John H. Harland Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 27, 1942

45 N.L.R.B. 76 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of JOHN H. HARLAND COMPANY and PRINTING TRADES
CRAFTS
Case No. C-2292.-Decided October 27, 19,142
Jurisdiction : printing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Pestiatnt, and Coercion: charges'of, dismissed where implied sug-
gestion that employees abandon union organization was neutralized by assur-
ances of employer observance of the Act, and statements of minor supervisors
did, not appear to reflect management views.
Practice and Procedure : complaint dismissed.
Mr. William M. Pate and Mr. Dan ill. Byrd, Jr., for the Board.
Jones, Powers, Williams cC Dorsey, by Mr. Ralph Williams and Mr.
Paul E. Johnson, of Atlanta, Ga., for the respondent.
Mr. John A. 111anry, of Clarkston, Ga., for the Union.
Mr. Eugene R. Thorrens, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on April 7, 1942, by Printing Trades
Crafts, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Tenth
Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint dated June 24, 1942,
against John H. Harland Company, Atlanta, Georgia,, herein called
the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1)-and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49, Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of
the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing thereon, were duly
served upon the respondent and the Union.
Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended 1
prior to the hearing, alleged, in substance, that at various times since
September 1, 1941, the respondent discouraged its employees in their
union membership and activities (a) by questioning employees con-
cerning their union activities; (b) by threatening to close its plant if
the employees persisted in their union activities; (c) by circulating
1 The amendment named the officers, agents, and supervisors of the respondent partici-
pating in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint _
45 N L. R. B., No. 16.
76
JOHN- H. HARLAND COMPANY - 77
petitions or other literature derogatory to the Union; (d) by threat-
ening to discharge employees if they became or remained members of
the Union; (e) by urging its employees to vote against the Union in
an election conducted by the Board; and that by these and other acts
the. respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On July 9, 1942, the respondent filed its answer, among other
things, admitting the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint
and denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Atlanta, Georgia, on
July 23 and 24, 1942, before William E. Spencer, the Trial,Exam-
iner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board,
the respondent, and the Union were represented by counsel and
participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the conclusion
of the hearing counsel for the Board moved to conform the plead-
ings to the proof with respect to minor discrepancies. The Trial
-Examiner granted `the motion without objection. During the hear-
ing the Trial Examiner made rulings on other motions and on ob-
jections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed all
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial
errors were committed. The Trial Examiner's rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Thereafter the- Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report,
dated August 13, 1942, copies of which were duly served upon all
the parties, finding that the respondent had not engaged and was
not engaging in the alleged unfair labor practices, and recommend-
ing that the complaint be dismissed.
Thereafter, on September 14, 1942, the Union filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report, and submitted a brief in support of the
exceptions. The respondent also submitted a brief. None of the
parties requested oral argument, and none was held. -
The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate
'Report and the briefs' submitted by the parties and, save as the
exceptions are consistent with the findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
t1 FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
John H. Harland Company, a Georgia corporation, having its
plant and general offices at Atlanta, Georgia, is engaged in the print-
78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing business and in the operation of a retail establishment. This
proceeding concerns only the respondent's printing plant, where
approximately 32 employees are engaged in production and main-
tenance work. All the respondent's raw materials, consisting prin-
cipally of paper and ink, and amounting during the year 1941 to
more than $125,000 in value, are purchased locally but originate out-
side the State of Georgia. During 1941 the respondent shipped
approximately 20 percent of its finished product, consisting of com-
mercial printing and totaling in excess of $350,000, to States other
than the State of Georgia. , The respondent admits that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it is subject
to the jurisdiction of the Board.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Printing Trades Crafts , an association of International Typograph-
ical Union of North America , International Brotherhood of Book-
binders, and International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union
of North America, is _ a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the respondent?
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
The- Union began organizing the respondent's employees in Sep-
tember 1941.3 Under date of September 12, 1941, the respondent's
president, John H. Harland, sent- to John A. Butler, the respondent's
vice president and plant superintendent, a memorandum 4 in which,
2with the exception of International Typographical Union of North America, the con-
stituent unions of Printing Trades Crafts are affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor. International Typographical Union of North America is an unaffiliated labor
organization.
- "At that time , and during a substantial period prior thereto, the respondent had on its
pay roll lithographers who belonged to Amalgamated Lithographers of America, affiliated
with the Ameiican Federation of Labor, and the respondent was aware of such membership.
However , that labor organization has never had a contract with the respondent So far as
appears, the respondent has never disciplined its employees nor threatened to take disci-
plinary measures because of membership in the Amalgamated.
4 In part, the memorandum read as follows :
Subject: Hiring of applicants -
From all I can learn there is evidently considerable union agitation going on in some
of the local plants. . . .
Again let me caution you to be doubly careful when talking to applicants for work.
This word of caution should be passed on to your foremen. We are not interested
in whether said applicant is union or non-union and this applies to all those already
on the pay roll.
As I recall it a girl you put to work when Mrs . Howell was off on leave of absence
several weeks ago told you she was a member of the union and was assured this didn't
make a particle of difference as far as the company was concerned . This is the proper
procedure to follow in all cases.
JOHN H. HARLAND COMPANY ;79
in substance, Harland prescribed a policy of company indifference
with.respect to union affiliation of -present and prospective employees
and instructed Butler to inform the plant foremen to observe the
company policy.5 On September 16, 1941, the Union held its first
meeting of the respondent's employees.
The union organizational movement caused friction among the em-
ployees. Quarreling, which previously had been usual among female
employees in the bindery department, became accentuated, adversely
affecting production. At the instance of several female employees
working in the bindery who were troubled by the union drive for mem-
bers, W. B. Williams, a bindery employee, requested Superintendent
Butler to call a meeting of bindery employees to restore "harmony in
the bindery." 6 A few days after the union meeting referred to above,
Butler summoned the approximately 12 to 15 bindery employees to the
stockroom in the plant. At the meeting Butler called the employees'
attention to the existence of bickering ainong them and its effect upon
their efficiency, and invited them to make suggestions as to how the
trouble could be remedied. When the employees mentioned the Union
in the course of the ensuing discussion, Butler stated, in substance,
that the respondent had no objection to union affiliation of its em-
ployees and, in the event a majority of the- employees designated a
labor organization as bargaining representative, the respondent would
bargain collectively. Charles B. Merritt, treasurer of the respondent,
who was present at the meeting, interrupted Butler to tell the em-
ployees that the respondent could not-discharge them for union mem-
bership. There is conflict in the testimony as to whether Butler, in
effect, asked the employees to abandon tha Union. According to
Board witnesses, credited by the Trial Examiner, during the course of
the meeting Butler quoted figures with respect both to the union wage
scale and to the earnings of the respondent's bindery employees, and
inquired whether the employees desired the Union or a company official
to represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining. Butler
denied making any statement with respect to the employees' choice of
a collective bargaining representative. He did not testify, however,
with respect to the alleged quotation of figures concerning the union
wage scale and the employees' earnings. He testified that he asked the
employees "to trust [him] ... to get the quarrels straightened out."
In resolving this conflict, the testimony of Foreman J. R. Brown, li
" While there is no' evidence that Butler gave any specific instructions to the foremen
relating to the respondent's labor relations policy, the record does not disclose that the
foremen questioned any employee or applicant for employment concerning union affiliation
or activity. -
" Williams testified that in malting the request he did not mention the Union to Butler.
Butler testified that; while aware of the union activity among the employees, he called a
meeting of the bindery employees, as hereinaftei set forth, because the increase in dis-
cussion among the girls, hourly paid employees, had lowered their efficiency.
80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
witness for the respondent, appears significant. He testified that
either Butler or Merritt made the statements with respect to wages,
and that Butler asked the employees, "Had you rather have the Union
or would you rather go on like you have been?" Under the circum-
stances, we find that Butler made a comparison of the union wage
scale and the earnings of bindery employees and asked the employees
whether they desired to maintain the status quo with respect to ma-
chinery for the establishment of terms and conditions of employment.
On September 29, 1941, union representatives called on Harland,
stated that the Union had been designated as 'collective bargaining
representative by about 90 percent of the respondent's employees, and
presented a proposed contract. Harland stated that he doubted
whether the Union represented a majority of the employees and sug-
gested that the doubt be resolved by conducting an election. He fur-
f.her informed the union representatives that the respondent had no
objection if its employees joined the Union and that the respondent
would deal with the Union in the event that a majority of the 'em-
ployees desired the Union to act as their representative. The Union
did not press the matter, and there was no further meeting between
the Union and the respondent until March 1942, after the Union had
filed a petition under Section 9 (c) of the Act.'
On March 25, 1942, the respondent and the Union entered into an
agreement for a consent election to determine representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining. A few days later, Butler called to
his office Henry Elliott, an employee who had been named in the agree-
ment to act as observer for the Union at the election. According to
testimony of Elliott, and Butler, which we credit as did the 'Trial Ex-
aminer, Butler stated, in substance, that displeased employees might
make harsh statements to Elliott because of his selection as union
observer, and advised him not to become upset if they made such state-
ments. Butler also informed Elliott that the respondent's attitude
toward the Union and the election was one of indifference, and showed
Elliott the memorandum from Harland, referred to above, as proof of
the respondent's policy.8 In the course of the same conversation, ac-
cording to Elliott, either Butler or Merritt, who was also present,
stated that the earnings of the respondent's employees were larger than
those of union employees elsewhere. On the day of the election, April
3, 1942, Harland assembled the employees in the plant and made a
speech. In the speech, in substance, Harland urged all the employees
a The,petition was filed on March 20, 1942.
About this time, according to Elliott's testimony , Foreman Eugene Watson, told Elliott
that he was "on the spot ," referring to his selection as union observer . Watson denied
Elliott's testimony. Butler testified that he was the one who- iihade such statement to
Elliott In either event , we do not regard such statement as having any material
significance.
JOHN H. HARLAND COMPANY 81
to vote, and to vote as they pleased. He also assured the employees
that "there will be no hard feelings," regardless of the outcome of the
election.
During the period from September 1941, to date of the complaint, the
respondent's working foremen, who had power to make recommenda-
tions with respect to hiring and firing and were eligible to membership
in the Union, on many occasions, discussed the Union with employees
and in,general terms expressed opposition to union organization. With
the exception noted below,' however, they made no express threats and
did not purport to speak for the management. Many of such conver-
sations were started by ordinary employees. Harland testified that
he took no steps to keep the working foremen from exercising influence
upon the employees in the matter of union organization because he
believed that as employees eligible to union membership they had a
right to engage in normal union activity and that it would be unlaw-
ful for the 'respondent to have restrained such activity. On several
occasions individual einliloyees seeking' advice were told by Harland
and Butler that, so far as the respondent was concerned, they were
free to join the Union or not, as they saw fit, and that the manage-
ment could not advise them whether to join or not.
The Union lost the election; le subsequently it withdrew its petition
for investigation and certification of representatives and, on April
7, 1942; filed,the charges which gave rise to this proceeding.
B. Conclusions
We have found above that at the meeting of the bindery employees
Superintendent Butler compared the existing union wage scale with
the earnings of the bindery- employees 11 and asked them, in effect,
whether they wished to designate the Union as their bargaining rep-
resentative. Such statements, considered alone, bear the interpreta-
tion that Butler was thereby suggesting that the employees abandon
the Union. As part of the same discussion, however, Butler and
Merritt told the employees, in substance: (1) that the respondent had
no objection to union membership on the part of its employees;
(2) that the respondent could not discharge an employee for union
membership; and (3) that the respondent would bargain collectively
with the exclusive representative chosen by the employees. We
0 Employee Fred J Harris testified, and the Trial Examiner found, that Harris was told
by Foreman Watson that lie had "plmmsed Harland that as long as he worked there that
the union would never come in these." While Watson did not specifically deny such testi-
mony, Harland testified that he never discussed the Union with the woi kuig foremen, except
to tell them that lie could not advise them when they sought advice as to whether to join
the Union We credit Harris's testimony but, under the circumstances disclosed here,
attach no material significance to Watson's statement
10 With 32 employees on the eligibility list, the Union received 9 of 31 votes cast
11 Butler did not expressly so state, but the rate paid the employees by the respondent,
according to the figures quoted by Butlem, exceeded the union wage scale
' 493508-43-vol 45=0
82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
believe that these additional statements of Butler and Merritt
removed any coercive taint otherwise present in Butler's remarks. In
our view Butler gave the impression at the meeting of the bindery
employees that he was primarily interested in employee efficiency and
production, and that he was assuring the employees that, as a means
of bolstering employee morale and increasing 'production, the
respondent would not oppose the organization of the Union in the
event that the employees wanted the Union. We find that, by Butler's
statements to the bindery employees, the respondent did not interfere
with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On the basis of the evidence hereinabove reviewed, we are of the
opinion that the employees did not regard the activities of the working
foremen as a reflection of the wishes of management, and that the
respondent did not thereby interfere with, restrain, or coerce. its
employees in their choice of representatives. We so find. By Har-
land's memorandum to Butler which was shown to Elliott, by Har-
land's speech to the employees on election day, and by the statements
of Butler and Merritt to the bindery employees, as hereinabove set
forth, the respondent's officials had demonstrated a neutral attitude
toward the Union in its efforts to organize the employees. Further-
more, the working foremen were eligible to membership in the Union;
the Union sought to bargain for them and permitted them to vote
without challenge in the election conducted by the Board. The fore-
men did not question any employee concerning his union membership
or activity, and there is no evidence that the foremen threatened the
employees with disciplinary action for engaging in union activity.
For the most part, the discussions between ordinary employees and
the foremen with respect to the` Union were initiated by an ordinary
employee, and the statements made by the foremen were regarded by
the employees, according to their testimony, as part of an exchange-of
personal viewpoints. In such a setting we believe that the foremen
did not by their activity enlist the prestige of management to oppose
the Union. -Accordingly, we shall not hold the respondent respon-
sible for their conduct and shall dismiss the complaint.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entiie
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operation of the business of the respondent constitutes a
continuous flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Printing Trades Crafts is a labor organization, within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
JOHN H. HARLAND COMPANY 83
3. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices , within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
ORDER
- Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant-to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint
against John H. Harland Company, Atlanta, Georgia, be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.