Harley Bag Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 22, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 1497 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

HARLEY BAG COMPANY, INC. 1497
tion to trade , traffic , and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom , and from like and related
conduct, and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Having found that the Respondents have published and maintained a plant rule,
known as rule 4 of the Anderson-Rooney Company rules, which , in the light of the
interpretation and effect given such rule by the Respondents , prohibits , purports to
prohibit , and/or may now reasonably be construed by the Respondents ' employees as
prohibiting , union activities or solicitation of union membership on company prem-
ises at any time, including employees ' nonworking time, thereby trenching upon
employees ' statutory rights, I shall recommend that the Respondents be ordered to
rescind such rule, or, in the alternative , if the Respondents so elect, to revise such
rule so as to make it clear on its face that the rule will not be interpreted , applied,
or enforced to impair or impede union solicitation activities on company premises
during employees' nonworking time, including lunch and rest periods.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Building Service Employees International Union,, Local 245, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the terms and conditions of employment of
Herbert Younger by means of his transfer from the Sunray Building to the Mid-
Continent Building, thereby discouraging membership in the above -named Union,
the Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
3. By the foregoing conduct , and by publishing and maintaining a plant rule which,
in the light of the interpretation and effect given it by the Respondents , prohibits,
purports to prohibit , and/or may reasonably be construed by the Respondents' em-
ployees as prohibiting , union activities or the solicitation of union membership on
company premises at any time, including employees ' nonworking time, the Respond-
ents have interfered with , restrained , and coerced employees in the exercise of their
statutory rights within the meaning of Section 8 ( a)( 1 ) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondents did not engage in unfair labor practices by reason of their
discharge of Herbert Younger on April 27, 1961, as alleged in the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Harley Bag Company , Inc. and International Brotherhood of
Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers , AFL-CIO. Case No.
11-CA-1769. December 22, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 2, 1961, C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate
Report herein, finding that the Respondent, Harley Bag Company,
Inc., had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) and recommend-
ing that' it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
134 NLRB No. 137.
1498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and a brief in support thereof.'
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings and finds no
prejudicial error. The rulings are affirmed. The Board has considered
the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in the case, and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommendations of the Trial Examiner
except that:
1. Since South Carolina is a right-to-work State, we delete from
the Order and notice to all employees the words "except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as author-
ized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified'by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959." 2
2. Provision 2(d) is modified to read: "Notify the Regional Di-
rector for the Eleventh Region, in writing, within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH and MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the
consideration of the above Decision and Order.
1 Subsequent to the issuance of the Intermediate Report, Respondent filed a "Motion to
Reopen the Record for the Purpose of Hearing After Discovered Evidence ." Respondent
asserts that the evidence it proposes to adduce , which relates to events occurring in 1951
and prior thereto, would affect the credibility of Pleasant and could affect the remedy in
his case. However, Pleasant 's testimony at the hearing relied up by the Trial Examiner
was not contradicted and there is other testimony which shows a virtual admission by
Respondent that Pleasant 's discharge was unlawfully motivated . Also, we are not
satisfied that the proffered evidence could affect the remedy herein. Accordingly, inas-
much as it does not appear that the evidence which Respondent seeks to make part of the
record would warrant any change in our disposition of Pleasant 's case, the motion to re-
open for the receipt of such evidence is hereby denied
2 Denson Electric Co.,'133 NLRB 122.
In the notice to all employees which is attached to the Intermediate Report as Appendix,
the words "Decision and Order" are hereby substituted for the words "The Recommenda-
tions of a Trial Examiner " In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a
United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a
Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges in the above-entitled case having been filed and served ; a complaint and
notice of hearing thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board ; and an answer having been filed by the above-
named Respondent, a hearing involving allegations of unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8 (a)(1) and (3 ) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, was held on August 23 and 24, 1961 , in Spartanburg , South Carolina,
before the duly designated Trial Examiner.
HARLEY BAG COMPANY, INC. 1499
At the hearing all parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity to
present evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs
have been received from General Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon the record thus made, and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Harley Bag Company, Inc., is a South Carolina corporation which operates a
factory at Camp Croft, South Carolina, where it manufactures paper bags. During
the 12 months before issuance of the complaint the Respondent sold and shipped
from its plant finished products valued at more than $50,000 to points outside the
State of South Carolina.
The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE CHARGING UNION
International Brotherhood of Pulp , Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers , AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting and issues
The events placed in issue by the complaint in these proceedings began a few
days after Cleveland S. Harley, plant manager, removed from the plant bulletin
boards formal notices to the effect that the Respondent would not unlawfully dis-
criminate against employees, would not interfere with the exercise by employees of
their rights under Section 7 of the Act, and would "make whole" two employees
whose employment had previously been terminated. The posting of this notice
had been required by terms of a settlement agreement in Case No. 11-CA-1693, fol-
lowing an organizational campaign in 1960, apparently unsuccessful, by a labor
organization other than the one here involved.
The discharge of two employees-John W. Morgan and Lewis E. Pleasant-is also
the chief issue in these proceedings. It is General Counsel's contention, contested
by the Respondent, that both employees were dismissed in order to discourage mem-
bership in the Charging Union.
Also involved as issues are allegations that management representatives unlawfully
interrogated employees about their union activities, threatened them with reprisals,
and granted a general wage increase to induce them not to join the Union. These
events occurred in the spring of 1961.
B. The discharges
1. J. W. Morgan
a. Facts relevant to the dismissal
(1) Until his sudden discharge on April 13, 1961, Morgan had been employed
chiefly as a printer's helper since August 1957, when he was hired by Foreman Dunn.
(2) On the day of his hire he was wearing a backbrace, extending from neck to
hips, designed in the shape of a chairback, and it appears that throughout his nearly
4 years of employment he used this brace. At a previous place of employment he
had suffered a back injury, and under workmen's compensation had been rated with
from 15- to 30-percent permanent disability.
(3) In March 1960, in line of duty at his regular work, Morgan again injured his
back while lifting a heavy shaft, and was out of work for 2 weeks. When he returned
to work it was with the specific instructions of the doctor treating him that he was
not to perform heavy lifting. These instructions were transmitted from the depart-
ment head to Printer Burdette, Morgan's immediate supervisor.
(4) Morgan attended union organizing meetings conducted by the Charging
Union in a local motel, and which began in mid-February 1961 under the employee
leadership of Lewis Pleasant, as noted more fully in the following section of this
report. Morgan signed a union authorization card for Pleasant.
(5) On or about March 22 Morgan was summoned to the office by Plant Manager
Harley, who precisely a week earlier had notified the Eleventh Regional Office of the
Board, in writing, that the above-described notices were being taken down. Harley
asked Morgan if "there was something" he wanted "to tell hini." Morgan asked
1500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
what he meant . Harley then said he "had some information that there was a union
being organized down there " and that Morgan "could tell him the names of people
who had signed cards ." Morgan disclaimed knowledge of information Harley
sought.'
(6) On March 29 Foreman Dunn told Morgan that Foreman Lanford, then the
employee's supervisor, had been told to "watch him," and to "find something to
get rid of him for." 2
(7) On or about April 1 Morgan was given a note by a bone specialist which the
employee gave to his foreman, Lanford, stating that he could "go back to heavy
lifting."
(8) Upon receipt of this "clearance," according to Lanford, he told Morgan that
from then on he would be expected to "carry the full responsibility of his work with-
out assistance from his fellow employees."
(9) On Monday, April 10, while Morgan was assisting another employee in lift-
ing a heavy plate cylinder into the press-a task which customarily required two
employees to perform-the other employee's foot slipped and with the sudden in-
crease of weight at his end Morgan's back was again injured. He went home, con-
sulted the doctor, and was told to remain in bed a few days. Lanford called
Morgan's home and was given the information as to the doctor's instructions.
(10) Morgan returned to work on Thursday, April 13, and it is uncontradicted
that he performed all his regular duties until midafternoon , when he was sent to
the personnel office.
(11) He was there told by Foreman Lanford, in the presence of Personnel Director
Shirley McCraw, that he was being "let go" because of his "back condition." Morgan
inquired if his attendance had been satisfactory up to the time of his injury and
both management representatives answered in the affirmative.3
b. Conclusions as to Morgan's discharge
The affirmative defense adduced by the Respondent concerning this discharge is
of an unusual nature. No management representative was asked who made the
decision to dismiss Morgan, or precisely why he was let go. At the opening of his
case, counsel for the Respondent stated that it was the "company's position" that
Morgan was discharged "because of repeated absences, and inability to do his work
because of back injury." Lanford, the foreman who discharged the employee, was
asked neither who who made the decision or why. He was merely asked to identify
a document bearing the date of April 14, the day after the discharge, made out not
by himself but according to his own testimony by the "personnel department," and
asked if it "correctly state[s] the conversation you had with Mr. Morgan" at the
time of discharge. Lanford answered in the affirmative. The document bears a
checkmark before the words "General Attendance" under the heading "Discharges,"
and following "Remarks" has the handwritten notation: "Mr. Morgan was absent a
great deal. We could not rely on him to be here. Due a back injury [ sic] previous
to his employment here, he could not do his regular job."
Yet, as noted above, Morgan's testimony is uncontradicted by either Lanford or
McCraw to the effect that on April 13 both affirmed that his attendance had been all
right up to the time of his injury in 1960-suffered in line of duty.
Counsel for the Respondent established and General Counsel conceded that "as a
result of Mr. Morgan's injury of March 1960," a local doctor gave him a "total
permanent disability of 25 percent."
As counsel for the Respondent correctly states in his brief , the "evidence as a
whole clearly shows" that the Company "tolerated for approximately a year"
Morgan's inability to do heavy lifting alone and the absences "due to his back injury
'As a witness Harley did not specifically deny having asked Morgan for such informa-
tion. He merely answered in the negative when asked if he "mentioned" anything about
the Union at the time. For reasons more fully revealed in the section relating to
Pleasant, the Trial Examiner cannot rely upon any of Harley's testimony where not
corroborated by credible evidence From his confused and rambling testimony regarding
this interview, the occurrence of which he admitted, Harley appeared to claim that he had
called in Morgan at the request of the employee's foreman, Lanford, in order to tell him
that his work must improve and also what some doctor had told him about Morgan's back
Lanford's testimony provides no support for this claim, and credible evidence shows that
on March 22 there would have been no occasion to raise a question about an injury which
did not, as noted above, occur until 3 weeks later.
2 Dunn did not deny having thus warned Morgan.
8 Morgan's account of this` final interview is undisputed.
HARLEY BAG COMPANY, INC. 1501
of March 8, 1960." The Respondent makes no claim that the injury of April 10, 1961,
was caused by any,negligence on Morgan's part, and it is undisputed that he per-
formed his work fully and satisfactorily for nearly the full day of his return on
April 13.
The implied claim in the Respondent's brief that Morgan had been offered but had
refused "lighter work" is refuted in large part by a document placed in evidence by
the Respondent itself, which states that on April 3, 1961, Morgan was "offered a
job on the Sewing Line which at times would be lighter work but at times would
be ,approximately the same as his regular job." [Emphasis supplied.] The same
document states-not that he refused a transfer-but "He chose his regular job."
There is no credible evidence in the record that at any time during his long em-
ployment, throughout which management was aware of his partial disability, Morgan
was ever given the choice of a lighter job, or no job, or that ever before April 13 was
discharge even threatened.
Having hired Morgan fully aware of his earlier back injury and having, as Respond-
ent's counsel urges, "tolerated" absences made necessary by the industrial accident
of March 1960, the Respondent may not now validly be held to have discharged
him on April 13, 1961, for such injuries and resultant absences. The Trial Examiner
is convinced and finds that these reasons are but a convenient pretext, and that
the real motivation is to be found in Harley's failure, on March 22, to,elicit informa-
tion about union adherents from Morgan. -It is therefore concluded and found that
Morgan was unlawfully discharged on April 13, to discourage union membership
and activity, and that by this act the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
2. Lewis Pleasant
a. Facts relevant to the discharge
(1) When summarily discharged on April 28, 1961, by Master Mechanic Wilder,
Pleasant had worked for the Respondent about 41 years. He drove a truck.
(2) Pleasant was the employee leader of the Union's organizing campaign at the
plant. He arranged for weekly meetings which were held at a local motel beginning
in mid-February.
(3) On April 21 Plant Manager Harley assembled all employees and, as noted
more fully below, warned employees that there was to be no soliciting on com-
pany property and told them he had been informed as to what was "going on" and
that he knew "who was causing the trouble"-at which point he looked directly at
Pleasant, standing within a few feet from him.
(4) About a week before this speech management inaugurated a practice never
before followed. It required anyone using a company truck to fill out a "Trip Card."
The driver was instructed to note thereon the "mileage readings," both in and out,
and the place visited.
(5) On April 27, payday at the plant, while on a trip in town on company business,
Pleasant cashed paychecks for his foreman, Wilder, Personnel Director McCraw,
and another employee. He was instructed by Wilder not to put this information on
the trip card. He followed such instructions .4
(6) At noon on April 28 Pleasant was sent on another errand in town. He
followed the usual shortest route, as admitted by Wilder, which passed -by his own
house. He was accompanied by another individual, Reeder, admitted by the Respond-
ent to be a supervisor. He stopped by his house, only long enough to pick up a
sandwich already made up for him by his wife, and then proceeded about his errand
in company with the supervisor.
(7) He finished his shift that afternoon and went home. Some 2 hours later he
was visited by Wilder, who told him that he had been instructed to discharge him
"for falsifying the trip card, that he was seen in an unauthorized place that after-
noon"-which was April 28.5 He was directed to come to the plant the next day
and get his check. He did so and has not been reinstated.
b. Conclusions as to Pleasant's discharge
The testimony and evidence offered by the Respondent as to who discharged
Pleasant and why is so contradictory and confusing as to deprive it of any probative
value or persuasive weight. As noted above, Wilder told Pleasant that he was
being fired for "falsifying the trip card . . . that afternoon," April 28. The Re-
' The employee's testimony on this matter is not contradicted.
5 The quotation is from Wilder's testimony.
1502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent did not offer in evidence any card dated April 28, and it is thus impossible
to determine precisely what was on it. And while Wilder testified unequivocally that
on April 28 "Mr. Harley informed me that he (Pleasant) had used the truck again
on personal business, and that he wanted him discharged that day," Harley, on the
contrary, testified just as flatly that he did not give Wilder "instructions" to discharge
Pleasant and that it was Wilder's "decision" to fire him.
Under such circumstances the inference is warranted, and it is concluded and
found, that Pleasant, the employee leader of the Union, was actually discharged to
discourage union membership and activity, and that such unlawful discharge consti-
tuted interference, restraint, and coercion.
Supporting this conclusion is the undisputed fact that a few days after the dis-
charge, on May 5, employee Dorothy Newell was warned by her supervisor, Foreman
Dunn, that she had better "watch her step," that she had been seen "talking to Mr.
Pleasant," and that Harley "felt" she "was involved in the union."
C. Other interference, restraint, and coercion
On March 27, a few days after removing the notices previously described, man-
agement issued a booklet entitled "Employees Manual" which contained, among
other things, a provision that discharge or other discipline would be imposed if
employees engaged in "circulation of petitions and the solicitation or collection of
contributions, donations, etc., during working hours unless previously authorized
by the company."
General Counsel does not contend that the vublished rule is an unlawful restraint
of employee rights. He does claim, however, and adduced credible testimony in
support of such claim, that in referring to this provision at an assemblage of all
employees on April 21 Harley extended his remarks to a point exceeding permissive
warning. The plant manager, as a witness, did not specifically deny, and on the
basis of credible testimony of employees present it is found, that on the occasion
of this speech Harley also warned employees that there was to be no solicitation in
the plant or upon company property, that he knew who was causing the trouble and
that he had had telephone calls from employees informing him of "things going on " 8
On several occasions after the union organizing campaign began Supervisor
Gallman, head of the department in which employee Simms worked, warned her
and others not to sign any cards if asked. When she was laid off early in June 1961,
Gallman told her that "everyone that had signed a union card would be fired."'
As noted above, Foreman Dunn warned employee Newell about May 5 to
"watch her step" and that she had been seen talking with Pleasant. On the same
occasion Dunn told her that Plant Manager Harley thought she was involved in
the Union, but that he could not let her "go because of that" and "would have
to find some other reason." Dunn also told the same employee that "two women"
who had signed union cards became afraid they would lose their jobs and so had
gone to Harley and "spilled the beans," telling him "everything they knew about
the Union " 8
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the Respondent engaged in unlawful
interference, restraint, and coercion by: (1) Harley's prohibition of "solicitation"
on company property and his statement that he was being informed of "things going
on"-clearly implying union activities; (2) Gallman's warning not to sign union
cards and his remark that those who had signed would be fired; and (3) Dunn's
warning to employee Newell.
6 Harley merely answered in the negative a number of general questions by his counsel,
such as "Have you ever told employees that you have been receiving reports of their
activities"' and "Have you ever threatened employees with discharge if they engaged in
union solicitation on company times" The Trial Examiner does not consider that such
general denials squarely meet the specific, detailed and credible testimony of General
Counsel's witnesses.
4 The Trial Examiner does not credit Gallman's general denials which, as the record
shows, he was so eager to proffer that he answered even before a question had been comn-
pleted Simms also testified concerning an incident when Gallman was "going through"
her pocketbook That he did so is admitted by Gallman She claimed that, coming upon
a certain card,'he asked her if it was her "union card" He claimed that it was she who
asked him if he was looking for her "union card " Since Simms admitted that it was
not unusual for Gallman to take the liberty of going through her pocketbook for change the
Trial Examiner is unable to perceive any unlawful act on Gallman's part, whichever
version is accepted.
8 As noted above, the Trial Examiner can accord no weight to Dunn's general denials.
HARLEY BAG COMPANY, INC. 1503
General Counsel further urges that a general increase in wages granted by the
Respondent soon after the union organization began also constituted unlawful inter-
ference and was designed to discourage union activity in the plant. In view of the
fact that the Respondent offered as a reason for such increase, which it admitted, a
motivation so devoid of reason and logic as to be incredible, the Trial Examiner be-
lieves that the record as a whole fully supports General Counsel's contention. The
Respondent claimed, in.effect, that it figured it would save money by granting a wage
increase in the spring of the year which it might have to make in the fall because of
the increase provided by the minimum wage law.
The increase, in short, reasonably may be inferred to have been but a different
means to the same end-a benefit instead of a threat-and the entire pattern designed
to discourage union membership. It took place in a clear context of hostility toward
the Union, of discriminatory discharges and open threats of reprisal. It is therefore
concluded and found that the evidence supports General Counsel's contention as to
the unlawful purpose of his general increase.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
- Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices the Trial
Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It will be recommended that the Respondent offer employees Morgan and Pleasant
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their rights and privileges, and make them whole for
any loss of pay sufferedby reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to
each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned
as wages, absent the discrimination, from the date of discharge to the date of offer
of reinstatement, less their net earnings during said period and in a manner con-
sistent with Board policy set out in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and
Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440.
Since the violations of the Act which the Respondent committed are related to
other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and the danger of their com-
mission in the future is reasonably to be anticipated from its past conduct, the
preventive purposes of the Act may be thwarted unless the recommendations are
coextensive with the threat. To effectuate the policies of the Act, therefore, it will
be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner
upon the rights guaranteed employees by the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of employees,
thereby discouraging membership in the above-named labor organization, the Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon,the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner recommends that the Respondent,
Harley Bag Company, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
1504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD
(a). Discouraging membership in International Brotherhood of Pulp , Sulphite
and Paper Mill Workers , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , by discharging,
laying off, refusing to reinstate , or in any other manner discriminating in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating employees regarding their union adherence or activities, in a
manner violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(c) Threatening employees with reprisals to discourage membership and activi-
ties in a labor organization.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations , to join or
assist the above-named 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,
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 by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified
by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the ct:
,(a) Offer employees Morgan and Pleasant immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges , and make them whole for any loss of earnings they
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them , in the manner set
forth in the section above entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the 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 the de-
termination of the amount of backpay due and the right of reinstatement under
these recommendations.
(c) Post at its plant in Camp Croft , South Carolina , copies of the notice attached
hereto marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Eleventh Region , shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent,
be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of 60
consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure
that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, in writing , within 20
days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report , what steps it has
taken to comply with the recommendations herein.
It is further recommended that , unless within the prescribed period the Respondent
notifies the said Regional Director that it will comply with the foregoing recom-
mendations , the National Labor Relations Board issue an Order requiring compliance.
APPENDIX _
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, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Brotherhood of Pulp,
Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organiza-
tion , by discharging, laying off, refusing to reinstate , or in any other manner
discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condi-
tion of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union adherence or
activities in a manner violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten reprisals in order to discourage membership in the
above-named or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in any other 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 au-
CULINARY WORKERS & BARTENDERS LOCAL 535, ETC. 1505
thorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer John W . Morgan and Lewis E. Pleasant immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions , and make
them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them.
HARLEY BAG COMPANY, INC.,
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.
Culinary Workers and Bartenders Union Local 535, affiliated
with the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders
International Union , AFL-CIO and Educational Supply Serv-
ice of California. Case No. 21-CP-37. December 06, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 14, 1961, Trial Examiner Herman Marx issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
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. The Board has considered the entire rec-
ord in this case, including the Intermediate Report and the exceptions
and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner except as modified herein.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Culinary Work-
ers and Bartenders Union Local 535, affiliated with the Hotel and
1 we find it unnecessary to our decision here to consider the Board's holding in Chefs,
Cooks, etc ., Local 89, et al. (Stork Restaurant , Inc.), 130 NLRB 543, and, accordingly,
do not adopt the Trial Examiner 's references thereto in footnote 8 of his Intermediate
Report.
The Trial Examiner recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist
from picketing the premises of the Employer with "the" object proscribed by Section
8(b) (7) of the Act. As Section 8(b) (7) forbids picketing where "an object thereof" is
a proscribed one, and is thus not limited in application to picketing conducted solely for a
proscribed object, we shall enter an order in conformity with the Act.
134 NLRB No. 156.
630849-62-vol. 131-9 6