Cummer-Graham Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 722 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of CUMMER-GRAHAM COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
Cases Nos. 16-C-15411 and 16-C-1541.-Decided June 30, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 31, 1949, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
Respondent had engaged 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, Respondent and the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and
supporting briefs. Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby
denied, as the record and briefs, in our opinion, adequately set forth
the positions of the parties.'
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed, except as indicated below. The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following
additions and modifications :
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent independ-
ently violated Section 8 (a) (1) both at its Mineola and Longview 2
plants by its conduct as hereinafter set forth:
a. At Mineola
(1) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership.3
(2) Keeping union meetings under surveillance.
' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this proceeding to a three -member panel [ Chairman Herzog
and Members Reynolds and Styles'.
2 In affirming the Trial Examiner's 8 (a) (1 ) finding with respect to the Longview plant,
we do not rely upon the statement of Hudnall to Lucilius Long.
2 Included in this finding are instances of interrogation after the Union filed its charges
Iii this case . We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent's contention that it was
merely preparing its defense is without merit , as the interrogation could not have con-
stituted part of such defense . See Joy Silk Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 1263.
90 NLRB No. 114.
722
CUMMER-GRAHAM COMPANY 723
(3) Threatening an employee with discharge because he had joined
the Union. With respect to this incident, the Trial Examiner found
that Foreman Young, after asking to see Tom Dollar's union card,
said "That will get you fired." Respondent has excepted specifically,
to this finding, asserting in effect that the reply was, "That will get,
you far." True, Dollar's testimony appears in the transcript as:
asserted by the Respondent. However, Respondent's counsel, in
examining Young about this statement, asked, "Did you .. ,
say . . . `Well, that will get you fired'?" Whichever of these two
words Young used, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Respond-
ent made an unlawful threat.
(4) Discontinuing the rest periods. The Trial Examiner rejected
an offer of proof made by Respondent to the effect that it had dis-
continued rest periods at two of its other plants, not connected with
this proceeding, before there was any union activity at those plants.
As this proof might be relevant to Respondent's motive in discon-
tinuing the rest periods at its Mineola plant, we hereby reverse the
ruling of the Trial Examiner, and accept the offer as proof. We are
convinced, nevertheless, for the reasons stated by the Trial Examiner,
that Respondent discontinued the rest periods at Mineola because the
employees had expressed interest in the Union, and we so find.
(5) Discontinuing the "emergency fund."
b. At Longview
(1) Interrogating employees concerl]ing their union membership.
(2) Keeping a union meeting under surveillance.4
(3) Threatening to close the plant.
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated
the Act by discharging Gladys Gamage and Beatrice Sanders Frase.
We also agree with the Trial Examiner that the discharge of Oradell
Young was not in violation of Section 8 (a) (3). We are not con-
vinced that Respondent knew or believed that Young was a union
member or adherent at the time it discharged her. True, Respondent
engaged in surveillance of the union meeting which Young attended,
and some employees testified that the surveillance took place while
Young was there. But the surveillance, while open, was limited to
two brief periods, and Young did not testify that she observed it while
entering or leaving the meeting hall. Under all the circumstances we
think it unlikely that the other employees were correct in testifying
that the surveillance took place while Young was there, or that they
would have remembered when one particular employee out of a large
4 The Trial Examiner inadvertently states that Harold Brown participated in this sur-
veillance . Actually , it was Office Manager William Brown, and we therefore correct his
finding.
724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
number who attended that meeting arrived, especially as there was
no reason at the time for them to have this minutia impressed on their
memories. Not only is the evidence insufficient to warrant our finding
that Respondent was aware of Young's union adherence when it
discharged her, but the reason advanced by Respondent for her dis-
charge, that she was an unsatisfactory employee, is borne out by the
evidence. Accordingly, we are satisfied, as was the Trial Examiner,
that the discharge of Oradell Young was not discriminatory.
Unlike the Trial Examiner, however, we find that Henry Lawrence
was not discriminatorily discharged. When Hudnall called Lawrence
to his office on several occasions and asked him to help get the other
strikers to come back Lawrence refused, told Hudnall that he had
other employment which he considered better than his former job with
Respondent, and that he was no longer interested in working for
Respondent. On the basis of these assertions, contends Respondent,
it determined to send Lawrence his tool box, assuming that he would
need the tools. We believe that Lawrence's unequivocal statements
to Hudnall that he no longer desired employment with Respondent
justified Hudnall's action in sending Lawrence his tools. Under these
circumstances, we do not consider this action a discriminatory dis-
charge in violation of Section 8 (a) (3).6
The Trial Examiner found that the layoff of Dorothy Skinner in
December 1948 was nondiscriminatory. No exceptions have been filed
to this finding. Accordingly, we shall not order her reinstated. She
is, however, entitled to back pay, in the usual manner, for the earlier
period from February 4, 1947, when Respondent discriminatorily re-
fused to reinstate her, until September 1948, when Respondent did
reinstate her.
3. We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent has violated
the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union at Longview 6 and at
Mineola. Like the Trial Examiner, and for the reasons he advances,
we are not impressed by Respondent's assertions that it doubted the
Union's majority, that it doubted the appropriateness of the units,
and that the identity of the Union seeking representation was not
clear.7 The Union's majority status at each plant is clearly mani-
3 We shall not, therefore , include Henry Lawrence in the list of unfair labor practice
strikers attached hereto.
9 The Trial Examiner at one point inadvertently dates the Union's request to bargain
at Longview September 16, 1946. The date should be September 12, 1946, and we correct
this finding accordingly.
7 We agree with the Trial Examiner's rejection of Respondent 's offer of proof with
respect to Claude Welch, as the testimony that Respondent expected to adduce from Welch
would not be relevant to the issues in this case.
CUMMER-GRAHAM COMPANY 725
fested by the authorization cards in evidence.a That Respondent's
refusals to bargain with the Union were not in good faith is empha-
sized, as the Trial Examiner concludes, by the unfair labor practices,
enumerated above, in which it engaged during the Union's organiza-
tional campaigns at Mineola and Longview, both before and after the
requests to bargain were made, and by Respondent's refusal to consent
to elections in any units .9
4. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the strikes at Mineola
and Longview were caused and prolonged by Respondent's unfair
labor practices. At Mineola, as the Trial Examiner found, the nature
of the strike was clear. It was caused by the interrogation, the sur-
veillance, the threat to discharge a union adherent, the discontinuation
of the rest periods and the emergency fund, and, finally, the flat refusal
to recognize the Union. At Longview, the transfer of logs from
Mineola did precipitate the strike. But before the strike, Respondent
had engaged in a series of unfair labor practices, including interroga-
tion, surveillance, a threat to close the plant, the discharge of two em-
ployees because of their union activity, and a refusal to recognize the
Union. At a union meeting before the strike, a resolution to strike
at a'.'propitious time" was passed, a resolution occasioned by the afore-
mentioned unfair labor practices. Under these circumstances, the
movement of logs from Mineola was at most an additional factor con-
tributing to the strike.
As the strikes were caused and prolonged by Respondent's unfair
labor practices, Respondent violated the Act, as the Trial Examiner
found, by refusing to reemploy the strikers on February 4, 1947, when
the Union applied unconditionally for their reinstatement. We fur-
ther find that these strikers consist of the Longview employees listed
in Appendix A and the Mineola employees listed in Appendix B, at-
tached hereto 10
5. We agree with the Trial Examiner that Foreman Hayward Head
is entitled to the same remedy as the other unfair labor practice strik-
6 Although many of the authorization cards relied upon by the Union merely contained
the designation "CIO," such a designation is sufficient to include the Union , an interna-
tional affiliated with the CIO. Weaver Wlntark, 87 NLRB 351.
9 See Highland Park Manufacturing Company, 84 NLRB 744; Joy Silk Mills, Inc ., supra.
'5 The Trial Examiner inadvertently included Mathew Germany and John Taylor as
unfair labor practice strikers at Longview , although he correctly finds that Germany and
Taylor were not shown to be Longview employees at the time of the strike. We shall not,
therefore, include these employees as unfair labor practice strikers.
On the other hand, the Trial Examiner has not found to be unfair labor practice strikers
Madeline Stafford, John E. Taylor, and Lane Poe at Longview, and Lillie Frances Davis,
Eual Taylor, and Johnny Brown at Mineola. We find that these individuals were unfair
labor practice strikers , and shall include them as such.
726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ers.,- Significantly, the Respondent did not base its treatment of Head
upon the fact that he was a supervisory employee, but dealt with him
in exactly the manner it dealt with the other unfair labor practice
strikers, thereby discriminating against him as well as the other strik-
ers. Recently, the Board said, "We have always held that when an
employee is discharged because his employer believes him to be en-
gaged in concerted activity, the discharge is violative of the Act,
whether or not such belief is well founded." 12 The earlier Fontaine
case, cited by our dissenting colleague, not only presents at most a
converse situation to that present here, but, on the facts of this case,
is entirely inapplicable. In any event, Head's activity was protected
as he struck in sympathy with the unfair labor practice strikers.13
The Remedy
Having found that Respondent discriminated with respect to the
hire and tenure of employment of the unfair labor practice strikers
listed in Appendices A and B by rejecting the Union's unconditional
application on their behalf on February 4, 1947, we shall order Re-
spondent to offer to each of them, to the extent that they have not
already been reinstated, immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions,14 without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's
discrimination against them. Consistent with the new policy
adopted by the Board in the Woolworth case '15 we shall order that the
loss of pay be computed on the basis of each separate calendar quarter
or portion thereof during the period from February 4, 1947, to the
date of a proper offer of reinstatement, except that we shall toll the
back pay accruing to those employees whom the Trial Examiner did
not recommend for reinstatement or back pay (i. e., Madeline Stafford,
John E. Taylor, and Lane Poe at Longview, and Lillie Frances Davis,
Eual Taylor, and Johnny Brown at Mineola) from the date of the
Intermediate Report herein to the date of this Decision and Orden s
The quarterly periods, hereinafter called "quarters," shall begin with
the first day of January, April, July, and October. Loss of pay shall
be determined by deducting from a sum equal to that which these
"Republic Steel Corporation (Upson Division), 77 NLRB 1107.
12 New York Telephone Company, 89 NLRB 45.
is Ibid.
14 In accordance with the Board's consistent interpretation of the term, the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean "former position wher-
ever possible, but if such position is no longer in existence, then to a substantially equiva-
lent position." See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San
Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827.
11 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
10 B ct Z Hosiery Products Co., 85 NLRB 633.
CUMMER-GRAHAM COMPANY 727
employees would normally have earned for each quarter or portion
thereof, their net earnings'17 if any, in other employment during that
period. Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon
the back-pay liability for any other quarter.
Having found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Gladys
Gamage and Beatrice Sanders Frase on September 26, 1946, and fur-
ther finding that Frase was reinstated on October 13, 1946, we shall
order Respondent to offer reinstatement only to Gamage, and make
both Gamage and Frase whole. After her reinstatement in October
1946, Frase was again the victim of Respondent's discrimination on
February 4, 1947, as one of the unfair labor practice strikers refused
reinstatement. The remedy hereinabove indicated as to those strikers
will be applicable to her.
As we have indicated, we shall not order reinstatement for Dorothy
Skinner.
We shall also order, in accordance with the Woolworth decision,
supra, that the Respondent, upon request, make available to the
Board and its agents all pertinent records.
We expressly reserve the right to modify the back-pay and rein-
statement provisions if made necessary by circumstances not now
apparent 18
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Cummer-Graham
Company, Longview, Texas, and Mineola, Texas, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Wood-
workers of America, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all pro-
duction and maintenance employees, excluding clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, in separate units at
the Longview, Texas, and Mineola, Texas, plants ;
(b) Discouraging membership in International Woodworkers of
America, CIO, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its em-
ployees at Longview or Mineola or in any other manner discriminating
17 By "net earnings" Is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the Respondent , which would not have been incurred but for the unlawtui
discrimination and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See
Crossett Lumber Co., 8 NLRB 440, 497-498. Monies received for work performed upon
Federal, State , county, municipal , or other work-relief projects shall be considered as
earnings : See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
" Fairmount Creamery Company, 64 NLRB 824 ; B cf Z Hosiery Products Co., supra.
728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in regard to their hire or tenure of employment , or any term or con-
dition of their employment;
(c) By surveillance , interrogation , threats, discriminatory discon-
tinuation of rest periods , or in any other manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing its employees at Longview or Mineola in the
exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist International Woodworkers of America, CIO,
or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing , to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any or all 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.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Wood-
workers of America, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all pro-
duction and maintenance employees , excluding clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, in separate units at
the Longview, Texas, and Mineola, Texas, plants;
(b) Offer Gladys Gamage immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to her
seniority or other rights and privileges;
(c) Offer reinstatement to and make whole the individuals listed in
Appendices A and B attached hereto, in the manner prescribed in this
Decision and Order;
(d) Make whole Gladys Gamage and Beatrice Sanders Frase in
the manner prescribed in this Decision and Order , for any loss of pay
they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination
against them , in the case of Frase for the period from September 26
to October 13, 1946, and in the case of Gamage, from September 26,
1946, to the date of the Respondent 's offer of reinstatement;
(e) Make whole Dorothy Skinner in the manner prescribed in this
Decision and Order for any loss of pay she may have suffered by rea-
son of the Respondent 's refusal to reinstate her from February 4,
1947, to the date of her reemployment by Respondent;
(f) Upon request , make available to the National Labor Relations
Board or its agents , for examination and copying , all payroll records,
social security payment records , time cards, personnel records and
reports, and all other records necessary for a determination of the
amounts of back pay and the offers of reinstatement due under the
terms of this Order;
CUMME;R- GRAHAM COMPANY 729
(g) Post at its plant at Longview, Texas, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked Appendix C, and at its plant at Mineola,
Texas, copies of the notice attached hereto marked Appendix D.
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places in each respective plant, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(h) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is dis-
missed, insofar as it alleges that Respondent violated the Act by
the discharges of Oradell Young and Henry Lawrence, the layoff of
Dorothy Skinner, and presenting gifts to its employees.
MEMBER REYNOLDS, dissenting in part :
I agree with the Decision and Order herein except insofar as it
finds that Hayward Head was unlawfully discriminated against and
therefore is entitled to reinstatement with back pay. Head was a
supervisory employee who joined the union seeking to represent the
production workers and participated in the union-sponsored strike.
It is clear that Head, like the rank-and-file strikers, was denied rein-
statement upon application, but the basic issue here is whether such
refusal to reinstate a foreman constituted actionable discrimination
under the original Act and not, as suggested by the majority, the ap-
plication of the settled principle that unlawful discrimination against
foremen, where found, can now be remedied.
As stated in the Decision and Order, the strike here was caused and
prolonged by certain unfair labor practices committed by the Re-
spondent in connection with rank-and-file organizing activity. In-
deed, there was no independent labor dispute between Foreman Head
vis-a-vis the Respondent, and it is apparent that his participation
in the strike was sympathetic, and solely in the interest and aid of
the rank-and-file attempt to organize and bargain collectively. In
these circumstances, I believe that our holding in the Fontaine case 19
is conversely applicable here. In that case, we held :
... that the .[rank-and-file] employees in question walked out,
not to advance their own interests, but merely to further the
11 Fontaine Converting Works, Inc., 77 NLRB 1386.
730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
interests of their foreman who they believed was demoted be-
cause of the appointment of the new general foreman. Under
these circumstances, their concerted activity was not of the char-
acter protected by the Act. Accordingly, we find, contrary to
the Trial Examiner , that the Respondent did not discriminate
against the finishing room employees. We shall, therefore, dis-
miss the complaint in this respect.
I would therefore dismiss the instant complaint as to Foreman
Head.
APPENDIX A
Curtis Baucham
Levy Coby
Elbert Crawford
Edward Gray
Nathaniel Holton
Duck Hansom
David House
Sam Huey
Judge Hutchings
Merlin Hutchings
Charley Jameson
Charley Johnson
Andrew Keys
Edward Keys
John Keys
Sam Kimbell
Elmo Lanear
Emitt Long
Luculius Long
Elzia Lucas
Judson Lucas
Robert McKinzy
Wilbert Muchelroy
Clifton Madden
O. C. Marshall
T. C. Medlock
Ben Wilburn
C. Y. Nash
Jemison Noble
Everett Norris
Ozie Robertson
Andrew Seigh
James C. Taylor
John E. Taylor
Booker T. White
Willie White
Eller Allen
Della Applegate
Elder Arnold
Eva Mae Bain
Dewie Blackman
Clarence Bowie
Henery Boyd
Johnnie Boyd
Sam Boyd
Willie Bradley
Christopher Burns
D. C. Caldwell
Otis Choice
David Cotton
Joe Crow
Felton Davis
John Henry Edens
Concha Gomez
Henry George
Etta Green
John Bailey
Neal Bradley
Lapoleon Beckard
Moses Germany
Madeline Stafford
Lane Poe
Robert Harris
Milard Haynes
Clarence Hubbard
Leon Jackson
CUMMER-GRAHAM COMPANY
APPENDIX
Elmo Ingram
Winnie Jackson
Wilma Johnson
Frank Jones
Fred Jones
Noble Johnigan
Charley Keys
Archie King
William King
Hubert Lewis
Earnest Little
Chester McIntire
Dorothy Maddox
Author McFee
Hayward Erwin
Roxie Hill
Hayward Hillard
Sylvester Mitchell
Jessie Moss
Inez Nelson
Henry Owens
Gaston Norris
Leonard Owens
Otto Pace
Lane Ponder
Wayne Robertson
William Sanders
John E. Sheppard
Fred Stanley
Clifton Seigh
A-Continued
Void Sowels
Welma D. Wade
James C. Ward
Claud Watkins
James Williams
Lavoine Williams
Travis Gregg
Hozie Hunt
Virgil Jeter
Dorothy Lipscomb
Beatrice Sanders Frase
Annie Sweat
Florence Williams
Grady Watkins
Claud Alex
Major Junion Bennett
Katie Mae Burns
Torree Bonner
Woodie Emmel
Victor Williams
Virgil Williams
Johnie Hutchinson
Oscar Lee Riggins
Dick Wilson
James Lawson
Columbus Rhodes
Dewie Sirles
William Skillern
Moody White
APPENDIX B
R. B. Attaway
Fred Bagsby
Alfred Brinkly
Lee Butler
Nadine Butler
Arnold Calip
John Cannon
Margaret Cannon
Malcolm L. Caraway
Henery L. Catron
Samanth Catron
Rufis Davis
J. W. Gallyean
Lavon Gunter
Floyd Harron
Elbert Head
LeeRay Herron
William Hewitt
Margret Hornsby
Rob Hornsby
731
732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX B-Continued
Vesely Jackson
Judge London
Sylvester Eddie London
Melvin McCauly
Lonzo Malone
John Mason
Charlie Mayse
James W. Owens
James Petty
Vester Phillips
Julius Potts
Mattie Pearl Shaw
Doris Russel
Garland Sherman
G. H. Streety
Arthur Strickland
H. G. Thomas
Harvey Tuck
Josephine Tuck
R. O. Wardlow
Bob Wheeler
Charley Wheeler
Eddie Wheeler
Francis Wheeler
Hayward Wheeler
Ozello Wheeler
Leon Williams
Vera May Williams
Holt J. Wright
Lillie Frances Davis
Eual Taylor
Johnny Brown
Rudolph Bagsby
Fay Nola Brooks
Henery Brooks
Emma Lee Crawford
Florine Daniel
Tom Dollar
William Dollar
Mamie Franks
Dora Gunter
Pleze Harvey
Bill Humphery
Wilma L. Mayse
Estelle Meazell
Andrew Patterson
Melvine Pettie
Nora Sheppard
Oscar Sheppard
David Stephens
Barbara Thomas
Vivian Walton
James Wheeler
Mary Williams
Mary Wright
H. T. Boyd
Mrs. Tom Dollar
Hayward Head
Agnes L. Mooring
W. E. Mooring
Carl T. Peebles
T. L. Peebles
Druvalle Attaway
Arthur Caberly
Flossie Coby
Monty Gresham
General Henery
R. H. Huffman
Farris Humphrey
C. A. Meazell
Anease Minatrea
Mattie L. Minatrea
Alma Paslay
A. D. Richardson
Richmond Russel
Anvil Thomas
Robt. Thomas
Sim Tuck
J. T. Wells
G. P. Wilks
A. W. Williams
Ruby Willingham
CTTMMER-GRAHAM COMPANY
APPENDIX C
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES,
733
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 by means of interrogation, threats, surveillance,
or in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to'
form labor organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL WOOD-
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all 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 Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act.
WE WILL OFFER to Gladys Gamage immediate and full reinstate-
ment to her former or substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previ-
ously enjoyed, and make her whole for any loss of pay suffered
as a result of the discrimination.
WE WILL MAKE WHOLE Beatrice Sanders Frase for any loss of
pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against her for the
period of September 26 to October 13, 1946.
To the extent that such action has not already been taken, WE
WILL OFFER to the following employees immediate and full rein-
statement 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 since February 4, 1947, as a result of the discrimination,
as indicated in this Decision and Order:
Curtis Baucham
Levy Coby
Elbert Crawford
Edward Gray
Nathaniel Holton
Duck Hansom
David House
Sam Huey
Judge Hutchings
Merlin Hutchings
Charley Jameson
Charley Johnson
Andrew Keys
Edward Keys
John Keys
Sam Kimbell
Elmo Lanear
Emitt Long
734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX C-Continued
Lucilius Long
Wilbert Muchelroy
Clifton Madden
O. C. Marshall
Della Applegate
Elder Arnold
Eva Mae Bain
Dewie Blackman
Clarence Bowie
Henery Boyd
Johnnie Boyd
Sam Boyd
Willie Bradley
Christopher Burns
D. C. Caldwell
Otis Choice
David Cotton
Joe Crow
Felton Davis
John Henry Edons
Elzie Lucas
Judson Lucas
Robert McKinzy
Robert Harris
Milard Haynes
Clarence Hubbard
Leon Jackson
Elmo Ingram
Winnie Jackson
T. C. Medlock
Ben Wilburn
C. Y. Nash
Jemison Noble
Everett Norris
Ozie Robertson
Andrew Seigh
James C. Taylor
John E. Taylor
Booker T. White
Willie White
Eller Allen'
Henery Ownns=
.Gaston Norris
Leonard Owens
Otto Pace
Lane Ponder
Wayne Robertson
William Sanders
John E. Sheppard
Grady Watkins
Clifton Seigh
Void Sowels
Wilma D. Wade
James C. Ward
Claude Watkins
James Williams
Virgil Williams
Oscar Lee Riggins
John Bailey ,
Lapoleon Backard
James Lawson
Dewie Sirles
Moody White
Hayward Erwin
Concha Gomez
Henery George
Etta Green
Roxie Hill
Hayword. Hillard
Wilma Johnson
Frank Jones
Fred Jones
Noble Johnigan
Charley Keys
Archie King
William King
Hubert Lewis
Ernest Little
Chester McIntire
Dorothy Maddox
Author McFee
Travis Gregg
Hozie Hunt
Virgil Jete! r
CTJMMER-GRAHAM COMPANY 735
APPENDIX C-Continued
Dorothy Lipscomb
Beatrice Sanders Frase
Annie Sweat
Florence Williams
Fred Stanley
Claud Alex
Major Junion Bennett
Katie Mae Barns
Toree Bonner
Woodie Emmel
Lavoine Williams
Victor Williams
Johnie Hutchinson
Dick Wilson
Neal Bradley
Moses Germany
Columbus Rhodes
William Skillern
Sylvester Mitchell
Jessie Moss
Inez Nelson
Madeline Stafford
Lane Poe
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-
named union as the exclusive representative of all employees in
the bargaining unit described herein with respect to wages, rates
of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment,
and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All production and maintenance employees at the Longview,
Texas, plant, excluding clerical employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the amended Act.
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 mem-
bership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
CUMMER-GRAHAM 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.
APPENDIX D
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
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 by means of interrogation, threats, surveillance,
discriminatory discontinuance of rest periods, or in any other
736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organ-
izations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMER-
ICA, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or 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 amended Act.
WE WILL MAKE WHOLE Dorothy Skinner for loss of pay suffered
as a result of the discrimination against her for' the period of
February 4, 1947, to the date of her reemployment by Respondent
in September 1948.
To the extent that such action has not already been taken, wE
WILL OFFER to the following employees immediate and full rein-
statement 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 since February 4, 1947, as a result of the discrimination,
as indicated in this Decision and Order :
R. B. Attaway
Fred Bagsby
Alfred Brinkly
Lee Butler
Nadine Butler
Arnold Calip
John Cannon
Margaret Cannon
Malcolm L. Caraway
Henry L. Catron
Samantha Catron
Rufus Davis
J. W. Gallyean
Lavon Gunter
Floyd Harron
Elbert Head
Lee Ray Herron
William Hewitt
Margaret Hornsby
Rob Hornsby
Wesly Jackson
Judge London
Sylvester Eddie London
Melvin McCauly
Lonzo Malone
Doris Russel
Garland Sherman
G. H. Streety
Arthur Strickland
H. G. Thomas
Harvey Tuck
Josephine Tuck
R. O. Wardlow
Bob Wheeler
Charley Wheeler
Eddie Wheeler
Francis Wheeler
Hayward Wheeler
Ozello Wheeler
Leon Williams
Vera May Williams
Holt J. Wright
CUMMER-GRAHAM COMPANY 737
APPENDIX D-Continued
Rudolph Bagsby
Fay Nola Brooks
Henery Brooks
Emma Lee Crawford
Florenne Daniel
Tom Dollar
William Dollar
John Mason
Charlie Mayse
James W. Owens
James Petty
Vester Phillips
Julius Potts
Mattie Pearl Shaw
Nora Sheppard
Oscar Sheppard
David Stephens
Barbara Thomas
Vivian Walton
James Wheeler
Mary Williams
Mary Wright
H. T. Boyd
Mrs. Tom Dollar
Hayward Head
Agnes L. Mooring
W. E. Mooring
Carl T. Peebles
T. L. Peebles
Druvelle Attaway
Arthur Caberly
Flossie Coby
Lillie Frances Davis
Eual Taylor
Mamie Franks
Dora Gunter
Pleze Harvey
Bill Humphrey
Wilma L. Mayse
Estelle Meazell
Andrew Patterson
Melvine Pettie
Monty Gresham
General Henery
R. H. Huffman
Farris Humphrey
C. A. Meazell
Anease Minatrea
Mattie L. Minatrea
Alma Paslay
A. D. Richardson
Richmond Russel
Anvil Thomas
Robert Thomas
Sim Tuck
J. T. Wells
G. P. Wilks
A. W. Williams
Ruby Willingham
Johnny Brown
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-
named union as the exclusive representative of all employees in
the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and
if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at the Mineola,
Texas, plant, excluding clerical employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the amended act.
903847-51-vol. 90-48
738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 member-
ship in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
CUMMER-GRAI-IAM COMPANY,
Employer.
By ------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
E. Don Wilson, Esq., of Fort Worth, Tex., for the General Counsel.
C. B. Fisher, Esq., of Paris, Tex., and Frank C. Bolton, Esq., of Longview,
Tex., for the Respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed April 14, 1947, by International Woodworkers of
America, CIO , herein called the Union in Case No. 16-C-1540, and upon another
charge duly filed by the Union on the same date in Case No., 16-C-1541, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , herein called respec-
tively the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director for the
.Sixteenth Region , Fort Worth, Texas , on November 2, 1948, issued a complaint
.against Cummer-Graham Company , Mineola and Longview, Texas ; herein called
Respondent , alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and
.Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the
.Act, 49 Stat . 449 and Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5 ) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
,of the National Labor Relations Act as amended , 61 Stat. 136 , herein called
the amended Act, at both its Mineola and Longview , Texas, plants . Copies of
the charges , the complaint , an order consolidating the eases , and notice of hear-
ing were duly served upon Respondent and the Union.
With respect to unfair labor practices the complaint, as served , alleged in
substance that Respondent ( 1) on or about September 16, 1946, discharged
Oradell Young , and on or about September 26, 1946 , discharged Gladys Garnage
.and Beatrice Sanders Frase , all employees at the Longview plant , because of
their union membership or activity, ( 2) on or about September 13, 1946, and
at all times since, unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union, the majority
representative of Respondent ' s employees in an appropriate unit at its Long-
view plant , ( 3) on or about September 28, 1946, and at all times since, unlaw-
fully refused to bargain with the Union , the majority representative of respond-
ent's employees in an appropriate unit at its Mineola plant, ( 4) from on or about
September 1, 1946, to the date of the complaint at either its Mineola or Long-
view plants , or both , interrogated employees concerning their union membership
and activities ; urged, persuaded, restrained, and warned employees to refrain
from becoming members of, or remaining members of, the Union ; kept meeting
places and activities of the Union under surveillance ; discriminatorily trans-
CUMMER-GRAHAM COMPANY 739
ferred union members ; attempted to stop the distribution of union literature
in a public place; promised increases in benefits to an employee if he would
"forget about the Union" ; and by a number of other acts, interfered with,
coerced, and restrained employees in the exercise of their statutory rights,
(5) caused by unfair labor practices a strike at the Mineola plant on October 2,
1946, and at the Longview plant on October 23, 1946, and prolonged the duration
of both strikes by subsequent unfair labor practices, and (6) on or about
February 10, 1947, refused to reinstate 254 named employees, listed in Appendix
A attached hereto, because they had assisted, or become members of, the Union
or had participated in one of the strikes.
At he hearing, over objection of Respondent's counsel, I permited the coin-
plaint to be amended so as to allege further (1) the discriminatory discharge at
Mineola, on or about December 4, 1948, of Dorothy Skinner allegedly because she
appeared to testify in this proceeding, (2) the discriminatory discharge on or
about November 23, 1946, of Henry Lawrence, allegedly because of his participa-
tion in the strike at Longview and (3) the presenting on about February 21,
1949, to employees at Mineola and Longview, of valuable gifts in order to dis-
courage membership in the Union.
A number of further amendments were moved and granted. They are not set
forth here as, in sum, they amounted to no more than a particularization of more
general allegations already in the complaint. Without objection the complaint
was amended to allege the discharge on March 31, 1949, of Ben Wilburn because
of having testified in this proceeding; after hearing evidence I dismissed the
allegation upon the ground that the discharge of Wilburn was not proved.
The objections of Respondent's counsel to the amendments permitted were
based in part upon the fact that neither charge contained an allegation with
respect to the discharge of Henry Lawrence or Dorothy Skinner or ,the coercing
of employees by presentation of gifts. Both Skinner and Lawrence were, how-
ever, named in the charges and in the complaint as individuals who had been
refused reinstatement after participation in unfair labor practice strikes. The
discharge of Skinner is alleged to have occurred long after the filing of the
charges and indeed after the hearing had begun. The discharge of Henry
Lawrence was not alleged to have been discriminatory until evidence in this
connection was adduced upon direct examination of one of Respondent's wit-
nesses. The presentation of gifts occurred, obviously, long after the filing of
charges and while this hearing was in recess. I do not consider Respondent's
contention to be sound. Jurisdiction having been conferred upon the Board by the
filing of charges, it was the right of the Board (and since August 22, 1947, of the
General Counsel) to investigate them and to allege in the complaint those matters
which it appeared might be in violation of the Act or the amended Act. In
so doing, it was proper to allege, as was alleged here, that conduct following the
filing of charges amounted to a violation of the Act or the amended Act. Once
the jurisdiction of the Board has been invoked by the filing and serving of a
charge, a complaint may allege all matters of conduct or action which investi-
gation discloses and which appear to constitute unfair labor practices and a
complaint may be amended during hearing to allege subsequent further unfair
labor practices which. appear to be supported by evidence taken at the hearing
or which may have occurred after the issuance of the complaint'
IN. L. R. B. V. Indiana f Michigan Electric Company, 318 ,U. S. 9, 18, provided, since
February 22, 1948, that the additional unfair labor practices are not alleged to have
'occurred more than 6 months before. the filing and serving of the charge, Cathey Lumber
Company, 86. NLRB 157.
740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the opening of the hearing I denied Respondent's written motion to dismiss
the complaint as it was based, in my opinion, upon immaterial allegations. I
denied Respondent's motion to strike certain of the complaint's allegations, but
granted, in part, a motion for a more definite statement. Respondent's motion
to sever the cases was denied.
Respondent's answer filed prior to the hearing admitted certain of the juris-
dictional allegations in the complaint, denied the commission of unfair labor
practices, and offered certain defenses which will be considered in the body of
this Report. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Longview and at Mineola,
Texas, on November 23, 24, 29, 30, December 1, 2, and 3, 1948, and from March 1
through May 20, 1949, before the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Chief Trial Examiner. Respondent and the General Counsel were each
represented by counsel, participated in the hearing, had opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues.
At the close of the hearing the General Counsel argued on the record. A brief
has been received from Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Cummer-Graham Company is a Texas corporation having its principal offices
in Paris, Texas, and operating factories in Paris, Beaumont, Longview, and
Mineola, all in the State of Texas. This proceeding concerns only the Long-
view and Mineola plants where, for a number of years, Respondent has been en-
gaged in and now is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of con-
tinuous-stave and round-bottom baskets, and basket covers designed for use by
fruit and vegetable packers. Products of each plant are transported in inter-
state commerce to and though States of the United States other than the State
of Texas. Respondent does not contest the jurisdiction of the Board on com-
merce grounds. Such jurisdiction has been asserted by the Board in cases in-
volving other of Respondent's plants?
H. TILE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Woodworkers of America is. a labor organization affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations admitting to membership employees of
Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES'
A. At Mineola to October 2, 19116, the date of the strike.
On September 13, 1946, a number of Respondent's employees met in Mineola
and were addressed by representatives of the State Organizing Committee of the
2 Cummer-Graham Company, 71 NLRB 289, concerning the Paris, Texas, plant, and
Cummer-Graham Company , 73 NLRB 603 , concerning the Beaumont , Texas , plant.
3 For clarity , I will attempt to discuss the happenings which constitute the unfair labor
practices as they occurred it being my conviction , based upon the evidence hereinafter
set forth , that from the inception of union organization at the Mineola and Longview
plants , Respondent sought by unlawful means to scotch that movement .' Some of its ac-
tions in this connection , standing alone, might appear equivocal but when considered in
context with other contemporaneous acts, take on a more positive aspect. .
The findings in this section are based upon a preponderance of the reliable , probative,
CUMMER-GRAHAM COMPANY 741
Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the CIO, in an effort to per-
suade them of the benefits of union organization. Foreman Aldia Young and
L. A. Baldwin attended the meeting and remained throughout its course. R. W.
Purcell, learning of their supervisory status, told them that they were ineligible
to join the Union and requested that they not attend further meetings.
On September 14, Loyal Crumley, manager of the Mineola plant, called his
foremen in conference, told them that a union was attempting to organize
the employees, instructed them to remain aloof from discussions or arguments
among employees in connection with this development, and advised them that,
as supervisors, it was not lawful for them to join a union.
Foreman Young despite the request of Purcell and the instruction of Crumley
did go to the place of a subsequent meeting and remained outside the meeting
place watching those arriving until asked by an employee not to do so. Fore-
man Baldwin, too, went to the place of another meeting but left when told
that his presence was unwanted. Both explained their presence at the Sep-
tember 13 meeting as arising from curiosity about unions and both asserted
that they considered themselves to be included in the invitation extended to all
employees to attend.
Charles Wheeler, Resopndent's employee for 32 years, joined the Union at the
September 13 meeting. Shortly thereafter, he and another employee, Elbert
Head, were called to Manager Crumley's office. There Crumley asked Head
why he had joined the Union 4 and suggested that the employees could not rea-
sonably complain concerning the wages and working conditions then existing.
Wheeler and Head expressed disagreement. In the same week of this incident,
according to Wheeler, he was deprived of overtime work and his earnings, in
consequence , were lessened.`
Tom Dollar joined the Union at the September 13 meeting. On the following
morning, Foreman Young asked to see Dollar's "union slip" and when shown it
remarked, "that will get you fired." e Two or three days thereafter, Dollar was
laid off for a half-day although, according to Dollar, there was work for him
to do.'
Elmer Mooring, who joined the Union at the first organizational meeting,
was shortly thereafter asked by Crumley if he had done so. When Mooring
admitted that he had, Crumley observed that although some unions were un-
objectionable, CIO unions were different in that "they come across the water." 8
For several years employees at Mineola were permitted a 10-minute paid
rest period morning and afternoon. On October 1, the practice was discon-
and substantial evidence, supported by exhibits as adduced through more than 125 wit-
nesses. Comment will be made as to credibility resolutions only where conflicts in testi-
mony are clear and concern matters of more than collateral import.
As none of the unfair labor practices found herein have been remedied, they constitute
violations of the amended Act even though occurring before its passage and are so found.
See Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 80 NLRB 945.
4 Credited testimony of Wheeler. Head recalled that Crumley asked "what have you got
to gain" by joining a union. Crumley ' s denial of interrogation is not credited . This find-
ing indicates that Crumley 's instruction to his foremen on September 14 was not seriously
intended and serves to explain why some of them so lightly regarded it.
5 This assertion is not clearly supported by time cards in evidence . It is not found to
have occurred.
6 Young's denial in this connection is not credited.
° Upon consideration of all the evidence , I find that this layoff has not been established
to be the result of a discriminatory motivation.
8 Crumley's detailed denial of this conversation is not credited.
742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tinned. Also for years, the employees had maintained an "emergency fund,"
supported entirely by small, regular, payroll deductions. The fund was available
for the relief of employees in distress because of illness, fire' loss, or other
personal misfortune. Respondent acted as a depository in connection with the
fund and made payments to individuals upon direction of a committee selected
by the employees. On October 1, Crumley announced the discontinuance of
the fund and some months later distributed the balance remaining among the
depositors.
The complaint alleges the discontinuance of the rest periods and the "emer-
gency fund" as acts of retaliation against the employees ; punishment for
their interest in the Union.
Crumley explained that for months employees had been abusing the rest-
period privilege-that some of them overstayed the limits of the periods per-
sistently. Despite the exhortations of foremen and warnings by Crumley, he
testified, their habits in this respect did not improve. Thus as a disciplinary
measure, and at the direction of Secretary-Treasurer Mackin of Respondent's
principal office in Paris, Texas, the periods were discontinued on October 1.
As to the "Emergency fund," Crumley testified, some individual employees had
protested the weekly deduction of 25 cents from their pay. Upon investigation,
according to Crumley, he discovered that a Texas statute forbade such deductions
without individual authorization. At about the same time as he gained this
knowledge, still according to Crumley, he was advised by Secretary-Treasurer
Mackin of the illegality of this practice and was directed to discontinue it.
I have no doubt that some employees abused the rest-period privilege. I am
sure that in an effort to correct this abuse they were periodically warned that
the periods might be discontinued. But this was a chronic condition, persisting
throughout the years. I credit testimony that it was no more aggravated in
September 1946 than before. R. W. Purcell, a CIO representative, testified
credibly that he instructed employees in meetings that they must scrupulously
observe Respondent's working rules in order that they avoid providing cause for
discipline. I believe it unlikely that abuse of the rest periods moved Respondent
to discontinue them. Crumley was not a witness whose testimony commanded
belief.
Now to consider the emergency fund. In July, the employees had almost with-
out dissent, voted to increase the weekly deduction from 10 to 25 cents. It is
reasonable to conclude that they would not have taken such action had not they
seriously desired the continuation of this scheme. Had Respondent learned that
it was acting illegally in making the payroll deductons without individual
authorizations and then determined to cease doing so, I believe that it would
naturally have so advised the employee committee of the reason for its action
and have given the committee opportunity to secure the necessary authorizations e
Instead, no reason for the discontinuance was given.
The resolution of the question of motivation is rendered simpler by considering
the hostility of Respondent toward the unionization of its employees, as expressed
by the interrogation of individuals concerning their union membership, the sur-
«eillance of their meetings, and, finally, the timing of the October 1 action.
On September 30, Respondent received at Mineola a letter from Robert Oliver,
State Director of the CIO, asserting that a majority of employees had designated
a union to represent them and requesting a meeting for the purpose of negotiating
g The emergency fund has been reestablished since the strike financed by individually-
authorized payroll deductions.
CiJMMER-GRAHAM COMPANY 743
a contract. On the day following receipt of this request the rest periods and
the "emergency fund" were discontinued. The testimony of Crumley and Mackin
that such action was decided upon before receipt of the letter is not believed.
Nor do I believe that action as to the "emergency fund" was based upon the
asserted illegality of Respondent's action in making the payroll deductions. It
well may be that a Texas statute forbade such deductions but, if so, I believe
that this was discovered subsequently and is advanced now as an innocent
explanation of an action which was taken for the purpose of discouraging mem-
bership in a union-to retaliate against employees seeking to act concertedly.
I find that by interrogating employees concerning their membership in a union,,
by keeping employee organizational meetings under surveillance, by threatening
an employee with discharge because he had joined a union and by discontinuing
the rest periods and the "emergency fund" because employees had expressed
interest in a union, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act and thereby
violated Section S (1) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1) of the amended Act.
On the evening of October 1, the employees in meeting discussed the discon-
tinuance of the rest periods and the "emergency fund" and considered the possi-
bility of strike action. Representatives of the CIO counseled that a strike should.
be avoided if at all possible. During the noon hour on October 2, a further meet-
ing was held on a railroad track bounding the plant premises.10 A committee was
appointed to visit Respondent in an attempt to have the rest periods and "emer-
gency fund" restored. Elbert Head was the committee spokesman.
Shortly after 1 p. in., Head went to Crumley's office and asked for a meeting:
with management. Head testified credibly that when he told Crumley he repre-
sented, "the employees, which is the CIO," Crumley replied, "That would never
do, Elbert . . . why don't you all get your own union." It was arranged that
Head return at 2 p. in. to treat with Cecil Mackin, secretary-treasurer. Head
returned and, in reply to Mackin's question, replied, "I am representing the
employees, which is the CIO." Mackin rejoined, according to Head's credited.
testimony, "We won't recognize the CIO now, or anytime else." Whereupon.
Head left.
Following Head's instruction, almost all the employees gathered before Crum-
ley's office at 3 p. in. Head spoke to Crumley saying, "We are all gathered here
to find out why we can't meet with management, what the trouble is." Mackin
or Crumley replied,'1 "We won't recognize the CIO now, or any time else 12 . . . if
you all want to work, go back to work ; all that don't want to work, punch your
cards." An employee shouted, "all you CIO members punch out." Nearly all
the employees did so. The Mineola strike was on.
B. At Longview to October 23, the date of the strike
Meanwhile, at Longview, 45 miles to the east, similar events were taking place.
On September 4, the first organizational meeting was held.
On September 11 another such meeting assembled in a church a short distance
from Respondent's plant and convened at the close of the workday. As the
10 Certain of Respondent's foremen stood in the plant premises near this meeting and'
watched it. Under all the circumstances, I do not find this to constitute surveillance.
11 Head attributed the entire statement to Crumley ; other witnesses varied in their
testimony, some recalling that both Mackin and Crumley spoke. Which one it was is
immaterial.
11 Testimony of Crumley, Mackin, and Harold Starkey that the expression was, "We
do not recognize the CIO at this time" is not credited.
744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees gathered about the church entrance and in the church yard, S. C.
(Jimmy) Hudnall, Respondent's manager at Longview, accompanied by Harold
Brown, office manager at Longview, drove up and parked in front of the church
for a period of 5 or 10 minutes, drove away, almost immediately returned, and
parked again on the opposite side of the street for about the same period of time.13
On Thursday, September 12, two representatives of the CIO, R. W. Purcell
and Neal Mullins, visited Manager Hudnall at his office, asserted that a majority
of Respondent's employees at Longview had designated a union 14 to represent
them, and asked for recognition. Hudnall professed ignorance in such matters,
said that he did not need the assistance of any union and that the matter would
have to be presented to Respondent's home office at Paris.
On Friday, September 13, Hudnall reduced the work day from 9 to 81/2 hours
by designating a 15-minute period in the morning and afternoon as a rest period
during which employees were not expected to work and for which they were
not paid."
Hudnall, Superintendent Joe Mackey, and Foreman H. N. (Shorty) Kidwell,
explained that for a long period of time they had been trying to devise a scheme
whereby employees could purchase soft drinks, sandwiches, tobacco, etc., without
leaving the plant premises and without absenting themselves from work for an
appreciable time. According to these witnesses, so many employees were i11 the
habit of leaving work during the day to make such purchases at a store near the
plant that the loss in productive time was substantial . In July, Foreman Kidwell
was permitted to operate a stand on the plant premises for the employees' con-
venience but this did not provide a satisfactory solution . Finally it was decided,
they testified, to institute the rest periods and to require that employees satisfy
their wants during those periods only.
The theory of the complaint is, however, that the rest periods were only one in
a series of acts having for their purpose the discouragement of union activity ;
that by inaugurating unpaid rest periods, thereby reducing employees' earn-
ings, Respondent was retaliating against employees because they had expressed
interest in a union . Of course Hudnall knew that such a movement was afoot.
He had seen the employees gathered for meeting and a request for recognition
had been made by Purcell.
Although the circumstances of the action are suspicious , I do not believe that
it has been established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent at
Longview was motivated in instituting the unpaid rest periods by the organiza-
tional activity then in motion. No such finding will be made.
W. J. (Woody) Emmel testified credibly that he asked Superintendent Mackey
on September 6, 1946, for work and was employed after Mackey first asked him if
he were a member of a union , inquired what Emmel thought about unions, and
13 This finding is based upon the credited testimony of J. C . Taylor, Judge Hutchings,
Judson Lucas , and R. W. Purcell , all witnesses called by the General Counsel, as well as
upon admissions secured by cross -examination of Respondent's witnesses . I do not credit
the testimony of Hudnall and Brown that they drove by the meeting place in the supposi-
tion that the crowd was attracted by an accident or a fire, that they did not stop, and that
they recognized only a few in the group.
14 It is not clear that Hudnall was advised what union was involved . I am by no
means certain that Purcell or Mullins mentioned the Woodworkers . I consider this to be a
matter of no moment as Hudnall ' s refusal to extend recognition was not based upon any
consideration as to the identity of the union making the claim.
16 This practice persisted for 3 weeks , when upon advice of a higher official , Hudnall
paid the employees for the time taken by the rest periods and then reduced the periods
to 10 minutes each, for which there was no deduction from employees ' earnings.
CUMMER-GRAHAM COMPANY 745•
sought to learn if he knew any union men. Mackey denied such interrogation and
asserted that unions were not mentioned in the conversation .. Emmel's testimony
is credited.
Elzia Lucas testified that be joined the Union on September 4 and about 2
weeks later, was called to the plant offices. There Manager Hudnall in the
presence of William Brown, the bookkeeper , asked Lucas if J. C. Taylor, another
employee , was an officer of the Union , and if Lucas belonged . Hudnall remarked,
in the words of Lucas, "I am a wise old man; I haven't ever saw anything good
about the union ; I haven't never saw anything good about it . . . when you take
like the office , you take like when you want money , . . . you can always come
and ask me for your money whenever you get ready for it . . . Now you are
going to join the Union . . . you can't do like that . . . you have to go and get
some big CIO , some officer to come in and talk with me and get the money before
you get your money . . . you have got a little place out yonder and a little farm
. .. what would I look like going out trying to run your little farm and business
and things like that? . . . This place belongs to us . . . and my boss said that
he wasn't going to have a union and we was not going to have any . . . He has
big money . . . he don't have to run this job for a living, he just shut the thing
down . . . and so I tell you what to do. You go out now and get your cars loaded
and tell the boys about it, probably get some of that foolish notion out of their
head."
At a union meeting held that night, Lucas reported Hudnall's statement to the
employees.
Hudnall testified that he had no recollection of speaking to Lucas concerning
unions before the strike , denied that he questioned Lucas concerning J. C. Taylor's
position in the Union or as to Lucas ' membership ; denied any conversation with
Lucas about borrowing money or to the effect that there was no good in unions;.
and denied the threat to close the plant. Lucas' testimony is credited.
Robert McKinzy testified credibly that in early September , Foreman John-
Altom ( now deceased ) asked if he had joined the Union and when McKinzy
admitted that he had , advised him to tear up his dues receipt and forget it.
Lucilius Long testified that he joined the Union in early September. Some-
time before the strike,16 according to Long, Hudnall called him to the office
and asked him "to just see the boys and just let it go," as they had been getting
along satisfactorily without a union. Long had worked for Respondent since
1909 and described himself as the "overlooker " in the veneer stacking yard.
His recommendations as to hire and discharge generally were effective
although he was not regarded as a full-fledged foreman.
Hudnall testified that his only conversation with Long regarding a union
before the strike, occurred when Long asked if it were necessary to join a
union in order to retain his employment . According to Hudnall , he assured
Long that no such requirement existed, that Long could do as he pleased,
that Respondent was neutral and that he requested Long to try to get the
employees to "settle down" and work as usual. Long's testimony is credited.
Edward Gray, an employee of Respondent for 27 years, joined the Union at
the first meeting on September 4. Sometime in September or October, Gray
testified, Hudnall asked him what he thought of the Union and remarked,
"I don't think it will amount to nothing." Hudnall denied having such a
conversation with Gray. Gray's testimony is credited.
ie Which took place October 23.
746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Everett C. Crawford testified that he joined the Union at the first meeting
and that sometime between that date and October 23, Hudnall asked if he had
joined the Union, if he thought it was "any good" and if he thought the Union
representative was "any good". Hudnall denied such questioning. Craw-
ford's testimony is credited.
The evidence is clear and it is found that by interrogating employees con-
cerning union membership or activity, by keeping a meeting place of the
employees under surveillance, and by threatening to close the plant, Respond-
ent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section 8 (1)
of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1) of the amended Act.
Oradell Young joined the Union at the September 11 meeting. A number of
witnesses testified that she approached the meeting place in view of Manager
Hudnall, who, it will be recalled, was parked in a car outside. Hudnall
denied that he saw her-Young did not testify that she saw Hudnall.
The following day her foreman, H. N. Kidwell, criticized her when she
reported a few minutes late for work. On September 16, at noon, she was
discharged by Superintendent Mackey who told her that her work had been
unsatisfactory.
This ended an employment of about 3 years. Until the last 6 months of her
employment, Young worked under the immediate supervision of Mackey. In
March 1946, she became engaged in heated dispute with another female
employee finally threatening her antagonist with a staple puller. This inci-
dent so incensed some of the employees in the department that they threat-
ened to leave if Young did not. As a result, Young was transferred to another
department and thereafter was under the direct supervision of Kidwell.
Some of Young's coworkers testified that she was a careless and inattentive
worker-others, that she was diligent. Kidwell testified that he frequently
criticized her in regard to the quantity and quality of her production. Kid-
well, however, was an unconvincing witness who appeared to be embarrassed
by Young's presence in the hearing room. Still another witness for Respond-
ent testified that Young was resentful concerning her transfer and had
expressed the intention of "getting even" with Respondent on that account.
On September 18, representatives of the Union protested Young's discharge to
Hudnall. On September 30, Young asked Hudnall and Mackey for reinstatement.
On this latter occasion, Young testified, Hudnall asked how the Union was
"coming along." Young was not rehired.
I am not sufficiently convinced by the evidence that Respondent was aware of
Young's union membership on the date of her discharge. It does not seem
reasonable to me that she could have arrived at the meeting place under open
surveillance by Hudnall and not have been aware of it. Surely some employee
would have said to her, "The boss is out front." If she saw Hudnall on that
occasion, she did not mention it on the stand. I do not believe that the evidence
establishes that Respondent discharged her in the belief that it was discharging
a union member or adherent. It follows that the discharge was not in violation
of the Act. I so find.
Beatrice Sanders Frase and Gladys Gamage were mat makers. On September
26, during the lunch period they discussed an instruction given that morning
that they must produce 16 dozen mats an hour. Both expressed the opinion in
the hearing of Mackey that they could not reach that goal.
CUMMER-GRAHAM COMPANY 747
Upon returning to the plant for the afternoon shift, both were called before
Mackey who asked, abruptly, "When did you join the Union?" Gamage replied,
-angrily, that it was none of his affair. Mackey then went on to say that as they
talked about their work while away from it, they probably did so when they
should be working and that he no longer wanted them in the plant. Both
-Damage and Frase pleaded that they must work-that their earnings were
necessary, but Mackey was unmoved. When Gamage said "you will hear from
me later." Mackey asked if she referred to the Union and remarked, "that might
be all right if you had a real Union but all you have is a damned mess." On
September 30, Frase asked for reinstatement and on October 13 was put back to
work. On October 23 she went on strike with the other Longview employees.
Gamage never applied for reinstatement and shortly after her discharge moved
to another section of the State.
The theory of the General Counsel is that Mackey discharged Gamage and
Erase because he suspected, correctly, that they were members of the Union.
Respondent asserts that they were not discharged but laid off for the reason
that they refused to attempt to reach the standard of production requested of
them. Mackey testified that he laid them off for that reason alone and that he
didn't know at the time that they were in any manner identified with the Union.
Frase and Gamage were truthful witnesses and their testimony is accepted.
I find also that on the occasion in the lunchroom they discussed their inability
to reach the standard of production and not a refusal to attempt to reach it.
Mackey's assertion that they were laid off rather than discharged is not accepted.
Clearly, Mackey believed them to be union members and his questions and
remarks about the Union to them at the time of the discharge supports an
inference that he was discharging them for that reason using their remarks
about production standards as a pretext for his action. It is so found.
By discharging Gamage and Frase on September 26, thus discriminating
.against them because of their suspected membership in the Union, Respondent
-discouraged membership in a labor organization and thereby violated Section
8 (1) and (3) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the amended Act.
Employees at the Longview plant met regularly at weekly intervals. The first
two meetings were devoted largely to organization ; those following to discus-
sions of their problems with Respondent. Discussion was had of the discharge
,of Young, Gamage, and Frase, of the institution of unpaid rest periods, of inter-
rogation by supervisors, and of the allegations by individual employees that Re-
'spondent was "bearing down," depriving union members of opportunity to work
-overtime and, in general retaliating against employees because of their interest in
unions. On October 2, the employees at the Mineola plant went on strike and
shortly thereafter the Longview employees voted to strike whenever it was de-
cided that the time was appropriate. On or about October 21, Respondent began
transporting logs from the closed Mineola plant to Longview for processing.
The Longview employees were particularly disturbed by this maneuver feeling
that they were being required to "scab" on their fellow employees in Mineola.
In consequence, on the morning of October 23, representatives of the Union
notified Respondent that if the practice of taking logs from Mineola to Longview
was not stopped , the Longview employees would strike. Respondent refused to
cease transferring the logs, so upon a whistle signal at 1: 10 p. m., on October 23,
the Longview employees struck. The strike continued until early February
1947, when the picket lines were withdrawn and many of the employees returned
to work.
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate units
(a) At Longview
Respondent's operations at Longview entail the manufacture of baskets and
basket tops. The sequence of processes starting with peeling veneer from logs
progresses through a series of cutting, drying, forming, stapling, banding, nesting,
and storing operations to loading the finished products for shipment. At certain
stages of manufacture, before the completion of baskets and tops, Respondent has
a salable product such as veneer. However, Respondent is in the business of
manufacturing baskets and seldom sells any of its material at an intermediate
stage of manufacture. These operations are continuous from the receipt of logs
to the shipping or storing of the finished product. Clearly, a unit of production
and maintenance employees at the Longview plant excluding clerical employees,
guards, and supervisory employees within the meaning of the Act and the Act as
amended constitutes and at all times material herein has constituted a unit
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act and the amended Act. I so find.
(b) At Mineola
Respondent at Mineola manufactures baskets by substantially the same proc-
esses and with the same sequence of operations, as at Longview.
It follows that a unit of production and maintenance employees at the Mineola
plant, excluding clerical employees, guards, and supervisory employees within
the meaning of the Act and the Act as amended, constitutes and at all times mate-
rial herein has constituted a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act and the amended Act. I so
find.
2. The Union 's majority in the appropriate unit
(a) At Longview
Respondent's payroll for the period ending September 12, 1946, carries the
names of 165 employees in the appropriate unit. At the hearing, the General
Counsel introduced in evidence designation cards bearing dates prior to September
12, and the apparently valid signatures of 117 persons whose names appear on
the September 12 payroll. Most of these designations left the line, upon which
the name of the Union would be expected to appear, blank. Others show Wood-
worker or Woodworkers entered before the printed initials, CIO, at the end of
the line.17 The validity of the signatures on the designations was testified to by
a number of witnesses. This evidence was not successfully controverted.
I find, therefore, that on September 12, 1946, the Union was, and at all
times material since has been, the exclusive representative of Respondent's
employees in the appropriate unit at Longview within the meaning of Section
9 (a) of the Act and the amended Act.
17 Robert Oliver, State Director of the CIO Organizing Committee, testified that the
function of his organization was to organize workers and to secure designations in so
doing. After organization is substantially complete, Oliver explained, an appropriate
international union is notified and expected to undertake the duty of representation with
the employer. It was the purpose of the Organizing Committee to have the Union represent
the employees at Longview and Mineola.
CUMMDR'-GRAHAM COMPANY 749
(b) At Mineola
Respondent's payroll for the period ending September 26, 1946, lists 132
employees in the appropriate unit. The General Counsel introduced in evidence
98 designation cards bearing dates prior to September 26, and the apparently
valid signatures of persons whose names appear on that payroll. None of
these set forth the name of the Union, only the initials CIO. Witnesses for
the General Counsel testified credibly that the signatures affixed to the desig-
nations were, in fact, made by, or at the direction of, the individuals whose
names there appeared. There was no substantial evidence to the contrary.
I find, therefore, that on September 26 the Union was and at all times material
since has been the duly designated representative of the employees at Mineola
in the appropriate unit within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
3. The refusal to bargain
On September 12, Oliver wrote Respondent, asserting that the CIO represented
a majority of employees at Longview, requesting recognition and a date for
meeting. He received no reply. On September 17, the Union filed at the
Board's Regional Office in Fort Worth, a petition for certification as bargain-
ing representative of the Longview employees. On September 27, Oliver wrote
Respondent asserting that the CIO represented a majority of employees at
Mineola, requesting recognition, and a date for meeting. On October 1 the
Union's petition for certification as representative of the employees at Mineola
was received at the Board's Fort Worth office.
A letter from Oliver on behalf of the Union received by Respondent at Mineola
on October 11 requested recognition of the Union as representative of the
Mineola employees.
Attorney O. B. Fisher, in behalf of Respondent answered, under date of Octo-
ber 14, declining to recognize the Union.
On October 25, at the request of a field examiner for the Board, Respondent,
represented by Attorney Fisher, and the Union, whose spokesman was Oliver,
met in Longview in conference concerning the representation petitions filed
by the Union.
Oliver proposed. checking designation cards against Respondent's payrolls
or conducting a consent election in order to satisfy any question as to the
majority status of the Union. Fisher objected that the units described by the
Union, production and maintenance employees at each plant, were not appro-
priate, and asserted that there should be five or six units at each plant. Oliver
answered that the Union was prepared to prove its majority in any unit or group
of units and for the purpose of a card check or consent election, he would accept
Fisher's units. Fisher then suggested that the designation cards were not
reliable evidence of the intention of the signers for he had information indicating
that some of them, at least, had been signed under duress or misapprehension.
Fisher argued further, that no election should be held in either plant until the
strikes were terminated, the strikers back at work, and upon direction of
the Board after formal hearings. Respondent refused to agree to any election
or the resolution of the Union's majority claims except by Board-directed elec-
tions following formal hearings.
Hudnall testified that Oliver insisted that the strike would not be terminated
until Respondent agreed to a wage increase to $1 an hour and to discharge all
nonstrikers. Oliver denied that such a condition was made concerning non-
strikers but was not questioned concerning a demand for wage increase.
750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On October 29, at the request of a Conciliator of the U. S. Conciliation Service,
the parties again met in Longview. On this occasion Attorney L. N. D. Wells
represented the Union. Attorney Fisher against was Respondent's spokesman.
The meeting was called in an attempt to discover some basis for settling the
strikes. The positions of the parties were those taken at the October 25 meeting.
Wells requested recognition upon the basis of a card check or a consent election-
Fisher refused to agree to either. Wells testified credibly that he offered to call
off the strikes and return the men to work if Respondent would consent to either
proposal. I find that no other conditions were attached to the offer 18
So the strikes continued. A substantial majority of employees at each plant
remained away from work despite persistent solicitation by Respondent's man-
agers and supervisors that they return. With a small number of returned strikers
and with the remainder of its forces, newly recruited both plants returned to
approximately normal production in late December or early January.
In the interim, Respondent asserted at the hearing, a number of strikers en-
gaged in such conduct as to justify a refusal to reinstate them. Testimony to
support this assertion was for the most part supplied by strikers who said that
they had been "afraid" to return to work-that they believed they might be "hurt"
had they attempted to do so. Such testimony is entitled to slight weight when, as
here, there was a complete failure to relate these alleged fears to any acts of
violence or threatened violence on the part of the strikers.19
Arthur Perry who remained at work during the strike, testified that on Octo-
ber 29 one of the CIO representatives, R. W. Purcell, made a gesture in his pres-
ence which Perry interpreted as a threat to cut his throat. Perry and Foreman
Magrill testified that in October or November a caravan of strikers in five cars
followed a truckload of employees from the plant. Purcell and striking employees
Everett Norris, Layne Ponder, Dorothy Maddox, and Eb Crawford, according to
Perry, were among those in the following cars. Magrill secured a police escort
and the employees were delivered to their homes. Shortly thereafter Magrill
and Perry complained to the Criminal District Attorney for Gregg County.
Indictments were found against Purcell and several others charging that by such
conduct they had violated a Texas statute. Purcell was acquitted. The others
were never brought to trial.
Purcell denied that he was a part of such a caravan and I credit his denial.
Perry impressed me as an untrustworthy witness and as he alone testified as
to the identity of the strikers in connection with this alleged incident, I do not
End that it occurred. Even if Respondent believed that Purcell had made a
threatening gesture toward Perry, it would not have constituted a valid reason
for refusing reinstatement to the strikers or to any one of them. The incident
of the caravan seems unimportant. Even had certain employees participated in
that action, as Perry testified, it did not amount to such conduct as would
justify Respondent in refusing reinstatement: °
In December, 11. W. Purcell and Louis Sells on behalf of the Union met with
Secretary-Treasurer Mackin in Paris in an attempt to settle the strikes. Mackin
again expressed Respondent's desire that the strikes be terminated but refused
18 Testimony adduced by Respondent that the Union insisted, as a condition of ending the
strikes, that a wage increase be granted and all nonstriking workers be discharged is not
credited.
19 For a period , strikers had a coffin -like box near the Mineola plant and told some non-
strikers that it was intended for them. I find this to constitute no more than raillery.
20 See Dalton Telephone Company, 82 NLRB 1001.
CUMMEIR'-GRAHAM COMPANY 751
to agree to any plan whereby the Union could secure recognition other than by
formal hearings and Board-directed elections.
On February 4, the Union realizing that the strike was lost met at Longview
with Respondent. Oliver, again, represented the Union and Attorney Fisher, the
Respondent. Oliver told Fisher that the strike was over, that the strikers were
ready to return to work. Fisher answered that Respondent would reemploy as
many as it could supply with work but that most jobs had been filled with
replacements and that about 25 individuals, because of their conduct during the
strike, would not be reinstated. The conference ended when Oliver said, "the
strike is over, the people are available to return to work unconditionally. .. ."
On March 5, Oliver wrote Respondent, as follows :
You will recall that on February 4, 1947, at a conference, I made an
unconditional offer to have all of the employees on strike at your plant at
Longview and Mineola return to work during that week or on Monday,
February 10 whichever you preferred.
You will recall that the committee of employees, the representative,
and myself informed you that we would have striking employees report for
work any day designated by you.
I am this date reaffirming our offer to have the employees on strike at
Cummer-Graham Plants at Longview and Mineola return to work immedi-
ately. I am attaching hereto a list of employees now available for the
Longview plant and another list of those available for the Mineola plant.
These people may be reached at the address given or through the office of
the CIO Organizing Committee. . . . If you will communicate with us as to
the date on which you want these employees to report for work, we will
assume the responsibility for having them there at the time and date desired
by you.
The names and addresses of 86 Longview strikers and 64 Mineola strikers were
attached to the letter.
It has been found that on September 12 the Union was the duly designated
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit at Longview
and occupied the same status with regard to the Mineola employees on September
26. It will be recalled that the Union's written request for recognition at Long-
view and at Mineola were not acknowledged. I find that these requests were
received by Respondent on September 16 and 30, respectively. A second request,
referring only to Mineola, was refused by Respondent in a letter written by
Attorney Fisher, dated October 14. On October 25 and again on October 29,
Respondent flatly refused to recognize the Union and has maintained this
position at all times since. The question for decision concerns Respondent's
bona fides for "an employer may in good faith insist on a Board election as
proof of the union's majority but . . . an employer unlawfully refuses to
bargain if its insistence on such an election is motivated not by any bona fide
doubt as to the union's majority, but rather by a rejection of the collective bar-
gaining principle or by a desire to gain time within which to undermine the
Union." " Respondent's witnesses Hudnall, Mackey, Crumley, and Mackin
testified that they did have such doubts predicated upon questions asked of them
or of their foremen by employees concerning the Union. In every instance the
question asked was "Do I have to join the Union in order to hold my job?"
The employees were told by bulletin and by their foremen that they need not
do so. I cannot and do not believe that such questions formed the basis for any
21 Artoraft Hosiery Company, 78 NLRB 333, 334.
752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
doubt in the mind of any of Respondent's responsible officials concerning the
Union's majority. Crumley testified that he was the more firmly convinced,
that the Union represented only a minority, by the strike at Mineola. How this
.could be so when at least 86 of the 130 employees in the unit struck he was
.unable to explain and I am unable to understand. I suppose it is true that even
if Respondent could point to nothing which reasonably could be said to engender
.doubt as to the Union's status, it might still lack affirmative conviction that the
Union was in fact the majority representative at both plants. Assuming this
to be so, the Union offered to prove its claim by a card check or a consent election.
Respondent rejected the proposal.
But Respondent offers another defense-it believed that single production and
maintenance units at each plant were not appropriate for bargaining. On Octo-
ber 8, 1946, the Board had disposed of Respondent's similar contention con-
cerning the unit at the Paris plant and had found the single unit to be appro-
priate." All this aside, the Union had offered on October 25 and 29 to accept
the units Respondent said it wanted.
Finally, Mackin testified that in August 1946, a representative of the Union
which had won a bargaining election at Respondent's Paris plant told him that
he intended organizing the employees at Longview and Mineola. It does not
appear that any such attempt was made, however, by any organization except
the Union and the CIO in its behalf. I find that Respondent was not met with
conflicting claims of bargaining rights at Longview or Mineola.
The record is amply clear that Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union
was not predicated upon any reasonable doubt either as to the Union's majority
or as to the appropriateness of the production and maintenance units at Long-
view and Mineola. Even had such a doubt as to majority been entertained,
in the face of the fact that a majority of employees at each plant were on strike,
Respondent was not entitled to dictate the manner in which the majority of the
Union might be proved.' The offer of card check or consent election was a
reasonable method of resolving the question had it existed. Respondent refused
.-the proffered proof at its peril.24
Considering the earlier unlawful interrogation of employees, the surveillance of
their meetings, the threats of economic reprisal directed to those who had ex-
pressed interest in the Union, and the discharge of employees because of their
suspected membership in the Union, I am convinced and find that Respondent
intended never to recognize the Union or to bargain with it-that its refusals
to recognize on October 25 and 29 were but affirmations of a course of conduct
earlier determined upon. Respondent intended and did seize opportunity to
prevent the Union from proving its majority in order to avail itself of such delay,
the more effectively to destroy the Union's majority. It is so found.
I find, therefore, that since request for recognition was made upon it by the
CIO in behalf of the Union as to Longview on September 16, 1946, and as to
Mineola on September 30, 1946, Respondent has unlawfully refused to bargain
with the Union, the majority representative of its employees in appropriate
units, and that Respondent has thereby violated Section 8 (1) and (5) of the
Act. As the refusal has been a continuing one, Respondent is now violating Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the amended Act.
The character of the strikes was hotly disputed-the General Counsel con-
tending that both were caused by Respondent's unfair labor practices, the Re-
22 Cummer- Graham Company , 71 NLRB 289.
23 N. L . R. B. V. Moltrup Steel Products Co., 121 F. 2d 61 2 (C. A. 3).
24 Art Metals Construction Co. V. N. L. It. B., 110 F. 2d 148 (C. A. 2).
CUMMER-GRAHAM COMPANY 753
spondent denying this to be so. There can be little doubt but that the view of
the General Counsel must prevail as to Mineola . The strike there was clearly
caused by Respondent 's refusal to discuss with a union committee the termina-
tion of the rest periods and the emergency fund, actions which have been found
to constitute unfair labor practices. As to the Longview strike the question is
closer. Respondent , prior to the date of that strike, had been guilty of unfair
labor practices , as has been found, and these acts of surveillance , threat, dis-
charges, and refusal to recognize were discussed in union meetings leading to
the passage of a resolution to strike when it was decided that the time was
propitious . It is true that the strike was precipitated by the transfer of logs
from Mineola to Longview for processing there. I believe it reasonable to con-
clude, nonetheless , that absent the unfair labor practices at Longview which
occasioned the resolution to strike , the movement of logs, alone , would not have
caused it . Accordingly , I find that both strikes were unfair labor practice
strikes from their inception.
This discussion is academic when it is considered that Union Spokesmen Oliver
and Wells offered on October 25 and 29, to terminate the strikes if Respondent
would grant recognition or agree to a reasonable method for proving the Union's
majorities. Thus, as early as October 25, at least, the strikes were against Re-
spondent 's unfair labor practice in refusing to extend to the Union the recogni-
tion to which its status entitled it and the strikes were thereby prolonged.
Oliver's announcement on February 4 that the strike was over and his attempt
then to secure some assurance that the strikers would be reinstated imposed no
conditions . It became the duty of Respondent then to reinstate the strikers to
their former positions , discharging if necessary any replacements hired since the
beginning of the strike . Respondent 's answer to the offer was , however, that it
would take back the strikers as it found places for them, but that it would not
discharge the replacement employees, and that certain individuals would be
denied reinstatement because of alleged illegal activity during the strike 25 No
such illegal activity was proved in this hearing. Following February 4, some
of the employees persisted in the strike for 4 or 5 days and it was not until
approximately February 10 that the picket line at Mineola was discontinued. On
or about February 12, numbers of strikers applied for reinstatement at both
Mineola and Longview . Each was required to make an individual application.
Some were accepted, others were told that they would be advised when they were
needed, and some, rejected . Many made no individual application at all. The
General Counsel contends that it was unnecessary for the employees individually
to approach Respondent for reinstatement since he had never agreed to reinstate
them as a group. Respondent contends that such obligation did devolve upon
the employees since only thus could Respondent learn which of the strikers was
available for and desired reemployment.
The position of Respondent ignores the fact that the Union was the duly desig-
nated bargaining representative of the employees and that, thus, an offer by
Oliver, representing the Union , to send the strikers back to work was an offer
by their agent which should have been accepted. Had it been accepted and had
the individuals failed to present themselves for work, Respondent might then
have been under no obligation-to seek them out to offer employment. Here,
Z, Nora Shepherd was asked to return to work by Respondent on October 3, the day after
the Mineola strike started . She refused saying that she would never work for Respondent.
I find this to be a "tactical maneuver " on the part of Shepherd to emphasize her adherence
to the Union . She must be offered reinstatement.
903847-51-vol. 90-49
754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
however, Respondent's reply that it would take back employees as it could find
places for them, its refusal to discharge replacements, and its insistence upon in-
dividual applications from the strikers was a negation of the Union's right to
bargain for and to represent the employees. The strikers were under no obliga-
tion to make individual application ; they had a right to do as they did, to offer to
return to work as a group through their duly designated representative. When
this offer was rejected, no individual was bound to present himself to Respond-.
ent's plant for work in order to preserve his right to reinstatement 26 I find that
by its rejection of the Union's unconditional offer to return the strikers to work on
February 4, the Respondent in effect discharged them thus discouraging member-
ship in the Union and thereby violating Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act and
Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the amended Act.
Dorothy Skinner, one of the strikers at Mineola, was rehired upon her appli-
cation in September 1948. In early December of that year she was laid off and
has not since been recalled.
Over Respondent's objection, I granted the motion of General Counsel made at
the hearing to amend the complaint so as to allege the layoff as discriminatory.
The facts are these : Skinner joined the Union before the Mineola strike. After
the strike was terminated she made no individual application for employment
until September 1948. On that occasion Superintendent Dorsey Erwin asked if
she was a union member. Skinner admitted that she was but, nonetheless,,
about a week later was put to work. On November 23, 1948, she attended the
hearing in this matter as a witness for the General Counsel but was not then
called to the stand. About a week later she was laid off because, she was told,
Respondent's supply of "braids" was so great that fewer braiders could be
retained. Giving Skinner credit for seniority only from the date of her last
hiring, Respondent explained, she was one of the two braiders laid off. Superin-
tendent Erwin testified that when, later, a vacancy developed in the braiding
section, he learned that Skinner was employed elsewhere and so did not recall
her.
I do not believe that Skinner was laid off because she was a prospective witness
and I do not find that Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (4) of the Act with
regard to her. However, in laying her off, Respondent failed to accord her the
seniority rights to which she was entitled. As an unfair labor practice striker,
Skinner should have been reinstated when the strike was unconditionally
terminated without prejudice to seniority or other rights enjoyed theretofore.
Had she been considered as an employee with unbroken service dating from
May 1946, when she was first employed, she probably would not have been laid
off in December 1948.
It is found, Erwin's denial not being credited, that Respondent further violated
Section 8 (a) (1) of the amended Act in September 1948, by interrogating
Skinner concerning her membership in the Union.
Henry Lawrence began work for one of Respondent's predecessor companies in
1905, and worked steadily until the Longview strike. He joined the Union in
September 1946.
For a period of months, or perhaps years," Lawrence and Hudnall had dis-
cussed the former's approaching retirement. In September or October 1946,
after Lawrence had joined the Union but before the strike, he was called to
Hudnall's office where Hudnall told him, "Henry, I think we have about got your
retirement all lined up. Have you seen the Social Security Man?" Lawrence
26 N. L. R. B. v. Lightner Publishing Corp., 113 F. 2d 621 (C. A. 7).
11 Lawrence's testimony is unclear as to the length of time.
CUMMER'-GRAHAM COMPANY 755
replied that he had-that he could expect a monthly pension of $42.50 from that
source. Hudnall replied, "Hell, Henry, I think we can make that about $160,
somewhere along there." 28
On the afternoon of the strike, October 23, Lawrence was called to Hudnall's
office along with a small group of striking employees. After asking them why
they had struck without first consulting him, Hudnall said to Lawrence, "you
have been here a long time, reckon you couldn't get them fellows to come on
back?" Lawrence replied that the strikers believed that the Union would
benefit them, that he shared that belief, and that he did not think they would
end the strike.
On or about November 23, Hudnall caused Lawrence's tool box to be sent
to him because, according to Hudnall, ". . . we didn't think that he was ever
coming back and he needed them."
Hudnall testified that since the beginning of the strike he had conversations
with Lawrence in which he learned that Lawrence had other employment which
he found more satisfactory than working for Respondent, and that he felt too
old to come back to work. After the strike ended he was not offered an oppor-
tunity to do so.
Lawrence's unwillingness to abandon the strike is of course not evidence
that he had abandoned his desire to work again for Respondent after the strike
ended. The conversations Hudnall testified to took place while the strike still
was in progress. Although I have not found Hudnall's testimony to be credible
in some respects I am inclined to believe that his version of these conversations is
substantially accurate. On these occasions he was soliciting the assistance of
Lawrence to end the strike, without dealing with the Union. Lawrence con-
sistently refused to aid Hudnall in this endeavor and I believe may well have
told Hudnall in order to forestall further solicitation that he had no further
interest in the Union or in employment. Under the then existing circumstances
he was under no particular obligation to speak openly or frankly to Hudnall.
Their interests were divergent.
Lawrence never made individual application for reinstatement after the strike.
I find that Lawrence was discharged on or about November 23, 1946, and that
in discharging him Respondent was motivated by his participation in the strike
and his refusal to persuade his fellow workers to abandon the strike. Re-
spondent thereby discouraged membership in and activity in behalf of the Union
and thereby violated Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1)
and (3 ) of the amended Act.
During the hearing the complaint was amended to allege that on or about
February 21. 1949, Respondent made gifts to its employees at Mineola and
Longview for the purpose of discouraging membership in the Union. The evi-
dence is that on or about that date, all employees at each plant who bad been
in the service of the Company for 25 years or more were given a pin inscribed
with the figure "25" and a valuable watch. Employees of 5 years or more service
were given pins indicating the length of that service, 5, 10, 15, or 20 years.
There was some ceremony in connection with the presentation in which the
employees were complimented on their long and loyal service. A number of
strikers who had been reinstated participated and were the recipients of watches
and/or pins. On no other occasion, according to the testimony, did Respondent
make such presentations. It is the theory of General Counsel that the respondent
18 Hudnall neither affirmed nor denied this conversation . He agreed that Lawrence's
retirement had frequently been discussed and that he told Lawrence that he would do
his utmost to secure a pension for Lawrence from Respondent.
756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
used this means to demonstrate to employees that loyal service brought its re-
ward and impliedly to warn them that such loyalty must be undivided. The
allegation finds insufficient support in the record and I will recommend that it
be dismissed . It may be noted, however, that employees whose reinstatement
is herein recommended 2D will be entitled to receive such recognition as their
length of service would entitle them on the same basis as those who were
on the payroll in February 1949, when the awards were made.
In June 1948, Respondent received a letter concerning these cases from a field
examiner of the Board in the Fort Worth office reading in part :
I should appreciate your forwarding a statement of the Company's posi-
tion with respect to each phase of the charges in the above matters. Wher-
ever possible, please accompany this information with statements or other
documentary evidence which supports your position.
Shortly after receipt of this letter Attorney Fisher with the assistance of Man-
agers Crumley and Hudnall and M. E. Larkin, Respondent's personnel relations
director, embarked upon a campaign to get statements.
Doris Lipscomb Gregg testified credibly that in the summer of 1948 she was
questioned by Attorney Fisher and Manager Hudnall in the Longview plant.
Fisher asked if she had a union card and Hudnall asked if she held any position
in the Union. Contemporaneously with the questioning, Fisher wrote a state-
ment containing her replies, which she signed3°
John Bailey testified credibly that in the fall of 1948 in Respondent's office in
Longview he was questioned by Larkin and that Manager Hudnall was present
during a portion of the questioning. Bailey testified that Larkin asked him
when he joined the Union, if he wanted the Union to be his bargaining agent,
if he thought that the rest of the employees wanted the Union to bargain for
them, and if he understood the Union.
Levy Coby testified credibly that in July 1948, he was called to Respondent's
office in Longview to the presence of Attorney Fisher, Manager Hudnall, Superin-
tendent Mackey, and Secretary-Treasurer Mackin. There, Fisher asked him
if he had joined the Union, why the employees joined the Union and when, if he
attended meetings, how he lived during the strike, if he talked to other employees
about the Union since returning to work, if he kept minutes of union meetings,
if he signed a union card, and what he did with the books of the Union. Coby
testified that the interview lasted about 2 hours and then at the request of
Fisher, he signed a statement embodying his answers to the questions put him.
Such interrogation is no less unlawful because it is made, allegedly, for a
proper purpose. It could constitute no part of Respondent's defense to discover
whether some of its employees were or had been members of the Union. It had
in October 1946, refused all reasonable offers of the Union to prove its majority
and had no right now to take a poll3' Clearly the letter from the field examiner
did not authorize such action.
I find that by such interrogation Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the
amended Act and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the amended Act.
29 E. g,, Henry Lawrence.
30 Gregg's testimony that he was forewarned by Superintendent Mackey that her state-
ment should be favorable to Respondent if she wanted to keep her job is credited.
31 See Interstate Folding Box Company , 47 NLRB 1192, 1199.
CUMMER-GRAHAM COMPANY
Credibility
757
I have for the most part credited the testimony of witnesses called by the
General Counsel as against those called by Respondent. The testimony, for
example, of Levy Coby, Edward Gray, Elbert Head, Henry Lawrence, Judge
Hutchings, Sylvester London, Elzia Lucas, Judson Lucas, Lucilius Long, Thomas
Peebles, Robert Oliver, R. W. Purcell, L. N. D. Wells, and Charles Wheeler
impressed me as forthright, sincere, and completely honest 3: On the other hand,
the testimony of principal witnesses of Respondent, particularly L. A. Baldwin,
L. L. Crumley, Dorsey Erwin, S. C. Hudnall, H. N. Kidwell, C. A. McGrill, Joe
Mackey, Arthur Perry, and Aldia Young seemed to be tailored to manufacture a
defense. Each was seriously controverted by other witnesses and each of them
on many occasions was self-contradictory. Crumley, in particular, was extremely
disturbed while under cross-examination and clearly manifested, in my opinion,
an awareness that much of his testimony was untrue.
Who is entitled to reinstatement?
Appendix A lists the names of 254 employees who allegedly went on strike
and failed of reinstatement. Respondent contends that some of these were not
its employees when the strikes occurred and that most of those who struck have
been reinstated.
The record does not establish that Albert Bonner, Horace Bell, Percy Combs,
C. C. Easley, Mathew Germany, Floyd Williams, Acie Hall, Robert Hern, Barney
N. Holt, Woodlaw Hubbard, A. W. Jones, Judson Jones, Lafayette Norris, Lewis
Perry, George Polk, E. H. Stroud, John Taylor, Harry Thompson, or Madeline
Tutt, were Respondent's employees at Longview on October 23, the date of the
Longview strike, or that Lillie Frances Davis, J. H. Harvey, Walter C. Harvey,
Cornell Hendley, Clarence J. Williams, Johnny Brown, Archie Bullard, Victor
Ballard, Jack M. Conlom, Vester A. Skiles, or Val Taylor, were Respondent's
employees at Mineola on October 2, the date of that strike. I do not find, there-
fore, that they were strikers entitled to reinstatement.
It is found that those individuals whose names appear in Appendices B and C,
attached hereto, were unfair labor practice strikers at Longview and Mineola,
respectively. By refusing Oliver's unconditional offer of February 4 to have
these strikers return to work as a group, Respondent discriminated in regard to
their hire and tenure of employment because of their participation in the strike
and thereby violated Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1)
and (3) of the amended Act Be
u There was some variance between the testimony given by judge Hutchings, Doris
Gregg , Judson Lucas, and Levy Coby on the stand and the statements which they signed
at the request of Fisher . These witnesses explained that they felt under no compulsion
to tell Fisher the exact truth about their participation in union activities and were in some
fear of telling him anything which would put Respondent in an unfavorable light.
The disinclination of employees to tell an employer that which would be unpleasant to
him, in consideration of a background of unfair labor practices such as has been shown
here, is understandable . I do not consider that the statements given to Fisher by these
individuals form a sufficient basis to discredit contrary testimony which they gave from
the stand.
as Some of these individuals were rehired before the strike ended ; others, later. All, how-
ever, are entitled to full reinstatement to the positions they held before the strike and to
full credit for seniority and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed. Lawrence, for
example, is entitled to consideration for pension as if he had not struck.
758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent, described in Section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and such of them as have been found to constitute
unfair labor practices tend to lead to and have led to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found Respondent to have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it
will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act and the amended Act.'
Having found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Gladys Gamage
and Beatrice Sanders Frase on September 26, 1946, and Henry Lawrence on
November 23, 1946, it will be recommended as to Gamage and Lawrence (Frase
having been reinstated on October 13, 1946), that Respondent offer them rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions 35 without preju-
dice to their senority or other rights and privileges and that Respondent make
the three of them whole for any loss they may have sustained by reason of the
discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum of money
equivalent to the amount each would have earned as wages, in the case of Frase
for the period September 26 to October 13, 1946, in the case of Gamage, from
September 26, 1946, to the date of offer of reinstatement, and in the case of
Lawrence from November 23, 1946, to the date of offer of reinstatement, less the
net earnings 33 of each during such periods Frase was again the victim of Re-
spondent's discrimination on February 4, 1947, in that she was one of the unfair
labor practice strikers not then reinstated. The remedy herein recommended as
to those strikers will be applicable to her.
Having found that Respondent rejected the Union's offer to reutrn all the
striking employees to their jobs on February 4, 1947, it will be recommended that
Respondent offer to each of the individuals named in Appendices B and C"
attached hereto immediate reinstatement each to his former or substantially
equivalent n position without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privi-
leges, and make. each whole for any loss of wages he has suffered as a result of
the discrimination against him by payment to each of a sum of money equal to
the amount he would have earned as wages from February 4, 1947, to the date of
offer of reinstatement less his net earnings 88 during that period.
Having found that Respondent has unlawfully refused to bargain with the
Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit
84 Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) of the Act which, it has been found, Respondent violated,
are continued without change material here as Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) of the
amended Act.
35 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch
65 NLRB 827.
38 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440.
37 This will apply not only to such individuals as have not been reinstated but also to
those who have been returned to the payroll without full credit for seniority and other
rights enjoyed before the strikes, e. g., Dorothy Skinner. Hayward Head was rehired in
March 1947 on a logging crew. He was and is entitled to reinstatement as foreman or
timekeeper in the "yard," the position he held before the strike. See Columbia Pictures
Corporation, 82 NLRB 568.
33 See footnote 35, supra.
39 See footnote 36, supra.
CUMMER-GRAHAM COMPANY 759
at Longview and at Mineola, it will be recommended that, upon request, Respond-
ent bargain collectively with the Union and if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
Having found that Respondent engaged in acts of surveillance, interrogation,
threats, and other unlawful conduct in respect to the employees attempt to avail
themselves of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and the amended Act, it
will be recommended that it cease and desist from in any manner violating the
strictures of the amended Act.
Having found no discrimination attending the discharge of Oradell Young, the
layoff of Dorothy Skinner in December 1948, or the presentation of gifts in
February 1949, it will be recommended that the allegations in the complaint to
such effect be dismissed.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make 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 and amended Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Gladys Gamage, Beatrice Sanders Frase, Henry Lawrence, and those indivi-
duals named in Appendices B and C hereof thereby discouraging membership
in International Woodworkers of America, CIO, Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the
Act and Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the amended Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees at Respondent's Longview,
Texas, plant, excluding clerical employees, guards, and supervisory employees
as defined in the amended Act constitute and at all times material herein have
constituted a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act and the amended Act.
4. All production and maintenance employees at Respondent's Mineola, Texas,
plant, excluding clerical employees, guards, and supervisory employees as
defined in the amended Act, constitute, and at all times material herein, have
constituted a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act and the amended Act.
5. International Woodworkers of America, CIO, now is and at all times ma-
terial herein has been, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the
aforesaid appropriate units for the purpose of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act and the amended Act.
6. By refusing to bargain with International Woodworkers of America, CIO,
as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the appropriate units,
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (5) of the Act and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (5) of the amended Act.
7. By surveillance of union meetings, by interrogating employees concerning
the Union, by threatening employees with discharge because they favored
the Union, by threatening loss of privileges if employees joined the Union,
by discontinuing the rest periods and emergency fund at Mineola because em-
ployees desired the Union to represent them, Respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees, at both Longview and Mineola, in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and the amended Act
and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (1) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1) of the amended Act.
760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act and the
amended Act.
9. Respondent did not violate Section 8 (3) of the Act by the discharge of
Oradell Young or Section 8 (a) (3) and (4) of the amended Act by the layoff
of Dorothy Skinner or of Section 8 (a) (1) of the amended Act by presenting
gifts to its employees in February 1949.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, I recommend that Cummer-Graham Company,
Paris, Texas ; Longview, Texas ; and Mineola, Texas, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Woodworkers of Amer-
ica, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all production and maintenance
employees, in separate units at its Longview and Mineola plants, excluding from
each unit clerical employees, guards, and supervisory employees as defined in
the amended Act ;
(b) Discouraging membership in International Woodworkers of America, CIO,
by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees at Longview or
Mineola or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment, or any term or condition of their employment ;
(c) By means of surveillance, threats, discriminatory discontinuation of rest
periods, or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees at Longview or Mineola 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 bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of 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 S (a) (3) of the amended
Act, as guaranteed by Section 7 thereof.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act :
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with International Woodworkers of
America, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all production and maintenance
employees, excluding clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the amended Act, at the Longview plant and at the Mineola plant ;
(b) Make whole Gladys Gamage, Beatrice Sanders Frase, Henry Lawrence,
and those individuals named in Appendices B and C hereof, in the manner pre-
scribed in the section entitled "The remedy" ;
(c) Post at its plant at Longview, Texas, copies of the notice attached hereto,
marked Appendix D, and at its Mineola, Texas, plant, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto, marked Appendix E. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, be posted by Respondent, Appendix D in Longview
and Appendix E in Mineola, immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places in each
plant, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
CUMMER-GRAHAM COMPANY 761
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in writing within
twenty (20) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps Re-
spondent has taken in compliance herewith.
It is further recommended that, unless on or before twenty (20) days from
the receipt of this Intermediate Report, Respondent notifies the said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring it to do so.
It is further recommended that the allegation of the complaint that Oradell
Young was discriminatorily discharged, that Dorothy Skinner was discrimina-
torily laid off, and that Respondent violated the amended Act by presenting gifts
to its employees, be dismissed.
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 exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order 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 and Recommended Order. Immedi-
ately 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. State-
ments of exceptions and briefs shall designate 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 per-
mission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writ-
ing 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, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions,
and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 31st day of October 1949.
WALLACE E . ROYSTER,
Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX A
AT LONGVIEW, TEXAS
Albert Bonner
Curtis Baucham
Levy Coby
Elbert Crawford
Mathew Germany
Edward Gray
Nathaniel Holton
Duck Hansom
David House
Sam Huey
Judge Hutchings
Merlin Hutchings
Charley Jameson
Charley Johnson
762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Andrew Keys
Edward Keys
John Keys
Sam Kimbell
Henry Lawrence
Elmo Lanear
Emitt Long
Lucilius Long
Elzia Lucas
Judson Lucas
Robert McKinzy
Wilbert Muchelroy
Clifton Madden
O. C. Marshall
T. C. Medlock
Ben Wilburn
C. Y. Nash
Jemison Noble
Everett Norris
Ozie Robertson
Andrew Seigh
James C. Taylor
John Taylor
Booker T. White
Willie White
Eller Allen
Della Applegate
Elder Arnold
Eva Mae Bain
Horace Bell
Dewie Blackman
Clarence Bowie
Henery Boyd
Johnnie Boyd
Sam Boyd
Willie Bradley
Christopher Burns
D. C. Caldwell
Otis Choice
David Cotton
Joe Crow
Felton Davis
John Henry Edens
Concha Gomez
Henery George
Etta Green
Robert Harris
Acie Hall
Milard Haynes
APPENDIX A-Continued
AT LONGVIEW , TEXAS-continued
Robert Hern
Clarence Hubbard
Woodrow Hubbard
Leon Jackson
Elmo Ingram
Winnie Jackson
Wilma Johnson
Frank Jones
Fred Jones
Noble Johnigan
Charley Keys
Archie King
William King
Hubert Lewis
Earnest Little
Chester McIntire
Dorothy Maddox
Author McFee
Hayward Erwin
Roxie Hill
Hayward Hillard
Sylvester Mitchell
Jessie Moss
Inez Nelson
Henery Owens
Gaston Norris
Lenard Owens
Otto Pace
Lewis Perry
Lane Ponder
Wayne Robertson
William Sanders
John E. Sheppard
Fred Stanley
Clifton Seigh
Void Sowels
Harry Thompson
Welma D. Wade
James C. Ward
Claud Watkins
Floyd Williams
James Williams
Lavoine Williams
Travis Gregg
Hozie Hunt
Virgil Jeter
Judson Jones
Dorothy Lipscomb
Beatrice Sanders
CVMMER -GRAHAM COMPANY
APPENDIX A-Continued
Annie Sweat
Madline Tutt
Florence Williams
Grady Watkins
Claud Alex
Major Junior Bennett
Katie Mae Barns
Toree Bonner
Percy Combs
C. C. Easly
Woodie Emmel
Barney N. Holt
Victor Williams
Virgil Williams
Johnie Hutchinson
A. W. Jones
R. B. Attaway
Fred Bagsby
Alfred Brinkly
Lee Butler
Nadine Butler
Arnold Calip
John Cannon
Margaret Cannon
Malcolm L. Caraway
Henery L. Catron
Charlie Mayse
James W. Owens
James Petty
Vester Phillips
Julius Potts
Mattie Pearl Shaw
Doris Russel
Garland Sherman
Dorothy Skinner
G. H. Streety
Florence Daniel
Tom Dollar
William Dollar
Mamie Franks
Dora Gunter
Pleze Harvey
Bill Humphrey
Vilma L. Mayse
Estelle Meazell
Andrew Patterson
Johnny Brown
Archie Bullard
AT LONGVIEW , TEXAS-continued
Lafayett Norris
Oscar Lee Riggins
E. H. Stroud
Dick Wilson
John Bailey
Neal Bradley
Lapoleon Beckard
Moses Germany
James Lawson
George Polk
Columbus Rhodes
Dewie Sirles
William Skillern
Jonney Taylor
Moody White
AT MINEOLA, TEXAS
Victor Bullard
Authur Caberly
Flossie Coby
Monty Gresham
General Henery
R. H. Huffman
Farris Humphrey
C. A. Meazell
Samanth Catron
Lillie Frances Davis
Rufas Davis
J. W. Gallyean
Lavon Gunter
Floyd Harron
J. H. Harvey
Walter C. Harvey
Elbert Head
Cornell Hendly
Lee Ray Herron
William Hewitt
Margaret Hornsby
Rob Hornsby
Wesely Jackson
Judge London
Sylvester Eddie London
Melvin McC'auly
Lonzo Malone
John Mason
Arthur Strickland
H. G. Thomas
Harvey Tuck
Josephine Tuck
763
764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
R. O. Wardlow
Bob Wheeler
Charley Wheeler
Eddie Wheeler
Francis Wheeler
Hayward Wheeler
Ozello Wheeler
Clarence J. Williams
Leon Williams
Vera May Williams
Holt J. Wright
Rudolph Bagsby
Fay Nola Brooks
Henery Brooks
Emma Lee Crawford
Melvine Pettie
Nora Sheppard
Oscar Sheppard
Vester Adell Skiles
David Stephens
Val Taylor
Barbara Thomas
Vivian Walton
James Wheeler
APPENDIX A-Continued
AT MINEOLA, TEAS-COlltinued
Mary Williams
Mary Wright
H. T. Boyd
Mrs. Tom Dollar
Hayward Head
Agnes L. Mooring
W. E. Mooring
Carl T. Peebles
T. L. Peebles
l7ruve1le Attaway
Anease Minatrea
Mattie L. Minatrea
Alma Paslay
A. D. Richardson
Richmond Russel
Anvil Thomas
Robt. Thomas
Sim Tuck
J. T. Wells
G. P. Willis
A. W. Williams
Ruby Willingham
Jack McCaulom
APPENDIX B
Curtis Baucham
Levy Coby
Elbert Crawford
Mathew Germany
Edward Gray
Nathaniel Holton
Duck Hansom
David House
Sam Huey
Judge Hutchings
Merlin Hutchings
Charley Jameson
Charley Johnson
Andrew Keys
Edward Keys
John Keys
Sam Kimbell
Henry Lawrence
Elmo Lanear
Emitt Long
Luculius Long
Elzia Lucas
Judson Lucas
Robert McKinzy
Wilbert Muchelroy
Clifton Madden
O. C. Marshall
T. C. Medlock
Ben Wilburn
C. Y. Nash
Jemison Noble
Everett Norris
Ozie Robertson
Andrew Seigh
James C. Taylor
John Taylor
Booker T. White
Willie White
Eller Allen
Della Applegate
Elder Arnold
Eva Mae Bain
Dewie Blackman
Clarence Bowie
Henery Boyd
Johnnie Boyd
Sam Boyd
Willie Bradley
Christopher Burns
D. C. Caldwell
Otis Choice
David Cotton
Joe Crow
Felton Davis
John Henry Edens
Concha Gomez
Henery George
Etta Green
John Bailey
Neal Bradley
Lapoleon Beckard
Moses Germany
Robert Harris
Milard Haynes
Clarence Hubbard
Leon Jackson
Elmo Ingram
Winnie Jackson
Wilma Johnson
Frank Jones
Fred Jones
Noble Johnigan
Charley Keys
Archie King
William King
Hubert Lewis
Earnest Little
Chester McIntire
Dorothy Maddox
Author McFee
Hayward Erwin
Roxie Hill
Hayward Hillard
Sylvester Mitchell
Jessie Moss
Inez Nelson
CUMMER-GRAHAM COMPANY
APPENDIX B-Continued
Henery Owens
Gaston Norris
Lenard Owens
Otto Pace
Lane Ponder
Wayne Robertson
William Sanders
John E. Sheppard
Fred Stanley
Clifton Seigh
Void Sowels
Welma D. Wade
James C. Ward
Claud Watkins
James Williams
Lavoine Williams
Travis Gregg
IIozie Hunt
Virgil Jeter
Dorothy Lipscomb
Beatrice Sanders
Annie Sweat
Florence Williams
Grady Watkins
Claud Alex
Major Junior Bennett
Katie Mae Burns
Torree Bonner
Woodie Emmel
Victor Williams
Virgil Williams
Johnie Hutchinson
Oscar Lee Riggins
Dick Wilson
James Lawson
Columbus Rhodes
Dewie Sirles
William Skillern
Moody White
APPENDIX C
R. B. Attaway
Fred Bagsby
Alfred Brinkly
Lee Butler
Nadine Butler
Arnold Calip
John Cannon
Margaret Cannon
Malcolm. L. Caraway
Henery L. Catron
Samanth Catron
Ruffs Davis
J. W. Gallyean
Lavon Gunter
Floyd Harron
Elbert Head
Lee Ray Herron
William-Hewitt
7(i r
766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Maragret Hornsby
Rob Hornsby
Wesely Jackson
Judge London
Sylvester Eddie London
Melvin McCauly
Lonzo Malone
John Mason
Charlie Mayse
James W. Owens
James Petty
Vester Phillips
Julius Potts
Mattie Pearl Shaw
Doris Russel
Garland Sherman
Dorothy Skinner
G. H. Streety
Arthur Strickland
H. G. Thomas
Harvey Tuck
Josephine Tuck
R. O. Wardlow
Bob Wheeler
Charley Wheeler
Eddie Wheeler
Francis Wheeler
Hayward Wheeler
Ozello Wheeler
Leon Williams
Vera May Williams
Holt J. Wright
Rudolph Bagsby
Fay Nola Brooks
Henery Brooks
Emma Lee Crawford
Florine Daniel
Tom Dollar
William Dollar
Mamie Franks
Dora Gunter
APPENDIX C-Continued
Pleze Harvey
Bill Humphrey
Wilma L. Mayse
Estelle Meazell
Andrew Patterson
Melvine Pettie
Nora Sheppard
Oscar Sheppard
David Stephens
Barbara Thomas
Vivian Walton
James Wheeler
Mary Williams
Mary Wright
H. T. Boyd
Mrs. Tom Dollar
Hayward Head
Agnes L. Mooring
W. E. Mooring
Carl T. Peebles
T. L. Peebles
Druvalle Attaway
Arthur Caberly
Flossie Coby
Monty Gresham
General Henery
R. H. Huffman
Farris Humphrey
C. A. Meazell
Anease Minatrea
Mattie L . Minatrea
Alma Paslay
A. D. Richardson
Richmond Russel
Anvil Thomas
Robt . Thomas
Sim Tuck
J. T, Wells
G. P. Wilks
A. W. Williams
Ruby Willingham
APPENDIX D
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 by means of interrogation , threats, surveillance, or in any
other manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce our employees in the exer-
CUMMER-GRAHAM COMPANY 767
cise 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 representatives of their own
choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
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 amended Act.
WE WILL OFFER to Gladys Gamage and Henry Lawrence immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights previously enjoyed, and make them
whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
WE WILL MAKE WHOLE Beatrice Sanders Frase for loss of pay suffered
as a result of the discrimination against her for the period of September 26
to October 13, 1946.
To the extent that such action has not already been taken, WE WILL OFFER to
Curtis Baucham
Levy Coby
Elbert Crawford
Edward Gray
Nathaniel Holton
Duck Hansom
David House
Sam Huey
Judge Hutchings
Merlin Hutchings
Charley Jameson
Charley Johnson
Andrew Keys
Edward Keys
John Keys
Sam Kimbell
Elmo Lanear
Emitt Long
Lucilius Long
Elzia Lucas
Judson Lucas
Robert McKinzy
Wilbert Muehelroy
Clifton Madden
O. C. Marshall
Della Applegate
Elder Arnold
Eva Mae Bain
Dewie Blackman
Clarence Bowie
Henery Boyd
Johnnie Boyd
Sam Boyd
Willie Bradley
Christopher Burns
D. C. Caldwell
Otis Choice
David Cotton
Joe Crow
Felton Davis
John Henry Edens
Concha Gomez
Henery George
Etta Green
Robert Harris
Milard Haynes
Clarence Hubbard
Leon Jackson
Elmo Ingram
Winnie Jackson
T. C. Medlock
Ben Wilburn
C. Y. Nash
Jemison Noble
Everett Norris
Ozie Robertson
Andrew Seigh
James C. Taylor
John Taylor
Booker T. White
Willie White
Eller Allen
Henery Owens
Gaston Norris
Lenard Owens
Otto Pace
Lane Ponder
Wayne Robertson
William Sanders
John E. Sheppard
Grady Watkins
Clifton Seigh
768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX D-Continued
Void Sowels Author McFee
Welma D. Wade Travis Gregg
James C. Ward Hozie Hunt
Claude Watkins Virgil Jeter
James Williams Dorothy Lipscomb
Virgil Williams Beatrice Sanders
Oscar Lee Riggins Annie Sweat
John Bailey Florence Williams
Lapoleon Beckard Fred Stanley
James Lawson Claud Alex
Dewie Sirles Major Junior Bennett
Moody White Katie Mae Barris
Hayward Erwin Torree Bonner
Roxie Hill Woodie Emmel
Hayward Hillard Lavoine Williams
Wilma Johnson Victor Williams
Frank Jones Johnie Hutchinson
Fred Jones Dick Wilson
Noble Johnigan Neal Bradley
Charley Keys Moses Germany
Archie King Columbus Rhodes
William King William Skillern
Hubert Lewis Sylvester Mitchell
Earnest Little Jessie Moss
Chester McIntire Inez Nelson
Dorothy Maddox
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 since
February 4,1947, as a result of the discrimination.
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-named union as
the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described
herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions
of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understand-
ing in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All production and maintenance employees at the Longview, Texas, plant
excluding clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
amended Act.
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.
CUMMER-GRAHAM COMPANY,
Employer.
By --------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
CUMME,R-GRAHAM COMPANY
APPENDIX E
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
769
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 by means of interrogation, threats, surveillance, or in any
other 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 representatives of their own
choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or 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 amended Act.
To the extent that such action has not already been taken, WE WILL
OFFER to
R. B. Attaway
Fred Bagsby
Alfred Brinkly
Lee Butler
Nadine Butler
Arnold Calip
John Cannon
Margaret Cannon
Malcolm L. Caraway
Henry L. Catron
Samanth Catron
Rufus Davis
J. W. Gallyean
Lavon Gunter
Floyd Harron
Elbert Head
Lee Ray Herron
William Hewitt
Margaret Hornsby
Rob Hornsby
Wesly Jackson
Judge London
Sylvester Eddie
London
Melvin McCauly
Lonzo Malone
John Mason
Charlie Mayse
James W. Owens
James Petty
Vester Phillips
Julius Potts
Mattle Pearl Shaw
Nora Sheppard
Doris Russel
Garland Sherman
Dorothy Skinner
G. H. Streety
Arthur Strickland
H. G. Thomas
Harvey Tuck
Josephine Tuck
R. O. Wardlow
Bob Wheeler
Charley Wheeler
Eddie Wheeler
Francis Wheeler
Hayward Wheeler
Ozello Wheeler
Leon Williams
Vera May Williams
Holt J. Wright
Rudolph Bagsby
Fay Nola Brooks
Henery Brooks
Emma Lee Crawford
Florene Daniel
Tom Dollar
William Dollar
Mamie Franks
Dora Gunter
Pleze Harvey
Bill Humphrey
Wilma L. Mayse
903847-51-vol. 90-50
770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX E-Continued
Estelle Meazell Flossie Coby
Andrew Patterson Monty Gresham
Melvine Pettie General Henery
Oscar Sheppard R. H. Huffman
David Stephens Farris Humphrey
Barbara Thomas C. A. Meazell
'Vivian Walton Anease Minatrea
.James Wheeler Mattie L. Minatrea
Mary Williams Alma Paslay '
Mary Wright A. D. Richardson
H. T. Boyd Richmond Russel
Mrs. Tom Dollar Anvil Thomas
'Hayward Head Robt. Thomas
Agnes L. Mooring Sim Tuck
W. E. Mooring J. T. Wells
Carl T. Peebles G. P. Wilks
T. L. Peebles A. W. Williams
Druvelle Attaway Ruby Willingham
Arthur Caberly
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 since
February 4, 1947, as a result of the discrimination.
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-named union
as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All production and maintenance employees at the Mineola, Texas, plant,
excluding clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
amended Act.
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
employees because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
-organization.
CUMMER GRAHAM COMPANY,
Employer.
By ----- ------- ------------------------
Dated ------------------------- (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.