Ozan Lumber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 30, 1942

42 N.L.R.B. 1073 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the ` Matter Of OZAN LUMBER COMPANY and UNITED BROTHERHOOD
OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF Atl'IEIuoA, LoOAL 2518, AFFILIATED WITH
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No C-2090 -Decided July 30, 1942
Jurisdiction - lumber milling nnlustiy
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint and Cocicrort questioning an employee as to union activ-
ities, disparaging the union, and,threatenmg that employees engaged in union'
activities would get in trouble, formulating a rule excluding employees and
union organizers of the white race from company-owned colored quarters
while peinuttuig *hite persons whu had business the respondent deemed
legitimate to enter, instituting a pis system enforced to exclude the president
of the union, a white employee, from the quarters
Drscirm.anation discharge of white emplmce activehn the union because of his
activities in urging his-fellow employees of the Negro race to join the union
Remedial Orders i emstatenient and back pay awarded, cease and desist order
against denying to residents of connpanv-owned colored quartets the right to
halve guests on union business enter unimpeded
Mr Charles A Kyle, foi the Board
McRae cC Tompkins, by Messrs iW V Tompkins and Charles H
Tompkins, of Prescott, Ark, for the respondent.
Mr Charles F Mendenhall, of Little Rock, Ark, for the-Union
Mr. Harley G Moorhead, Jr , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge 1 duly filed on December 26, 1941, by
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local
2518, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called
the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New
Orleans, Louisiana), issued its complaint dated December 26, 1941,
against Ozan Lumber Company, Prescott, Arkansas, herein called the
1 The original charge was filed on May 15, 1941
42N L R B , No 196 -
472814-42-vol 42-68 1073
1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and uas en-
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) 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, were duly
served upon the respondent and the Union '
Concerning the unfair labor practices the complaint, as amended
at the hearing,2 alleged in substance that the respondent (1) termi-
nated the employment of Lee Guthrie, on or about April 2, 1941, and
thereafter refused to reinstate him because of his membership in and
activities on behalf of the Union, (2) questioned employees about their
membership in the Union, (3) advised employees that the mill would
be closed down if the employees organized, (4) prevented union mem-
bers and organizers from going into company-owned Negro quarters
while granting otheis the right of access to said quarters, and (5)
by these and other acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act On January 5, 1942, the respondent filed its answer, denying
that' it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the corn-
plaint, and on January 12, 1942, filed an amendment to the answer
adding thereto allegations that Guthrie had been discharged for
uuilfully going into Negro quarters in violation of a known company
rule
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Prescott, Arkansas, on
January 12 and 13, 1942, before Frank A Mouiitsen, the Tiial Exam-
iner duly, designated by the Chief Ti ial Examiner The Board and
the respondent were represented by counsel, the Union by an`official
representative, and all participated in the hearing Full opportunity
to be heat d, to examine and cr oss-ex amine witnesses, and to intro-
duce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties At the
conclusion of the Board's case, counsel for the respondent moved to
strike evidence which had been admitted over his objection that it
was not within the issues stated in the pleadings The Trial Exam-
iner offered counsel for the respondent additional time to meet any
testimony by which he w,as surprised, but counsel did not claim sur-
prise and stated that he could meet the evidence without additional
time being granted The Trial Examiner thereupon denied the motion
to strike At the conclusion of the hearing counsel for the Board moved
to dismiss allegations of the complaint alleging that the respondent
had discharged employees Elmo Sewell and