,
and that the threat to close the Cleveland plant was dictated by its new union
affiliation rather than a dearth of orders.
The undersigned is therefore convinced and finds that Tousek and Pierce both
stated the true reason for the discharges when they stated that the discharged,
employees would all vote for the Union and were fooling around with the CIO.
and that the-Respondent, therefore, did discriminate against the said Cora
Stots, Easter Buckley, Leevia Jones, Rosa Timmons, Jessie Crawford, and Prince
Connor"' because of their known union affiliation and activity and in order to.
discourage membership in the Union.
3. The discharges of Dixon, Driver, and Howard
Employees Dixon, Driver, and Howard were employed in operating the drier.
This wort. consisted of feeding the wet veneer into the drier at one end of the
30 Following Connor ' s eviction one or more of the Respondent ' s houses remained vacant
for months.
"The records at Cleveland show the following production : December 1948, 256,000,
feet ; January 1949, 173,000 feet ; February 272,000 feet ; March 184,000 feet ; and April
186,000 feet. In March, production was interfered with by the explosion of the boiler,
in April by trouble with the lathe and by a vacation period beginning April 22.
33 The complaint does not list James Rogers as having been discriminatorily discharged
so his case is not Considered.
889227-51-vol. 89-42
,644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
drier and removing the veneer when it came out the other, or tail, end. These
employees were also engaged, in bringing the wet veneer from the grading table
to the drier on what is known as a buggy.
When the mill is operating at full capacity, one shift in the mill operation
produces sufficient veneer to keep the drier operating three full shifts totaling
24 hours.
It has been found to be impossible for employees handling thin veneer to use
gloves so that the men do not wear gloves. As previously found, heaters had
been installed particularly for the employees working on the drier because
handling wet veneer with bare hands has a tendency to cause a man to get cold.
Both the Cleveland plant and the other veneer plant located in Cleveland had
found it necessary on this account to provide heat for these drier employees.
Commencing just prior to the election of January 27 and continuing for a num-
ber of days thereafter, the weather in Cleveland had been extremely cold for
that part of the country 33 On January 30, 1949, a heavy snow fell. This was a
most unusual event for Cleveland as it was only the third time in some 17 years
that Cleveland had had a snowfall.
On January 27, 1949, the Respondent removed both heaters from the two
ends of the drier as found, supra.
On January 28, the day following the election, the drier only worked until
approximately 6 p.m., because of a shortage of veneer. Even at that, one of the
employees complained about the lack of heat. Foreman Anderson stated that
there would be no heat.
When the employees returned for work on Tuesday, February 1, 1949, they
inquired of Foreman Anderson if there was going to be any fires for them that
night. Foreman Anderson referred them to Superintendent Pierce after saying
that there were to be no fires and that they were not to be allowed to warm
themselves in the boiler room. When the employees made the same inquiry of
Pierce, Pierce confirmed Anderson's statement. The men thereupon left their
employment on the grounds that it was impossible to work the veneer without
heat. The Respondent paid them off. As the men left the plant Pierce remarked :
There goes three of our Union men. Now if we can get rid of J. B. Green,
Walter Ford, and Lee Thomas , Jr.-that will be just about all of the button
boys 34-they will all be gone 35
As heretofore found that the removal of the heaters was a part of the Re-
spondent ' s campaign to make conditions as disagreeable as possible for the
employees in order to prove to them that conditions under the Union would be
worse than without the Union. That this was the purpose of the Respondent
in removing the heaters was proved one evening when employee Clay asked per-
mission of Foreman "Dood" Jones to go to the boiler room to warm himself.
Jones refused the request but finally permitted Clay to go to the boiler room
33 Government reports from Houston, some miles away, show the temperature to have
been from 5 degrees to as much as 30 degrees below the normal temperature for the period
from January 26 to February 3. On February 1 the average temperature for the day was
36 degrees , 18 below normal . On February 2, the average temperature was 48 degrees with
with a maximum of 59 and a minimum of 37 or 6 degrees below normal temperature.
34 Following the election the union members wore union buttons.
36 Pierce denied making the statement but his version of the episode differs only in that
he testified he said : "There goes three guys who are quitting who I will have to replace
and I hope [the new employees ] are not like them."
CLEVELAND VENEER COMPANY 645
for that purpose but took the occasion to remind Clay that the Union would
not permit such a thing to happen.ae
These three employees were all members of the Union as the Respondent knew.
As the purpose of the removal of the heaters and the tightening of the loan
regulations was to make conditions more unpleasant for the employees in re-
prisal for their having voted for the I. W. A. as their bargaining representative
and as these employees abandoned their employment because of the unpleasant
conditions of employment inflicted upon them by the Respondent for the purpose
'of discouraging their membership in the Union, and as the Respondent knew
them to be active union members, the undersigned finds that the Respondent, in
effect, discharged these employees because of their union membership by means
of activities designed to discourage membership in that Union.
The undersigned, therefore, finds that the Respondent constructively discharged
John Driver, Ernest Dixon, and Bonnie Howard because of their membership in,
and activity on behalf of, the I. W. A.
4. The discharge of Duke Haile
Duke Haile was employed by the Respondent from August 2, 1948, to May 9,
1949, as a bundler. During that period of time there was no criticism of Haile's
work but, in fact, sometime in February 1949, Pierce complimented him for having
taken the lead among the bundlers at the plant and told him that he was to
be considered as the "head" bundler. Until February 20, 1949, Haile was being
paid at the rate of 60 cents per hour, the minimum rate of pay for men at the plant.
With the advent of the CIO, Haile became interested in the Union, attending
the meetings at the Santa Fe Depot, those at the Hollis store, and attending at
least two subsequent meetings which were held at the Home Help Club in the
Negro quarter. Pierce admitted having seen him at the meeting at the Santa Fe
Depot and Tousek conversed with Haile and saw him go into the meeting at the
Hollis store. In addition to this, Pierce testified that Haile was talking about
the Union whenever he, Pierce, went through the plant and that Haile was always
talking Union with Pierce's brother who worked with Haile as a bundler.
Both Tousek and Pierce appear in their testimony to go out of their way
to indicate that Haile was •reporting to them regarding the union activities
during the period of those activities.
Pierce explained to Haile that the Company had paid-up insurance plans
and plans for new dwellings for the employees already on Tousek's desk but
would not go ahead with those plans because of the Union. This was practically
the same remark Tousek made in his speech to the employees.
On other occasions, Pierce casually remarked to Haile that he had seen Haile's
friend that day, Mr. Paul White (the I. W. A. organizer).
After the election, when Haile desired to go warm himself, lie was told by
Pierce that the Union could furnish the heat from now on, and that the employees
would have to go to the Union to get their heat. Pierce also told Haile after the
election that "the boys could go to the Union for their loans" and the Company
would not loan them any more money.
Haile acted as the I. W. A. representative at the Labor Board election of January
27. On the day before the election, Haile told the company officials that be
20 The Respondent did not call Jones as a witness and therefore this episode stands
uncontradicted on the record.
646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
wanted to resign from that position but was told by the company officials that he
should go ahead and serve. On that occasion, several of the company foremen
were allowed to vote unchallenged ballots because Haile did not know that they
could effectively recommend or discharge the employees.
Beginning with the payroll of February 20, 1949, Haile's wage was increased
to 65 cents per hour. He was told at this time by his brother-in-law, Wayne
Steward, the bookkeeper, that Al Pierce had authorized the increase in wage.
This increase followed within a few days the date on which Pierce had remarked
to Haile that Haile was to act as the head bundler.
A few days after receiving the 5-cent increase, Haile mentioned the fact to
Pierce and stated that he probably would have gotten his raise earlier if it had
not been for the Union. Haile continued to receive his remuneration at this
increased rate until May 5, 1949.
On May 5, 1949, Pierce came to where the men were working at the end of the
drier and said, "what are you guys going to do if the job shuts down-go to the
union or what?" Haile, who was wearing his union button on the inside of his
shirt, brought it into sight and said that the Union might look awfully good to
the men before this thing was all over. This was the first time that Haile had
ever shown his button openly.
A few hours after having made this remark to Pierce, Haile was called into
the office by Pierce saying that Tousek wanted to see him. Upon arrival at the
office, Tousek stated that he had just discovered that Haile had gotten a raise on
February 5 but that there was no place on the payroll for a raise since the Union
had come in and that a very bad mistake had been made as Haile was not
eligible for such an increase. Tousek then stated that there was only one thing
to do and that was for the Company to reimburse itself for the mistake by taking
the money out of Haile's current pay check. Haile protested this vigorously
saying that he had gotten an honest raise and that he did not think it was right
for the Company to take the money away from him again. Both Tousel: and
Pierce denied knowing that Haile had been granted a raise when Haile told them
that Steward had informed him that Pierce had authorized the raise. Haile
stated that he was sorry that the job had not lasted 2 weeks longer until his
children were out of school. He then suggested that it was all a misunderstanding
and that they should wait until Wayne Steward returned from his vacation and
straighten the whole matter up at one time.
The plant had closed down for the vacation period between the 22nd of April
and the 9th of May. During this time, almost all the employees were on vacation
and only a few of them, including Haile, were allowed to work around the plant
doing repair work. For this period of time, Tousek himself made out the payroll
beginning with the payroll of April 24.
On May 9, when Steward returned from his vacation, Tousek, Pierce, Steward,
and Haile gathered in the Respondent's office. Tousek again reiterated his
remarks about the mistake which had been made on the payroll and asked
Steward who had authorized the increase for Haile. Steward replied that Pierce
had authorized the increase. Pierce then answered that Steward was a -
- liar. Tousek then stated that Steward knew the rules that he was not to
make increases on the payroll without authority from Tousek himself, and then
added that Steward should return in about an hour and get his check. With
that, Tousek turned to Haile and told him that he should return also in an
hour for Tousek was letting Haile go, too. When Haile protested against being
discharged, Tousek said that he did not blame Haile so much as he blamed
CLEVELAND VENEER COMPANY 647
himself for not having caught the error earlier but that Haile had stated that
he was quitting anyhow sd they were taking him at his word and letting him go.
When Haile returned for his checks, he was given a check for $0.00 for 1
week's work and his check for the second week then due him was reduced in
.the amount of 47 cents in order to cover the amount Tousek claimed to be due
to the Company arising from this mistake.
The Respondent knew that Haile was active in the Union. From the testi-
mony of Tousek and Pierce with their continual attempt to indicate that Haile
was one of their chief sources of information as to the activities of the Union,
it appears that the Respondent had come to the conclusion that Haile was an
undercover agent of the Respondent in the Union. However, on May 5, when
Haile showed his union button to Pierce and stated that that button might come
in handy before everything was settled, the Respondent appears to have gotten
another idea as to Haile's feelings on the question of union membership. After
discovering that Haile was more genuinely enthusiastic about the Union' than
either Tousek or Pierce had formerly believed, they decided to discharge him.
As the Respondent was continuing its efforts to eliminate union members from
employment, and as Haile's conversations with Pierce's brother regarding the
Union continued unabated despite this campaign, the Respondent decided to
remove an obstacle to their campaign.
Tousek's insistence that Haile repay the Respondent the 5 cents per hour
which he had been paid through the Company's mistake since February 20 and
for which, at no time during the conversations with Haile or at the hearing, did
Tousek ever intimate Haile was responsible, was one means of forcing Haile
to resign. Despite the fact that Haile considered the Respondent's insistence
upon the repayment of this money out of his check unfair, Haile refused to
resign. Yet, on May 9, Tousek told Haile that he was letting him go not
because of anything connected with the wage increase but, on the contrary,
because Haile allegedly had said that he was going to quit in 2 weeks. As the
Respondent was forced thereafter to hire another head bundler, Tousek's insist-
ence upon Haile's resignation or discharge is highly incongruous without some
strong, hidden, and imperative reason actuating the action. If Tousek had
considered Haile to be responsible for an underhanded and illegal increase in
salary, that certainly might have justified the discharge but Tousek expressly
disclaimed believing any such thing.
It is also inconceivable to the undersigned that Tousek suddenly on May 5
discovered for the first time that Haile had been granted a 5-cent increase some
10 weeks after the increase had been in effect and had been shown on the pay-
roll which he looked over every week prior to their being sent to the home
-office in Indianapolis. Tousek contended that he discovered the error the first
time that he made out a payroll himself but the facts show that he made out
the payroll of April 24 by himself without making the discovery.
The actions of Pierce in this matter are also highly peculiar. Almost im-
mediately after having received the increase, Haile mentioned the matter to
Pierce who testified that he was very surprised at the increase and meant to
check up on it immediately but also testified that he completely "forgot" about
it until Tousek mentioned the matter to him on May 5. The undersigned is
convinced that if there were actually a mistake in the granting of the increase
to Haile, that said mistake would have been discovered many weeks before May
5. The undersigned is also convinced that this matter of the payroll increase
was used by the Respondent as a subterfuge with which to nullify the actual
reason for Halle's discharge ; to wit, Haile's continued adherence to the Union.
648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In addition to the above, the Respondent contended that Steward had been
given strict orders to make no increases in pay on 4he payroll without the ex-
press authorization of Tousek and Tousek alone. Steward denied that he had
ever been given such instructions and pointed to the case of the increases made
to Bertha Hadnot as proof of the fact that either Tousek or Pierce could authorize
the increase. The fact that Tousek inquired of Pierce whether he had author-
ized the Haile increase before he ever mentioned the matter to either Haile or
Steward militates against the testimony of Tousek that he, and he alone, could
grant wage increases. . If specific instructions had, in fact, been given to Steward,
then there was no occasion for Tousek's inquiry as to whether Pierce had
authorized the increase. Even if specific instructions had been given to Steward
and been disobeyed by him, that fact would have justified the discharge of
Steward but would not have justified the discharge of Haile.
The undersigned is therefore convinced that the hidden motive activating the
Respondent's discharge of employee Haile was the fact that he remained an
active member of the Union despite the Respondent's campaign against such
membership."
5. The discharge of L. Thomas, Jr.
Thomas had worked for the Respondent off and on since April 1946.
He attended the various union meetings held at the Santa Fe Depot, at the
Hollis store,. and at the Home Help Club. He joined the Union sometime in
August 1948. It was Thomas who asked Tousek at the second speech why the
Company was against the Union if the Union was going to make conditions and
pay worse. Tousek testified that after this question had been asked, he an-
swered it by saying that the intervention of the Union as a third party working
tinder a union contract would change the personal relationship then existing
between the Respondent and its employees which was bad for both the Company
and the employees.
As Thomas was checking out of the plant the afternoon after the speech,
as found heretofore, Tousek saw him and called him over for an additional
talk. Tousek asked Thomas why he thought Tousek was against the Union.
After Thomas had answered that he believed that to be so because of the things
Tousek had said in his speech, Tousek reminded him of the time some time past
when Thomas' wife had been pregnant and Thomas had come to Tousek with
tears in his eyes asking help from the Respondent to get his wife to the hospital.
Tousek continued the conversation by stating to Thomas that if the Union be-
came the bargaining agent and succeeded in securing a union contract, the
Company would no longer be able to assist the employees in that particular way
because the Company would have to do the salve for all the employees which would
make it too expensive for the Company. At the time of this conversation,
Tousek knew that Thomas' wife was again pregnant. Thomas' answer was to
the effect that on this occasion he believed he would be able to pay for his wife's
expenses himself. Obviously thinking of the election which was to take place
the next day, Tousek ended the conversation by saying,-"you had better give it
some thought between now and morning."
As heretofore found, as Pierce watched Driver, Dixon, and Howard leaving
the plant after their resignation on account of the fact that there would be no
34 The complaint of the General Counsel did not allege that the discharge of Steward
was a discriminatory discharge so that that question will not be considered in this inter-
mediate Report.
CLEVELAND VENEER COMPANY 649,
heat, he remarked to Steward that there went three union men and that if
they could eliminate Lee Thomas and two others, all the "button boys" would
be gone.
. About 11 o'clock on February.2, Thomas was working as usual at the grad-
ing table when Pierce called him from the end of the table to come move a
buggy from one track to the other.
These buggies are made of steel rail and steel wheels, running upon 2 rail-
road tracks. They weigh about 250 pounds apiece. The tracks run from
the end of the grading table to the drier where the veneer loaded at the grading
table on to the buggies is taken off and put into the drier. At each end of this
40-foot track, the buggies are manually lifted from one track on to the other
so that the loaded buggies are always on one track while the unloaded buggies
are on the other track. While the buggies can be moved by two men, the work
is generally done by four.
As Thomas was standing waiting for some help in moving the buggy, Pierce
suddently ordered him to move the buggy alone, making his order emphatic
with considerable profanity. As one of the Negro witnesses described the scene,,
"a confusion" occurred between Pierce and Thomas. During this "confusion"
Pierce was guilty of addressing much profanity at Thomas. Thomas objected
to being sworn at. However, Pierce continued swearing even after Thomas had,
requested that he cease. Pierce demanded that he move the buggy alone or
go home. Thomas said he would prefer to go home than have Pierce curse him-
Pierce ordered him home but refused to give Thomas his check. Thomas there-
upon checked out from work at about 11: 30 a. m., and went home.
About 1 o'clock that afternoon, Thomas returned to the plant and commenced
to work at his usual work on the grading table. When Pierce discovered that
Thomas had returned, Pierce refused with profanity to allow him to work
and threatened to bring the law upon him if he did not get out of the Respondent's
plant. Thomas asked why he, Pierce, cursed him and whether it was because
of the Union, to which Pierce answered "damn the Union." Thomas then was
given his checks and left the plant.
In most essential details, Pierce's testimony of this episode corroborates that
of Thomas except as to the extent of the profanity used, although Pierce included
in his testimony the fact that, after Pierce had refused to give him his check,
Thomas began following him around the yard with his hand in his pocket that
Pierce became frightened that Thomas might do him bodily harm with a pos-
sible knife which Pierce testified he thought Thomas might have in his pocket 38
Because of this fear, Pierce thereupon ordered the bookkeeper to make out
Thomas' checks for him and was promptly relieved of Thomas' presence, accord-
ing to Pierce's testimony.
In view of the Respondent's obvious attempt to get rid of all the union
members and in view of Pierce's statement that if they could get rid of Thomas
and two others, then the button boys would be gone, the undersigned is con-
vinced, and therefore, finds that Pierce deliberately swore at and picked a
quarrel with Thomas in order to justify him in eliminating Thomas from the
Respondent's employ, and that Thomas was constructively discharged by the
Respondent because of his membership in the Union. ,
11 Pierce admitted he never saw a knife.
650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, occurring in con-
nection with its operations described in Section I above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of Cora Stots , Easter Buckley , Leevia Jones, Rosa
Timmons , Jessie Crawford, Prince Connor , Ernest Dixon , Charles Driver, Bonnie
Howard , Lee A. Thomas, Jr ., and Duke Haile . It will , therefore , be recommended
that the Respondent offer to each of the above -named individuals immediate and
full reinstatement to his former , or a substantially equivalent position " without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and make each of them
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's
discrimination against him , by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that
which he normally would have earned as wages as an employee from the date
of his discharge to the date of the offer for reinstatement , less his net earnings
during that period.
As the undersigned has also found that the Respondent discriminatorily evicted
Connor from a company-owned house , it will be further recommended that the
Respondent offer Connor immediate occupancy of his former or equivalent liv-
ing quarters in a company -owned house on the same terms accorded other em-
ployees without any payment of rent for the first 3 weeks of such occupancy as
Connor has already paid therefor 40 and, further, that the Respondent make
Connor whole for any loss he may have suffered by reason of his discriminatory
eviction by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he has had
to pay as rental for other living quarters from the date of the eviction to the
date he is offered reinstatement and occupancy in the manner set forth above,
plus such additional expenses as he may have incurred during said period as
a direct result of his eviction , but less the amount he would normally have paid
as rent for his company -owned house during said period.
Furthermore , in order to fully restore the status quo as to Duke Haile, it will
be recommended that in addition to the above , the Respondent repay to Haile
the same sum of money by which it reduced his earnings on the date of his
discharge with interest at 6 percent per annum until paid.
It has also been found that the Respondent eliminated the heaters and changed
its policy as to making loans to its employees in order to discourage membership
in the Union . In order, therefore , to restore the status quo, it will further be
recommended that the Respondent provide its employees with some safe method
39 In accordance with the Board ' s consistent interpretation of the term , the expression,
"former or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean "former position when-
ever possible and if such position is no longer in existence , then to a substantially equiva-
lent position ." See The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan , Puerto
Rico , Branch, 65 NLRB 827.
¢0 The fact that after acceptance of the $3 rent money Respondent chose to forward this
money to the person from whom it was borrowed does not relieve Respondent of its lia-
bility to Connor nor Connor of his liability to white.
CLEVELAND VENEER COMPANY 651
of warming themselves during working hours equivalent to that which they
enjoyed prior to the removal of the heaters ; and further, that the Respondent
allow the employees to borrow from it small sums of money to the same extent
and under the same regulations as was done prior to the time when the Respond-
ent "tightened up" its loan policy.
The undersigned is convinced that the unfair labor practices found indicate
a disposition on the part of the Respondent to thwart the right to self-organiza-
tion of its employees and to deprive them 'of their rights under the Act. The
past practices of the Respondent in this case indicate a propensity on its part
not only that such unfair labor practices may be repeated but also that other
unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act may be resorted to and committed
by the Respondent in its efforts to thwart organization. It will, therefore, be
recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner inter-
fering with, or restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
rights as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of -fact, and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Woodworkers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Cora
Stots, Easter Buckley, Leevia Jones, Rosa Timmons, Jessie Crawford, Prince
Connor, Ernest Dixon, Charles Driver, Bonnie Howard,.Lee A. Thomas, Jr., and
Duke Haile, thereby discouraging membership in International Woodworkers
of America, CIO, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in,
and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon the entire record in
the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the amended Act, the undersigned
recommends that International Wire-Bound Box Company d/b/a Cleveland
Veneer Company, the officers, agents, successors, and assigns of each shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Woodworkers of America,
CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminatorily
discharging, constructively discharging, refusing to reinstate any of its em-
ployees, or by discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of their employment ; and
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist International Woodworkers of America, CIO, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Cora Stots, Easter Buckley, Leevia Jones, Rosa Timmons, Jessie
Crawford, Prince Connor, Ernest Dixon, Charles Driver, Bonnie Howard, Lee
A. Thomas, Jr., and Duke Haile, immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges and make each of them whole in the manner set
forth in Section V, above, entitled "The remedy" ;
(b) Provide the employees with some safe method of warming themselves
during working hours equivalent to that which they enjoyed prior to the removal
of the heaters ;
(c) Permit the employees to borrow small sums of money from it to the same
extent and under the same regulations as was done prior to the time that the
Respondent "tightened up" its loan policy;
(d) Post at its plant in Cleveland, Texas, copies of the notice attached hereto
and marked Appendix A. Copies-of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Sixteenth Region, after having been signed by representatives
of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive clays thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; and
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in writing, within
twenty (20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board any party may, within twenty (20) days from the date
of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Washington 25, D. C.,
an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding
(including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together
with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party
may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support
of the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of
-,exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof
upon each of the other parties. Statements of exceptions and briefs shall desig-
nate by precise citation the portions of the record relied upon and shall be legibly
printed or mimeographed, and if mimeographed shall be double spaced. Proof of
service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly
made as required by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46
should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request
therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date
of service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations, as pro-
vided in Section 203.48 of said Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board
CLEVELAND VENEER COMPANY 653
and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall
be deemed waived for all purposes. '
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 12th day of October 1949.
THOMAS S. WILSON,
Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL provide our employees with some safe method of warming them-
selves during working hours equivalent to that which they enjoyed prior to the
removal of the heaters on January 27, 1949.
WE WILL permit our employees to borrow small sums of money to the same
extent and tinder the same regulations as was done prior to January 27, 1949.
WE wiLL also offer Prince Connor immediate occupancy of his former or
equivalent living quaiters in a company-owned house on the same terms'
accorded other employees together with a financial adjustment for any losses
be may have suffered by reason of the eviction.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Cora Stots Prince Connor
Easter Buckley Ernest Dixon
Leevia Jones Charles Driver
Rosa Timmons Bonnie Howard
Jessie Crawford Lee A. Thomas, Jr.
Duke Haile
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
INDIANAPOLIS WIRE-BOUND Box COMPANY
d/b/a CLEVELAND VENEER COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated ---------------------- By--------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced . or covered by any other material.