Jasper Wood Products Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 14, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 333 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of JASPER WOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. and UNITED
FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 331, CIO
In the Matter Of JASPER WOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. and UNITED
FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 331, CIO
Cases Nos . 14-C-966 and 14.-R-955, respectively .Decided August
14, 1945
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election of the Board,' an
election was held on July 21, 1944, at Jasper, Indiana, to determine
whether certain employees of the respondent desired to be represented
by the Union for the purpose of collective bargaining. Having lost
the election, the Union on July 26, 1944, filed Objections with the
Regional Director, alleging that the respondent had engaged in unfair
labor practices which affected the outcome of the election, and re-
questing that the election be set aside. The Regional Director investi-
gated the Objections and issued his Report in which he found that
the Objections raised substantial and material issues and recom-
mended that a hearing be held. On August 31, 1944, the Board issued
an Order directing that a hearing on the Objections be held. On
August 23 and September 9, 1944, the Union filed charges, alleging
that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices at the
Jasper, Indiana, plant. On December 22, 1944, the Board issued an
Order consolic`iatiug the above proceedings for the purpose of hearing
and directing that a hearing be held on the Objections and on the
charges of unfair labor practices.
On April 13, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, a copy of which is attached hereto, in which he found that the
respondent had engaged in, and was engaging in, certain unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, and recommended that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action. He further found
that the respondent did not engage in other unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint and did not interfere with the election, and
1 56 N. L. It. B. 1742.
63 N. L. R. B., No. 49.
333
334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
recommended that the complaint be dismissed in these respects aid
that the Union's Objections to the election be overruled. The respond-
ent, the Union, and the counsel for the Board filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. None of the parties
requested oral argument before the Board at Washington, D. C., and
none was held.
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings on motions
and on objections to the admission of evidence, and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, all exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the proceedings, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner,
except insofar as they are inconsistent with our findings and order
hereinafter set forth.
We do not agree with the Trial Examiner that by Superintendent
Hoffman's statement to Durchollz concerning the letters sent by the
latter to union members requesting them to pay dues and by Hoffman's
statement to Union Business Agent Jerger during the course of con-
versation on a public street that he, Hoffman, knew and could name
the union affiliation or nonafliiliation of all the employees, the respond-
ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
,exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. In the
circumstances in which these statements were made, as more fully
set forth in the Intermediate Report, we are not convinced that they
are sufficient to warrant a finding of a violation of Section 8 (1) of
the Act.
Since the record does not establish that the respondent had engaged
in unfair labor practices either prior or subsequent to the election, we
shall dismiss the complaint. We shall also overrule the objections to
the election filed by the Union, and, since the results of the election
show that no collective bargaining representative has been selected
by a majority of the respondent's employees in the appropriate unit,
we shall dismiss the petition for investigation and certification of
representatives.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the complaint against the respondent, Jasper
Wood Products Company, Inc., Jasper, Indiana, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as part of the investigation to
ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Jasper Wood Products Company, Inc., Jasper, Indiana, the
objections to the election filed by the Union on July 26, 1944, be,
JASPER WOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 335
and they hereby are, overruled and the Union's petition for investiga-
tion and certification of representatives of employees of Jasper Wood
Products Company, Inc., Jasper, Indiana, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
MR. GERARn D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Keith W. Blinn, for the Board.
Mr. Fae W. Patrick, of Indianapolis, Ind., and Mr. Arthur C. Nordhoff, of Jasper,
Ind., for the respondent.
Mr. Harold J. Jerger, of Jasper, Ind., and Mr. Frank Doutlvitt, of Bloomington,
Ind., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed on September 9, 1944, by the United
Furniture Workers of America, Local 331, affiliated with the C. I. 0., herein
called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by its Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri), issued
its complaint dated January 2, 1945, against Jasper Wood Products Company, Inc.,
herein called the respondent , alleging that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act 49 S'tat. 449,
herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, the amended charge, and a notice
of the consolidated hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the Union'
In his Report on Objections, dated August 25, 1944, the Regional Director found
that the objections raised substantial and material issues with respect to the,
election and recommended that a hearing be ordered by the Board. On August
31, 1944, the Board ordered a hearing on the objections. Thereafter, on Decem-
' On or about April 7, 1944, the Union filed a petition with the Regional Director for the
Fourteenth Region alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the
representation of the employees of the respondent , and requesting an investigation and
certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act . ( See Matter of
Jasper Wood Products Co., Inc, and United Furniture Workers of America, Local No. 331,
affiliated with the C .' I. 0., 56 N. L. R B. 1742. ) Following a hearing on the petition, the
Board directed an election which was held on July 21, 1944 . On July 21 , Harold L. Hud-
son, who conducted the election as an agent for the Board , and the observers acting for the
respondent and the Union, after the close of the election , signed a "Tally of Ballots" show-
ing that a majority of the employees in the unit had voted against the Union. At the same
time they also signed a "Certification on Conduct of Election ." On July 25 , the Union
by letter filed objections to the election and on July 26, amended objections alleging :
1. The company violated the agreement entered into between the Union, Company and
Labor Board by releasing employees and permitting them to vote on Company time at
Company expense This was an important detail and was made the subject of a hand bill
issued by this Union on July 14th.
2 Officers and agents of the Company solicited opposition against the Union prior to
the election. and on Company time and property.
3 Agents of the Company intimidated employees against supporting the Union in the
-election
4 Agents of the Company violated the agreement between the Union, Company and
Labor Board by tiansporting employees to the polls in their privately owned cars.
. 5 The Company affected distribution of literature and newspapers which were viciously
antiunion and slid make substantial expenditures of money in connection therewith.
6 Agents of the Company promised that the repudiation of the Union by the employees
« ould result in the immediate action by the Company to secure improved wages, hours and
working conditions with paid vacations
336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
her 22, 1944, it further ordered that the representation and unfair labor practice
proceedings be consolidated.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance :
(1) that on or about September 2, 1944, the respondent laid off Edmund Heeke,
on or about September 5, 1944, laid off Warren Lee, Edwin Schnell, and Lawrence
Harder, and thereafter refused to reinstate each of them until on or about
September 11, 1944, because they joined or remained members of the Union; (2)
that from on or about May 1, 1943, it urged, persuaded and warned its employees
to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the Union; and (3) that it
interfered with the election as, in substance, alleged above in the objections filed
to the election.
In its answer, the respondent admitted certain allegations in respect to the
nature of the respondent's business, but denied the allegations respecting the
unfair labor practices and averred that the four employees named above were
laid off for their refusal and failure to carry out instructions and orders given
them by their foreman.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on January 18 through January 20,
1945, at Jasper, Indiana, before Henry J Kent, the undersigned Trial Examiner,
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner The Board and the respondent
were each represented by counsel, the Union by representatives, and all partici-
pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine- and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded
all parties. At the close of the Board's case, counsel for the respondent moved
to dismiss the complaint and also moved that the objections filed to the conduct
of the election be overruled. The n.,otions were denied without prejudice to later
renewal. At the conclusion of the case, counsel for respondent renewed these
motions. Rulings were reserved and are made herein in the writer's conclusions
below. Counsel for the Board and for the respondent joined in a motion to con-
form the pleadings to the proof in respect to formal matters which was granted
Oral argument was waived, but both counsel have filed memorandum briefs with
the undersigned
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS of FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Jasper Wood Products Company, Ine, an Indiana corporation operates
a plant in Jasper, Indiana, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale and
distribution of plywood panels. During the year 1944, it purchased Veneers,
lumber, glue and other materials valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which apps oxi-
mately 50 percent in value was purchased in States of the United States other
than Indiana and transported in interstate commerce to its Jasper plant During
the same period, the total sales value of manufactured products exceeded $2,000,-
000, of which about 90 percent was derived from sales of products delivered by
interstate carriers to points outside the State of Indiana.
The respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Furniture Workers of America, Local 331, affiliated with the C I. 0,
is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
JASPER WOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 337
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PR .ICTICES
A. Background; alleged coercive itatei aeats made prior to the election ; alleged
interference with the conduct of the election
1 Background
In May 1942, the Union started an organizational drive in Jasper, but did not
initiate an intensive campaign among the employees of the respondent until the
early part of 1944, according to the testimony of Harold Jerger, the business
agent of Local 331.
Employee Warren Lee testified: that in September 1942, on the day of an
election held by the Board at the plant of the Indiana Chair Company in Jasper,
Fred Fuliord, a representative of the Union, drove by the respondent's plant in
his automobile and from a loud speaker installed in it, stated the results of the
election ; and that on this occasion, Leo Hopf, the foreman of the respondent's
shipping department, remarked to Lee, "Look at that no good [S-O-B] out there."
llopf testified: that on that occasion Fulford was shouting over the loud speaker
that "everything is over with, we won"; whereas, at the time the plant of the
Indiana Chair Company was still being picketed, and that he merely said to
Lee, that, "He [Fulford] is a damned liar" According to Lee's testimony,
Fulford was not attempting to organize the respondent's employees at the time.
In view of Hopf's testimony in respect to the strike then allegedly current at
the above named plant and the failure of the record to clearly depict all of the
surrounding circumstances, the undersigned is unable to conclude from the
above whether or not Hopf's remark indicated anti-umiou bias.
2. Alleged coercive statements made prior to the election
Lee testified: that in May 1943, Ernest Lannon, his foreman, asked him, "Are
you a member of the Union" ; that Lee denied that he was; and that again in
July 1943, Lannon said to him, "If the Union gets in here you will be damned
sorry " Lannon denied that lie ever talked to Lee about the Union.' The record
fails to show that Lannon ever interrogated other employees in respect to their
union membership or made other derogatory remarks concerning it. From his
observation of the witnesses, the undersigned concludes that Lannon was the
more reliable witness and accordingly he accepts Lannon's above denial as
credible and true
3 Alleged interference with the conduct of the election
In April 1944, during an intensive organization drive by the Union, the'
Union filed its petition for certification and investigation of representatives in
Case No 14-R-955 Following a hearing on the petition, the Board directed
that an election be held Lee, employees Edward Prechtel and Leo Durcholz,
all members of the Union's shop committee in the plant, met on several occasions
with representatives of management and Field Examiner Hudson, an agent of
the Board, to make arrangements for holding the election 3 At one of the above
meetings held on July 20, they agreed upon a poll-list of eligible voters to be used
at the election, on July 21, 1944, The tally of ballots shows that 102 votes were
cast for the Union and 106 against.
2 It is noted that Lee joined the Union on Tune 1943, at which time he became shop
steward and thereafter wore his shop steward 's button in the plant
8 Durcholz was also the financial secretary ' of the Union
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As above noted, the allegations of the complaint herein in respect to inter-
ference with the conduct of the election, in substance, are restatements of the
grounds stated in the Union's objections above. Accordingly, evidence in sup-
port of the Union's objections was offered during the Board's presentation of the
complaint case and the findings and conclusions in respect to them will be made
in this subsection of the Intermediate Report.
The unrefuted testimony of C. U. Grammelspacher, the respondent's plant
manager, whose testimony the undersigned credits and accepts as true shows :
that on the morning of July 21, 1944 the chairman of the blood bank committee
of the American Legion in Jasper requested him to announce to the employees
that additional blood donors were needed for the Red Cross blood bank ; that
pursuant to the request, Grammelspacher'called a meeting at the plant about
11: 30 on that morning to make the announcement ; and that at the meeting,
which terminated shortly before noon, nothing was stated concerning the elec-
tion scheduled to be held on that day from 12 noon to 1 o'clock in the afternoon
and from 6 o'clock until 7 o'clock in the evening. The evidence shows that cus-
tomarily the' clock in the plant is from 7 to 10 minutes ahead of standard time
in Jasper. At the close of the meeting, the employees were released from work
until 1 o'clock and several of them then left the plant and went to the polling
place, arriving there about 10 minutes before 12 o'clock standard time.' Shortly
thereafter, Field Examiner Hudson, the Board's agent in charge of the election,
assigned the various election officials to their respective stations and a few
ballots were cast before 12 o'clock without objection from the union representa-
tives present as observers
The record shows that Mary Schuler worked in the plant for 2 years as a fist
aid nurse and custodian of the women's rest room. She is not a professionally
trained nurse, and was excluded from the voting unit in the Board's decision and
direction of election in Case No. 14-R-955, reported in 56 N. L. R B. 1742, for
the reason "that the problems arising in the course of the nurses work are dis-
similar to those of production and maintenance employees." Previous to her
employment in the plant, she had been employed as a domestic and children's
nurse for 17 years in Manager Grainmelspacher's home. She was opposed to the
Union and during the pre-election campaign freely stated her antipathy to' it to
other employees in the rest room both on occasions when they asked for her
opinion and voluntarily when they had not. Admittedly she told some of them
that she did not believe by unions ; that if the Union organized the plant, they
would be striking all the time; that if the Union won, she would no longer give
them free Kotex from her personal stock ; that if they voted against the Union,
she would pray for the safe return of their boy-friends from the war; and that on
:the afternoon of the election she asked employee Lucille Kreilein to swear on a
crucifix that Kreilein was opposed to the Union after employee Sally Hasemouer
told Schuler that Kreilein had requested Hasemouer to vote for it.' She also, in
substance, testified : that none of the respondent' s officials or supervisors had
ever asked her to talk against the Union ; and that Grammelspacher had told
her that matters of union concern were none of her business and that she should
' George Marks, an observer for the Company, testified without contradiction ; that when
Hudson saw the employees gathered outside the voting place, he asked Marks for the time,
that Marks told him it was about 11 : 50, and that Edward Prechtel, present as an observer
for the Union, then stated that according to the Company clock it was 12 o'clock.
IIt is also noted that Hudson and the respective observers for the Union and the Com-
pany all signed a "Certification on Conduct of the Election" which contained among other
things a statement that the balloting was fairly conducted and that all eligible voters were
given an opportunity to vote their ballots in secret.
9 Both of them were members of the Roman Catholic Church.
JASPER WOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 339
not talk about them to the other employees. From his observation , the under-
signed concludes that Schuler was a garrulous but truthful witness and he
accepts her testimony as credible and true. Grammelspacher also testified,
which testimony the undersigned accepts as being true, that shortly after receiv-
ing a copy of the Board's decision and direction of election in Case No. 14-R-955,
he told her she could not vote in the election and at the time asked her not to
discuss the Union with other employees.
Employee Mary Ann Schuetter, in substance, testified : that within the week
prior to the election she heard Schuler on several occasions tell other employees
in the rest room that Schuler "was certain we would get a pay increase and vaca-
tion if the Union lost the election"; that no supervisor was present at the time;
and that she understood Schuler was expressing her personal convictions?
Schuler had preceded Schuetter on the witness stand and was not interrogated in
respect to these incidents, but Schuler was not later recalled to testify respecting
them , hence Schuetter's testimony stands unrefuted. From his observation the
undersigned concluded that Schuetter was a credible witness and accordingly he
accepts her above testimony as credible and true.
Employee Marie Hoffman, a plant inspector, testified in respect to a conversa-
tion with George Marks, the head inspector : that "the only thing I recall is, he
said if the Union failed to get in we would get a three cent raise" ; that Mark3
only gives her instructions regarding the quality standards to follow in making
inspections; and that she receives work assignments and general supervision
from her departmental supervisor! Marks testified: that he and Hoffman en-
gaged in a general conversation regarding wage increases and vacations in pay
recently granted to eniiiloyees working in other Jasper plants; that he told her
he thought the chances were favorable for them to get similar concessions, but
denied that he told her it was contingent on the loss of the election by the Union;
and that no plant supervisor had said anything to him about wages or the elec-
tion. From his observation of these witnesses, the undersigned was convinced
that both of them were truthful persons. However, since Marks had a clearer
recollection of the incident he accepts his version as the more trusworthy.
On July 19, 1944, the Union, by letter to the respondent, in substance, stated :
Mary Schuler was telling employees that Grammelspacher told her to inform
them that they would receive wage increases and vacations if the Union lost the
election ; and that other employees, notably Marks, were permitted to cam-
paign against the Union throughout the plant on company time. In its reply
letter, dated July 21. 1944, the respondent stated : That Schuler was called to
Grammelspacher's office on the morning of July 21, and denied making such
statements ; that Grammelspacher then told her to stop talking about the Union;
and that Marks denied the accusation. Habig, the respondent's assistant plant
manager, testified without refutation : that he met union representatives Jerger
and Douthitt at the polling place before the polls opened on July 21, and told
them what steps the respondent had taken in respect to the Union's complaint ; and
that he then said to Jerger, "I think we have co-operated with you one hundred
percent" whereupon Jerger replied, "I think you have." The record fails to show
the existence pf any plant rule prohibiting the discussion of any subjects in the
plant during woiking hours. It also shows that union adherents engaged in
' At this time many other plants in Jasper had applications pending before the National
War Labor Board for authority to grant vacations with pay and some of them had already
announced their vacation plans
8 The records shows , that Marks spends substantially all of his time inspecting products
in all of the various departments of the plant; that he is paid an hourly ii age and has no
supeivisory authority , and that the Union interposed no objection to the inclusion of his
name on the poll list and did not challenge his vote.
662514-46-vol 63-23
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
activities on behalf of the Union in the plant during the pre-election campaign
and fails to show that any of them were discriminated against for doing so.
Sometime prior to the election, some unidentified person or persons had scrib-
bled four scurrilous statements critical of the C I O. on the walls of the men's
toilet in the plant, and another anti-union statement, written on a piece of paper,
was pinned to the door of one of the toilets in the men's room. None of the plant
officials used this toilet, but some of the foremen did. Foreman Lannon who used
it, testified that he had never seen any of the above statements and his denial is
credited by the undersigned as true. The record fails to show that the respondent
had knowledge of these writings.
On election day Fidelis Marks, a brother of George Marks, and Sylvester
Berger, both of whom were hourly paid production workers-without supervisory
status on two or three occasions drove other employees to the polls to vote.
Marks testified, and his testimony was not refuted : that none of the plant su-
pervisors asked him to drive any employee to the polls ; that Marie Lichtey, a
crippled employee working in the plant, requested him to drive her there ; that
when he went to meet Lichtey, two other employees were with her, and he drove
all three to the polls; that on the night before the election Cletus Lampert,
another employee who had just returned home after a spell of illness in a hos-
pital, requested Marks to take him to the polls ; that Marks agreed to do so ; and
that after he called for Lampert he stopped at the home of Marie Sherman, who
had been absent from work because of illness, and also took her to vote. Berger
gave no testimony, but the record shows : that on about three occasions, on the
day of the election, he drove a few other employees to the polls, that he is an
inspector and crater in the shipping department without supervisory authority;
that the Union interposed no objections to the inclusion of the names of Berger
and Marks on the poll list; and that the respondent made no request to Berger
that he use his automobile for this purpose.10
From the above, the Board, in effect, contends, tntei alga: that the respondent
permitted Schuler to engage in a vicious anti-Union campaign; and that it failed
to repudiate her anti-union conduct above.
Since the record fails to show the existence of a plant rule prohibiting em-
ployees from discussing any subjects in the plant or that any union adherents
were reprimanded for engaging in union activities during the pre-election cam-
paign, no question of a discriminatory application of a rule is involved. Schuler
had no supervisory status in the plant and the nature of her duties during her
2 years of employment in the plant and previous thereto, during the 17 years
when she worked in Manager Grainmelspacher's home was hardly such as to lead
other employees to regard her as a representative of management, but rather
as a garrulous individual whose statements might be disregarded Moreover,
the record shows that on several occasions Grannnelspacher ordered Schuler
not to discuss the Union with other employees and fails to show that any su-
pervisory employee in the plant engaged in anti-Union conduct during the pre-
election period.
B Piechtel, a witness for the Board also testified, that he thought Berger's father was one
of the respondent's directors, but there is no testimony in the record tending to show anti-
Union conduct in respect to Berger, Senior
10 Luella IIemrnerlein testified without contradiction that on the day before the election
she, requested Foreman Lannon to permit her and her sister to remain home to work on
their mother s fai ur on election day , that at the time Lannon said it was the duty of all
of the employees to vote, but did not tell her how to vote , that if they stayed home, he
could call for them to drive them to the polls , that they reported for work on election day
and voted in the election Since, Lannon's statement merely amounted to a request that
they cast ballots without further indicating how lie wanted them to vote, the undersigned
concludes and finds that his statement was not coerene.
JASPER WOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 341
On all the above, although the matter is not free of doubt, the undersigned
concludes and finds that the allegations of the complaint, in respect to coercive
statements made by the respondent before the election campaign , and concern-
ing interference with the conduct of the election, have not been sustained by the
proof. In addition, he will recommend that the objections to the election filed
by the Union be overruled.
B The lay-offs ; interference , , estraint and coercion subsequent to the election
1. The lay-offs
The Board contends: that on September 2, Edmond Heeke, and on September 5,
1944, Warren Lee, Lawrence Harder and Edwin Schnell, were laid off; and that
thereafter each of them was refused reinstatement until September 11, 1944,
because they had engaged in union activities. The respondent, in effect, admits
that Heeke, Lee and Schnell were laid off on September 5, but denies the lay-offs
were discriminatory and contends that they were laid off for refusing to follow
instructions given to them by their foreman."
Lee was first employed as a production worker in the early part of 1942. He
joined the Union on June 2, 1943, at which time he was appointed to serve as shop
steward and shop chairman in the plant. Since that time he has continuously
worn his shop steward's button while at work. With employees Prechtel and
Durcholtz, the other two members of the Union's shop committee, he attended
the conferences with management mentioned above. Although the record fails
to show when Schnell and Heeke" began their employment with the respondent,
it does show that they joined the Union on August 5 and 20, 1943, respectively,
and that both thereafter attended membership meetings of the Union and wore
union buttons in the plant'$
Lee, Heeke, Schnell, and Harder had worked together on the same shift almost
continuously since a night shift on this operation was established making plywood
kegs for use by the armed forces of the United States to transport gun powder.14
On the week beginning August 21, the respondent posted notices in the plant
announcing a plant-wide vacation on the week staiting August 28, for all em-
ployees not engaged in essential war work. According to Lee's uncontradicted
testimony, he, Heeke, Schnell and Harder volunteered for work on the night shift
for that week and the respondent assigned them to the powder key operation.
Employees Erhard Arnold and Frank Dougherty, both of whom had less experience
on the operation, were assigned to work with them on the crew.
On the week beginning August 28 and ending September 2, 1944, this crew
performed the following operations in connection with moulding the powder
kegs : Harder, operator No 1, fed thin wooden panels into a glue spreading
machine which coated the panels with liquid glue ; Arnold, operator No. 2 as
11 Although the respondent 's answer admitted that Harder was also laid off on Septem-
her 5, the record clearly shows and Harder admitted that he was off on vacation Septem-
ber 5 to September 9 inclusive and did not report for work on the morning of September 5.
Consequently, the respondent , in effect, presently contends that Harder was not laid off
as alleged in the complaint. The undersigned concludes and finds that this contention has
merit and accordingly finds that Harder was not laid off on September 5.
iz Heeke was inducted into the Army prior to the hearing and was not called as a witness.
33 The record also shows that from 50 to 60 other employees wore union buttons in the
plant for approximately a year before the July 21 election.
14 There were two shifts engaged on this operation which alternately worked for weekly
periods on either clay or night shifts. During the week beginning August 21 , Heeke only
worked on the same shift with the others on the night of August 21, and thereafter for
some reason not shown in the record he worked on the opposite shift for the balance of
that week.
342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
off bearer on the glue spreader, removed the panels from the glue spreader
and handed them to operator No. 3, Heeke, and operator 4, Schnell ; Heeke
and Schnell bent and set the panels in four hollow cylindrical forms contained in
a mould unit; Lee; operator No. 5, and Dougherty, operator No. 6, then inserted
wooden cross bands in the same four mould forms and thereafter inserted hollow
rubber bags inflated by compressed air to serve as cores in each of the four mould
forms. When these operations were completed, the door of the mould was
closed, electrical and compressed air connections were attached to each of the
four mould forms by Lee or Dougherty and the operator of the thermax machine
was notified to turn on the compressed air and the electricity.15 The respondent's
instructions to the employees engaged in this operation required them to use
two unit moulds, each of which contained four forms, in order to maintain
production 15 An exception was only permitted when less than 8 of the rubber
bags used as cores were not available for use.17 During the week beginning
August 28, the bag repair man was on vacation and the surplus stock of spare
bags was low at the end of the day shift on September 1. Foreman Lannon, the
supervisor of the department, and employee Edward Fromme, a member of
the day crew on this week, came to the plant about 7 o'clock on this night and
worked until about 12: 30 on the morning of September 2, patching spare bags to
insure that the night crew could operate two moulds throughout the balance
of their shift.18 Before Lannon left the plant, on that morning, he told the crew
to operate two moulds for the remainder of their shift. Thereafter, from 3: 23
a. m. until the end of the shift at 5: 30 a. m. on that morning, only one mould)
was operated for 7 consecutive runs. Although Lee testified that it was neces-
sary to cut down to one mould about 3: 23 on that morning, because there were
no spare bags available, the record convincingly shows that the day shift which
started at 7 o'clock on this same morning operated 2 moulds for 9 consecutive
runs before it was necessary to change a bag at 8: 16 o'clock, and that no bags
were repaired before the day shift began operations.19
The plant was closed on Labor Day, Monday, September 4. Lannon, after
checking the production records for the morning of September 2, learned that
only one mould had been operated for the last 2 hours, on the night shift, and
that the day shift had operated 2 moulds for 9 consecutive runs before any bags
had been changed. He called Lee, Heeke and Schnell to his desk when they
reported for work on the morning of September 5, and asked them why their
15 The Thermax machine controls the electrical energy used to "cook," or bond, the ma-
terials packed in the mould, into an integrated mass. The operators of the Thermax
machine do not work on alternating shifts like the loading crews, but work exclusively on
either the day or night shift Joseph Kunkel, the regular night operator, worked with the
above named crew on this week.
16 While one unit was undergoing the cooking process, the six men on the loading crew
unpacked processed cylinders which had previously been cooked in the other mould, and
then reloaded it with raw materials for cooking. The cooking process consumed about 5
minutes and the unloading and reloading operations combined, took about the same length
of time. Obviously•if only one mould was used by a crew, the production would be cut
about 50 percent.
17 The bags used as mould cores blow out rather frequently and customarily an extra
man was employed on the day shift to maintain a sufficient stock of spare bags to permit
both the day and night shifts to operate 2 moulds. The record shows that Heeke had also
been taught by Foreman Lannon to repair bags, in case of emergencies.
is The evidence shows that Nib en, Lannon left the plant on this night, the crew had 8
good bags in current use in the 2 moulds and from 5 to 7 spares
11 Lannon also testified that he returned to the plant about 5 : 15 on this morning and
saw Lee and Harder standing outside smoking The shift was expected to work until
.5: 30 Schnell admitted that the crew quit a little early on that morning.
JASPER WOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 343
production had fallen down on the previous Saturday morning 20 When they
replied that too many bags had blown out, he told them that the day shift had
been able to operate 2 moulds with the same bags available for use by them, and
asked Heeke why he did not repair bags if more were needed . Heeke failed to
reply, whereupon Lannon stated that he would like to discharge them, and then
took them to Superintendent Hoffman to discuss the matter .2' According to
Hoffman 's testimony , which was not substantially refuted and which the under-
signed , finds to be credible and true , Lannon told him in substance : that the crew
had only operated one mould on the morning of September 2; that the 3 employees
stated that they did not have enough good bags to operate 2 moulds on that
occasion ; that Lannon then stated that at the time they cut down to 1 mould
unit, there were 9 good bags available for use by the men ; and that he had
inspected the bags before the day shift started on the same operation that same
morning. After listening to the explanation of Lannon and the 3 employees,
Hoffman told them he was going to lay them off until he investigated the matter
and said he would notify them if and when they were to return to work. Hoffman
and Lannon testified in substance , without substantial contradiction , that the
reason Lee, Heeke and Schnell were laid off was because they stated that they
did not have a sufficient number of bags on hand to operate 2 moulds on the
morning of September 2, whereas the check made by Lannon indicated that the
statement was untrue . On Monday , September 11, the employees were returned
to work on their regular jobs, and worked on the day shift for that week.
Thereafter , later in September , Lee received orders from his Draft Board to
report on October 10, 1944, for induction in the armed forces. He reported
the matter to the respondent who requested a deferment for him. Since that
time he has been reclassified and has not been recalled for service.
2. Conclusions in respect to the lay-offs
The Union contends that the lay-offs were based upon the union activities of
Lee, Heeke, and Schnell. The record shows that of the group, Lee was the only
one among them outstanding for union activities. It also shows that Durcholtz
and Prechtel, who with Lee comprised the shop committee of the Union that
met with management to make arrangements for the July 21 election, and
engaged in similar activities substantially to the same extent as Lee did, were
not discriminated against. Moreover, the fact that the respondent requested a
deferment for Lee from his draft board, shortly after his lay-off, strongly refutes
the Union's contention that the respondent was according him discriminatory
treatment When it is considered that Lee, Heeke, and Schnell were employed
"As noted above, Harder was on vacation this week and consequently did not report
for work on this morning
21 Jerger , the business agent of the Union , testified without contradiction , that Kunkel,
Arnold, and Dougherty were not members of the Union, and his testimony is accepted as
credible and as true Foreman Lannon also testified in substance that at the time of the
ley-offs he was unaware of the union affiliation of any of the men working on the powder
keg operation, except in respect to Lee, who he knew belonged to the Union ; that he would
have taken Harder to Hoffman's office with Lee, Heeke and Schnell had Harder not been
on vacation that morning , that lie did not take Kunkel, Arnold and Dougherty along with
the other 3 men, because Kunkel, the thermax machine operator had nothing to do with
the mould loading operation , that Arnold and Dougherty were recent employees and he
did not consider then regular members of the loading crew involved While Lee testified
that Arnold had worked on this crew regularly except for about 2 weeks, the record fails
to indicate the date the night shift started Kunkel started as night thermax operator on
August 11, 1944, which indicates that the shift was started on this date. On the above,
the undersigned credits Lannon ' s testimony that Arnold and Dougherty were new operators
on this crew Accordingly , his explanation for not disciplining these men is reasonable
and is accepted.
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on an operation of major importance in connection with 'the war effort, and since
the record- also shows that the respondent had reasonable grounds for believing
they had refused to follow their instructions , thus delaying production , the under-
signed concludes that the respondent not only had a right, but was charged with a
duty to discipline them. Accordingly, he will recommend that the allegations in
the complaint pertaining to the lay-offs of Lee, Heeke, Harder and Schnell be
dismissed.
3. Interference, restraint, and coercion subsequent to the election
Leo Durcholtz, the financial secretary of the Union, testified without substan-
tial contradiction : that in September 1944, he sent letters to the employees who
had signed union cards requesting them to pay up their dues in the Union; that
Superintendent Hoffman learned about the letters ; and that lie then came to
Durcholtz and asked him "Have you no conscience at all, asking people for
money the way you are doing." Hoffman, on testifying, admitted that he had
seen some of the letters sent by Durcholtz to other employees, but said, according
to his present recollection, he only asked Durcholtz if the letters were producing
any results. , In view of the fact that this incident occurred about 4 months prior
to the hearing, the undersigned believes that Hoffman 's recollection should have
been clearer. He concludes and finds that Durcholtz's version of the conversa-
tion is the more credible and he accordingly accepts it as true. Obviously, it
constituted a reprimand to Durcholtz for engaging in union activities and clearly
constitutes interference, restraint and coercion within the meaning of Section 8
(1) of the Act.
On December 15, 1944, Harold Jerger, the business agent of the Union, but not
an employee of the respondent, met Superintendent Hoffman on North Main
Street in Jasper. Jerger testified in substance : that on this occasion, he told
Hoffman that large back pay awards made on that clay to employees of two
other Jasper plants convinced Jerger that the Union was in Jasper to stay ;
that Hoffman replied, he did not think the Union would last in Jasper; that
when Jerger then told Hoffman the Union would eventually organize the re-
spondent's employees, Hoffman stated that he did not believe the employees
needed the Union because their wages were so high they should be ashamed to
ask for further increases ; and that Roffman thereafter offered to bet Jerger $10
that he could state the names of any employees who had signed up with the
Union as well as the names of those who had not 22 Hoffman, in his testimony,
admitted that Jerger's version of the conversation was substantially correct
except for that part, pertaining to Hoffman's offer to bet with Jerger in respect
to the Union affiliation of the employees, which statement Hoffman failed to
explain or deny The undersigned concludes and finds that Jerger's version
in respect to it is credible and true. In view of the Board' s finding in a recent
case, that it is a type of statement that an officer of a Union would be likely to
relay to the employees whom he represents, and in view of Jerger' s uncontra-
dicted testimony that he related it to some of the employees, the undersigned
concludes and finds the statement to be violative of Section 8 (1) of the Act 23
22 At the time this testimony was taken , counsel for the respondent moved to strike it
for the reason that no hourly paid employees of the respondent were present at the time it
took place Ruling was reserved by the undersigned. At the close of the hearing the
motion was renewed. It is hereby denied , for,the reasons stated above.
V Cf. Matter of Rosenblatt's Friendly Mountain Lane , 56 N L. R. B 8916 In connection
with the above finding the undersigned, however, does not find as a fact that Hoffman
actually had knowledge respecting the union affiliation or lack of same of the employees,
because there is no evidence in the record showing that the respondent engaged in surveil-
lance respecting their union activities.
JASPER WOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 345
Durcholtz also testified that on or about January 10, 1943, respondent's assist-
ant manager, Arnold Habig, said to him, "If you solicit employees [to join the
Union] on company time any more, I will have to fire you." Durcholtz's testi-
mony clearly indicates that Habig's statement was not coercive, for working
time is for work.24
The undersigned concludes and finds that the respondent, by Hoffman's repri-
mand to Durcholtz because the latter sent letters to Union members requesting
them to pay union dues and by Hoffman's statement to Jerger that he, Hoffman,
knew and could name the Urpion affiliation or non-affiliation of all the employees,
has interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The undersigned finds that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III, above, occuring in connection 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 burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. .
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and upon the entire record in the case,
the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Furniture Workers of America, Local 331, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices by interfering with
the conduct of the election, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
5. The respondent by laying off Edmund Heeke, Warren Lee, Edwin Schnell
and Lawrence Harder has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent Jasper Wood Products Company, Inc.,
Jasper, Indiana, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing it employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist United
Furniture Workers of America, Local 331, affiliated with the Congress of In-
24 See Matter of Peyton Packing Company, Inc, 49 N. L. R . B. 828.
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dustrial Organizations or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Net :
(a) Post at its plant at Jasper, Indiana, copies of the notice attached to the
Intermediate Report herein, marked "Appendix A." Copies of the said notice
to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Fourteenth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent
immediately upon the receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty ( 60) con-
secutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region within ten (10)
days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, in writing, setting forth in
detail the manner in which the respondent has complied with the foregoing
recommendations.'
It is also recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the receipt
of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional Director, in
writing, that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action
aforesaid.
It is further recommended : that the allegations of the complaint, in respect to
interference with the conduct of the election, and the lay-offs of Edmund Heeke,
Warren Lee, Edwin Schnell, and Lawrence Harder, be dismissed ; and that the
objection to the conduct of the election filed by the Union in Case No. 14-R-955
be overruled.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, effective July 12, 1944, as amended,
any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date
,of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, filed with the Board, Rochambeau
Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in
writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other
part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objec-
tions) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in
support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions
and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy
thereof upon each of the parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director.
As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to
argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the
Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to
the Board.
HENRY J. KENT,
Trial Examiner.
Dated April 13, 1945.
NLRB 576
(9-1-44)
JASPER WOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC.
APPENDIX A
i1OTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
347
Pursuant to recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist United Furniture Workers of America, Local 331, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or
remain members of this union, or any other labor organization.
JASPER WOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC.,
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.