International Paper Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 1, 1977

228 N.L.R.B. 1137 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

INTERNATIONAL
International Paper Company , Inc. and UBC, South-
ern Council of Industrial Workers , United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO. Cases 26-CA-6149 and 26-RC-5240
April 1, 1977
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND
WALTHER
On December 2, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Ivar H. Peterson issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed a cross-exception and a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions' of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified
herein.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified herein, and hereby orders that the Respon-
dent, International Paper Company, Inc., Beirne and
Gurdon, Arkansas, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order as modified below:
1. Insert the following as paragraph 1(f):
"(f) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board 's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951) We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
However, we do not rely on the fact that Foreman Russell obtained a
character witness 4 days before the hearing in affirming the Administrative
Law Judge's discrediting of his testimony in certain respects. Russell might
have had many reasons for wanting Reverend Scott present at the hearing
228 NLRB No. 148
PAPER COMPANY 1137
and to testify on his behalf which would not reflect adversely on his
credibility. We decline to speculate.
Respondent also excepts , inter alia, to the Administrative Law Judge's
findings that Foreman Hisaw questioned employees in addition to McGee
about their union sympathies and was not credible in denying he had
suggested that she compare the Respondent's benefits with those at union
plants ; and his implication that Foreman Russell testified that it was while
at Bailey's home that he told Bailey he did not know whether the employees
could get a raise . There is no need for us to reach or pass on those findings
by the Administrative Law Judge, which we regard as immaterial . Contrary
findings would not affect the ultimate resolution of credibility, the unfair
labor practices found , the remedy, or the Order.
2 The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently faded to include in his
recommended Order the narrow cease -and-desist language which the Board
traditionally provides in cases involving 8(a)(l) violations . Accordingly, we
shall modify his recommended Order to require the Respondent to cease
and desist from in any like or related manner infringing upon employee
rights. The recommended notice which stated the "broad" language will also
be modified.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT question employees concerning
their union membership, sympathies, or desires.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with reduc-
tion of their break periods or with a cut in wages
should they select the Union as their collective-
bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of
vacation, holiday benefits, or jobs in the event
they select the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close the plant if the
Union succeeds in organizing our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the right to self-organization; to
bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing; to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection; or to refrain
from any and all such activities.
INTERNATIONAL PAPER
COMPANY, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IvAR H. PETERSON, Administrative Law Judge: The
hearing in this case was held on September 2, 1976, in
Prescott, Arkansas, upon the complaint issued by the
Regional Director for Region 26 on July 8, which in turn
was based on a charge filed on May 17, by UBC, Southern
Council of Industrial Workers, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO-CLC,
herein called the Union . Briefly stated, the complaint
alleged that the Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by questioning employees regarding their union
1138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sympathies and desires , threatening employees with reduc-
tion in their break period and with a cut in wages should
the Union be selected as their collective-bargaining
representative , threatening them with plant closure if the
Union succeeded in its organizational efforts and with loss
of vacation, holiday benefits, and jobs if they voted in the
Union, and telling an employee that all of the Respon-
dent's employees would have received a 40-cent increase in
wages but for the presence of the Union . In its answer,
dated July 16, the Respondent admitted the jurisdictional
allegations of the complaint but denied that it had engaged
in any unfair labor practices. On July 29, the Regional
Director issued an Order consolidating the unfair labor
practice case with Case 26-RC-5240, in which he had
issued a report on objections to the election on July 6.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses as they testified, and a
consideration of the briefs filed with me by counsel for the
General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent on
September 27, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Respondent , which is engaged in the business of
milling lumber , maintains offices and places of business
located in Beirne and Gurdon, Arkansas. During the 12-
month period preceding issuance of the complaint, the
Respondent admittedly purchased 'and received at its
Arkansas locations products valued in excess of $50,000
directly from points located outside the State of Arkansas
and, during the same period, sold and shipped from its
Arkansas locations products valued in excess of $500,000
directly to points located outside the State of Arkansas and
had a gross volume of business in excess of $50,000.
Admittedly, the Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act. It is further admitted that at all material times the
following individuals held the positions indicated and were
agents of the Respondent and supervisors within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act: Neil Ursery, foreman;
Tuck Hisaw , foreman ; Billy Joe Russell , foreman ; Ernest
Carter, foreman. I further find that the Union is a labor
organization with the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
The Union filed a representation petition on March 24
and, pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election, an election was held on May 19 among a
unit consisting of all production and maintenance employ-
ees employed by the Respondent at both its facilities,
including saw filers and plant clerical employees. The tally
of ballots showed that there were approximately 220
eligible voters and that 213 ballots were cast of which 42
were for the Union and 155 were against the Union, with 2
void ballots and 14 challenged ballots. On May 26 the
Union filed timely objections to conduct affecting the
results of the election and, on July 6, the Regional Director
issued his report on objections in which he recommended
that certain of the Union's objections be overruled and that
certain others be consolidated for hearing with Case 26-
CA-6149.
B. Interrogation
The complaint alleges that Foreman Hisaw , on or about
May 16 , questioned an employee at the Beirne location
concerning her union sympathies and desires and promised
the employee certain benefits if the Union were voted out.
Wanda McGee, who had worked at the Beirne location for
4 years, at all times under Foreman Hisaw , testified that 2
or 3 days before the election Foreman Hisaw came to her
in the mill and asked her for the name of her husband, how
old he was, what work he did, and also asked what her
name was, how old she was, how many children she had
and their names and ages . She gave him this information
which he recorded in a "little black book." After recording
the information, so she testified, Hisaw asked her what she
thought about the Union and stated that the Respondent
knew that her husband was a union man. McGee testified
that she replied, "yes, we are Union, if you want to know
how I 'm going to vote , I'm not going to vote for it at this
time," explaining that she did not "think that now was the
time to vote for it." She related that Hisaw agreed with her
and stated that he thought he could do more for her
without the Union, and added that he did not see how he
could run his job with the Union, and that as he
understood the matter , in working under a union agree-
ment, when an employee finished a particular job he would
have to send the employee home , whereas under existing
practice in such a circumstance he would assign this
employee to another job.
Hisaw testified that he recalled having a conversation
with McGee a few days before the election. According to
him, he "started talking to her about the benefits that we
had there ... the insurance, the rate of pay . . . " and
admitted asking her about her family and recording that
information in a notebook. He testified that he talked to
some 13 employees and asked them similar questions, and
that he did this during the week before the election. He
denied that he asked McGee what she thought about the
Union or telling her that he knew her husband was a
member of a union. He further denied that he told McGee
that if the Union came in he would have to send her home
if her job ran out; he admitted, however, telling her that
under then-existing circumstances he could reassign her to
a different job if her job ran out. On cross-examination,
Hisaw testified that he asked these questions in order to get
to know his people better and particularly asked where the
husband of the employee worked so that the Respondent
could notify him if something happened at work. He
admitted that he probably could have obtained all that
information from the employment application filed by the
employee and, further, that he was instructed to engage in
this activity. While Hisaw admitted that he told McGee to
compare insurance benefits, vacation benefits, and rates of
pay with any other mill, he denied that he suggested she
compare them with those in a unionized plant.
Katrine Williams (Gentry), who was employed as a
utility operator at the Bierne location until July 29, 1976,
testified that she had a conversation with Foreman Carter
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY
the Monday before the election . She related that she and
another employee were talking about the Union in their
work area, when Carter approached. Carter handed
Williams a piece of paper and asked her to read it, which
she did . The paper had a portion circled , which indicated
employees could be permanently replaced if they went out
on strike . Williams testified Carter "said that we don't need
a union , because you stand a chance of losing your job."
She further related that she "asked him could he assure me
that if we got the Union that there would be a layoff; and
he said yes." Thereafter, she asked him if the employees got
the Union they would have to go on strike, and he
answered, "I'm sure." After she and her fellow employee
had gone back to work , Carter came to her and said that
she would have to clean up and supplied her with a broom,
stating, "O.K., you see what I can do," and then asked,
"what can the Union do?"
Carter admitted that he had a conversation with
Williams a few days before the election , and that Williams
asked him whether he could guarantee that employees
would strike if they selected the Union, and that he replied
he could not ; he further testified she asked him if there
would be any layoffs if the Union were selected . He first
testified that he replied that the Union would have nothing
to do with that, but later stated that his reply was "Not that
I know of."
C. Threats
The complaint alleged that Supervisor Ursery made
various threats to some of the Respondent's employees.
Raymond Welch, who had been employed by the
Respondent at the Gurdon location until he left in April
1976, testified that one of his supervisors was Ursery. Prior
to the election , Welch had two conversations with Ursery
and he placed the first one as having occurred about 2
weeks before he quit . He related that as he and another
employee , Lawson, were coming back from the break room
Ursery stopped them and stated that they had taken a 20-
minute break whereas they should have taken only 15
minutes . According to Welch, he told Ursery that he and
Lawson were not released until about 5 minutes after the
break period began and that Ursery replied, "when you get
a union in here , you will have less than that" stating that
the breaks would be shortened to 10 minutes . About a
week later, Welch related he had another conversation with
Ursery at the stick rack and that another employee, Clyde
Middleton, was present . Welch testified that he and others
were discussing their paychecks and that he remarked he
thought there should be more included in the check for
overtime . Ursery came over and asked Welch what he did
not like about his check and Welch said he thought it
should be more . Thereupon, so Welch testified, Ursery
said , "Well, if you get a union in here, it won't be that
much ." Welch asked, "Who said I would vote for a
union?" Ursery then walked off and said, "If you get a
union in here , it won't be that much . That's all I've got to
say."
On cross-examination, Welch denied that he told Ursery
that the reason he had to take a longer break was because
he was having to perform some of the work of the women.
Welch also stated that he told Ursery that the women did
1139
not need to be over there because they could not do what a
man could do, and that the Respondent should place them
elsewhere . To this, Ursery stated that the women were
going to stay in Welch's area and that he thought they were
doing their job properly. Welch testified that he did not
recall anything being said about Federal and state tax
deductions or social security deductions in the second
conversation with Ursery.
Ursery, on direct examination, testified that he explained
to Welch that , aside from Federal and state taxes and
social security, anything that was held out of his check was
controlled by the employee, and related that the conversa-
tion ended on this note as Welch walked back to his job.
However, on cross-examination , Ursery admitted that he
brought up the subject of the Union in this conversation by
telling Welch that "if he had union dues held out of his
check . . . that he had an option over it ; and if he didn't
sign a slip to withhold them things, they wouldn't be held
out of his check." Ursery denied that he began a
conversation about the Union with employees ; however, he
stated that there had been a few instances "where some
people would be kicking something around , discussing it,
and if I would come up with anything that was on the
bulletin board or anything, I would tell them to go read
their bulletin boards and see what we posted and what we
had there for them to see about ." He further related that he
never started a conversation about the Union and testified
that he was not "instructed to go out and harass our people
on the Union." He further stated that Welch said that the
amount withheld from his check was the same amount the
Respondent had normally been withholding, but in any
case he said that it was too much.
Lawson also testified about a conversation he had with
Ursery, about the same day as the Union filed its petition,
on March 24; Ursery admitted having a conversation with
Lawson about this time . It is Lawson's testimony that some
four other employees, whom he named , were standing
outside the planing mill and these employees were talking
about the Union. Lawson further testified that employee
Garner told the group that he did not see any good in
unions . At approximately this point, Ursery walked over to
the group and, according to Lawson , told the group that
they were getting the highest wages and the best benefits
and that, if the Union came in, the Respondent might close
the mill and run the mill at Leola at night , and added that
if the Respondent did close the mill on account of the
Union, the employees could not draw unemployment
compensation. Garner then asked Ursery , according to
Lawson, whether the employees could draw unemployment
compensation if the Respondent closed the mill because of
the Union . By Lawson's testimony, Ursery responded that
the employees would not be able to draw unemployment
compensation if the Respondent closed the mill because of
the Union . In addition , Lawson stated that the matter of
strikes was not mentioned in this conversation.
It is Ursery's testimony that they got into this conversa-
tion because Garner called him over to the group and
asked him whether the employees would have to join the
Union and that he replied that the State of Arkansas has a
right-to-work law. Ursery further related that during this
conversation an employee asked him about whether
1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees could draw unemployment compensation while
on strike ; on cross-examination he stated that this question
was asked by Garner. Ursery related that he said that he
had read a newspaper article shortly before this conversa-
tion and told the employees that, according to the article,
employees who are out of work while engaging in a strike
could not draw unemployment compensation . He denied
that he made any statement during the Union's campaign
about the possibility of closing down the mill or running an
extra shift at the Leola plant.
Leroy Talley, who in May had been promoted to the
position of supervisor , testified, in response to a question
asked him by counsel for the Respondent, as to whether he
had heard anyone say if the Union came in and the
Respondent closed the mill, employees could not draw
unemployment compensation , answered, "No, no one but
Neil. The question was asked to him, and he answered it,"
and that Ursery said, "if they went unionized and went on
strike you couldn't draw unemployment."
As a witness for the Respondent, Garner frankly stated
that he was opposed to the Union and denied that he had
heard Ursery threaten employees that the plant might close
if the Union came in. He further testified that he had heard
Ursery state employees would be unable to draw unem-
ployment compensation in the event the plant closed
because the Union went on strike.
D. Activities of Foreman Russell
Russell , who had been a foreman for approximately a
year and, in addition, was an assistant pastor of a church,
had supervision over approximately seven employees in the
stacking crew at the Beirne location . There is no dispute
that he assembled the employees under his supervision
some 2 or 3 weeks before the election and spoke to them,
during a scheduled safety meeting, about the Union. James
Edwards , employed as a stacker for approximately a year
at the Beime plant, testified that his supervisor was Russell.
Edwards related that, before the election, Russell spoke to
him at the stacker , in the presence of other employees in
the crew, whom he named . Russell "was trying to tell us
some of the disadvantages of it ... and he went on to talk
about if the Union got in, we could stand a possible chance
of losing our vacation and losing some of our holidays; and
if we keep on insisting about the Union, keep talking about
it and everything, there would be a possibility that we
might lose our jobs." According to Edwards, he was
present for 5 or 10 minutes while Russell was speaking, and
that he left before Russell concluded . Billy Joe Edwards,
the brother of James Edwards , also employed by the
Respondent as a stacker for something over a year , worked
under Foreman Russell . He testified in substantial corro-
boration of his brother James, relating that Russell said the
employees did not need a union , that their vacations might
be taken away, that they might also lose the holidays they
were then getting and that he, Russell, "stood a chance of
losing his job and we stood a chance of losing ours," if the
Union were voted in. According to this witness, the
meeting lasted approximately 10 or 15 minutes . Later that
same day, Russell , after telephoning , came out to his home
and, upon his arrival , had a folder with him concerning
insurance and stated that if the employees selected the
Union they stood a chance of getting a cut in benefits and
that "he thought we were doing better now the way things
stood than we would if we let the Union in." Edwards
related that about 2 weeks after the election he had a
further conversation with Foreman Russell . He testified
that he told Russell that he had heard rumors that the
employees were going to receive a 40-cent raise , and asked
if they were still to receive it. According to Edwards,
Russell replied that he did not know at that time and
"didn't see anyway in the future that we were going to get
it; that they still had a little trouble with the Union-and it
had to be settled first."
Herman Bailey, who worked for the Respondent at the
Beirne location as a stacker under Foreman Russell,
testified that the latter spoke to him on the job approxi-
mately 2 weeks before the election in the presence of a
number of other employees . Bailey related that Russell
stated that he had a short speech to make and said that the
Union could not help him or the employees and suggested
that the employees "make your own mind up and don't
fool with it because it can 't help you." Bailey asked Russell,
"Well, how come the Company is fighting it so hard to
keep us from getting it in here if it can't help us?" Russell
replied that the Union "just can't help you," and then told
the employees to go back to work . Later on, Russell came
to Bailey's house and showed him some papers concerning
benefits and insurance . According to Bailey, Russell stated
that the Respondent would cut holidays and would
eliminate vacation checks . In addition , according to Bailey,
Russell stated that the employees would have received a
raise but for the Union.
Russell admitted that some 2 or 3 weeks before the
election he had a conversation with a number of employees
concerning the Union's campaign . He related that he told
them that he had a statement to make and wished to
express his opinion about the Union , and said , "The Union
can't do nothing for me, can't give me nothing," and that
the employees had to make up their own minds how to
vote . He testified that he said nothing further at that time
concerning benefits or insurance . His estimate was that the
statement took approximately 5 minutes . He denied that he
told the employees that they would lose their jobs if the
Union came in or that in such an event the plant would
close . Russell admitted that he visited Billy Edwards at his
home and had certain documents with him concerning
Respondent's insurance plan and insurance plans at other
plants at which the Union or another union was the
representative . He stated they were inferior to the plan
provided by the Respondent . He denied stating that
Edwards would lose his benefits if the Union came in.
Russell also admitted that he saw employee Bailey but
denied telling him that if the Union came in his benefits or
his holidays would be cut. He further denied that he
discussed with Bailey the possibility the employees would
have gotten a raise if the Union had not come on the scene;
according to him, he stated that he did not know whether
the employees could get a raise or not for the reason that
everything had to be the subject of negotiations.
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY 1141
E. Discussion and Conclusions
My appraisal of the evidence is that Foreman Hisaw
questioned employee McGee, as well as other employees
concerning their union sympathies and desires, and told
her that under a union agreement an employee finishing a
particular job before the end of a workday would have to
be sent home, whereas under the existing practice the
employee would be assigned to another job. He further
spoke to her about benefits and rates of pay and inquired
of her and a number of other employees about their
families. Although he denied that he asked McGee what
she thought about the Union, I am persuaded that he in
fact did and also told her that he knew that her husband
was a member of a union. Although he admitted telling
McGee to compare insurance benefits, vacation benefits,
and rates of pay with any other mill, I do not credit his
testimony that he made no suggestion that she compare
them with those in a unionized plant. In my view, the
version given by McGee seems altogether plausible, and I
credit her version. Similarly, I find the testimony of
Williams, concerning the conversations she had with
Foreman Carter, to be more credible. Thus, he told her that
if the employees selected the Union there would be a layoff
and that he was sure, in the event the Union came in, the
employees would have to go on strike. In addition, he
assigned her to do some cleaning up and in that
connection, told her, "Okay, you see what I can do," and
then asked, "What can the Union do?"
With respect to threats, I find that Foreman Ursery told
employee Welch that in the event the employees selected a
union their break periods would be reduced and their
paychecks would be less than without a union. In addition,
Ursery, I find, told a group of employees that if the Union
came in the Respondent might close the mill at the Beirne
location and run the mill at Leola an extra shift and that, if
the Respondent did close the mill on account of the Union,
the employees could not draw unemployment compensa-
tion.
Concerning the statements and activities of Foreman
Russell , I find that, despite the fact that he is an assistant
pastor of a church, his testimony is not credible in critical
areas. He broke down and wept on the stand, with the
result that it was necessary to take a 15-minute recess so
that he could regain his composure. In my view, Reverend
Russell was considerably distraught at the tension between
his ministerial calling and his position with the Respon-
dent, particularly considering the fact that as he testified
management officials were present in the courtroom. While
Reverend H. H. Scott testified that Russell had a good
reputation in the community for honesty and truthfulness,
I must observe that Reverend Scott testified that Russell
notified him approximately 4 days before the hearing that
he desired Reverend Scott as a character witness.
In my opinion, it is also worth noting that a majority of
the instances alleged as violative of the Act occurred within
the 3-week period immediately preceding the election held
on May 19. I agree with counsel for the General Counsel
that supervisors of the Respondent engaged in a series of
acts and coercive conduct, in which they threatened
economic harm to employees, and, as to put it, "a last ditch
effort aimed at intimidating the employees so that they
would abandon their Union resolve." In short, I am
convinced that the message conveyed by supervisors of the
Respondent was to the clear effect that if the employees
selected the Union as their collective-bargaining represen-
tative they would be engaging in "economic suicide."
Finally, I must observe that a contention of counsel for the
Respondent that counsel for the General Counsel had the
burden of proving that the Government employee witness-
es were actually threatened or coerced, is incorrect. The
correct test, as numerous Board and court decisions
establish, is whether the comments of supervisors would
tend to have a threatening effect on employees. In
addition, any contention that the remarks made by
Foreman Russell were protected by Section 8(c) of the Act,
is incorrect, inasmuch as that section of the Act expressly
excepts from the free speech protection expressions
containing a "threat of reprisal or force or promise of
benefit" and, even though such statements may be
expressions of opinion, "if their reasonable tendency is
coercive in effect, they are violative of Section 8(a)(1)." See
N.L.R.B. v. Kingsford Motor Car Co., 313 F.2d 826, 832
(C.A. 6, 1963).
Accordingly, I conclude and find that the Respondent,
by questioning employees and threatening them with loss
of benefits and plant closure because of their union
activity, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
III. THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION
Inasmuch as the objections to the election related to
statements and conduct found to constitute unfair labor
practices, it necessarily follows that the election should be
set aside and another one conducted when the Regional
Director determines the time to be appropriate. I so
recommend.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Paper Company, Inc., Prescott, Arkan-
sas, is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. UBC, Southern Council of Industrial Workers,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO-CLC, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent Company has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I issue the following recommended:
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER1
The Respondent, International Paper Company, Inc.,
Prescott, Arkansas, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Questioning employees concerning their union mem-
bership, sympathies, or desires.
(b) Threatening employees with reduction of their
break period or with a cut in wages should the Union be
selected as their collective-bargaining representative.
(c) Threatening employees with plant closure if the
Union were successful in its organizational efforts.
(d) Threatening employees with loss of vacation, holiday,
benefits and jobs in the event they selected the Union. .
(e) Telling any employee that the employees would have
received a wage increase but for the presence of the Union.
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the 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.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Mail a copy of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix" 2 to each of its employees at the plants in Beirne and
Gurdon, Arkansas, and post copies thereof at each of such
plants, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 26, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
official representative, for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken to insure that such notice is not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
2 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."