Pittsburgh Standard Envelope Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 16, 1940

20 N.L.R.B. 516 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of PITTSBURGH STANDARD ENVELOPE COMPANY and
PITTSBURGH PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS UNION, No. 64
Case No. C-926.-Decided February 16, 1940
Paper Envelope Manufacturing Industry-Iraterference, Restraint, and Coer-
cion: anti-union statements ; participation in formation and administration of
an employees' grievance committee ; attempting to induce an employee to spy
on organizational activities of fellow employees ; lock-out to discourage con-
certed activities implemented by threat of a strike ; conducting a union prefer-
ence election among employees in an unfair and biased manner-Di.scrintination:
charges of, sustained as to four employees; not sustained as to eight em-
ployees-Reinstatement Ordered: employees discriminated against-Back Pay:
awarded to employees to be reinstated; to include any bonuses to which they
would have been entitled had they not been discharged.
Mr. Henry Shore, for the Board.
Reed, Smith, Shaw c McClay, by Mr. John C. Bane and Mr.
Seward H. French, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the respondent.
Mr. Martin J. Dixon, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Union.
Mr. Daniel J. Harrington, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Pittsburgh Print-
ing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, No. 64, herein called the Union,
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by
Charles T. Douds, Regional Director for the Sixth Region (Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania), issued its complaint, dated May 26, 1938,
against Pittsburgh-Standard Envelope. Company,' Pittsburgh, Penn-
sylvania, 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 '(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
'Incorrectly designated in the complaint as Pittsburgh Standard Envelope Company.
20 N. L. R. B., No. 53.
516
PITTSBURGH STANDARD E'NVELOPE COMPANY 517
notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and the
Union.
In respect to the unfair labor practices; the complaint, as amended
at the hearing, alleged in substance: that the respondent demonstrated
to its employees by various and sundry methods its hostility to outside
labor organizations in general and the Union in particular; that the
-respondent conducted meetings, speeches, and conversations tending
to discourage membership in or activity of its employees in outside
labor organizations in general and in.the Union in particular; that
the respondent encouraged and dominated an employees' grievance
committee; that the respondent made threats and statements that it
would cease operations if a substantial number of its employees be-
came associated with outside labor organizations in general and with
the Union in particular; that the respondent encouraged its em-
ployees to spy on each other for the purpose of obtaining information
about attempts of its employees to organize in outside labor organi-
zations in general and in the Union in particular ; that the respondent
-ceased operations and locked out its employees to discourage member-
ship and/or activity in outside labor organizations in general and in
the Union in particular; that the respondent conducted a union pref-
erence election among its employees in an unfair and biased manner;
And that the respondent discharged 12 named employees and refused
to reinstate them. because- of their membership and activity in the
.Union, because they engaged in concerted activity with other em-
ployees for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid
and protection, and in order to discourage membership in the Union
or any other labor organization.
On June 1, 1938, pursuant to an extension of time granted by the
Regional Director, the respondent filed an answer, denying that its
business affected commerce within the meaning of the Act, denying
.the alleged unfair labor practices, and setting forth a number of
affirmative defenses in regard to the discharges.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on June 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
1.31147 15,16, and 17, 1938, at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, before Harold
Stein, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board
and the respondent, represented by counsel, and the Union, repre-
sented by its secretary, 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. During the
course of the hearing counsel for the Board moved to amend the
complaint to correct a minor typographical error and also moved to
amend it by adding certain allegations with respect to the respond-
ent's business. Counsel 'for the respondent waived the requirement-
of 5 days' notice of the amendments,. The Trial Examiner granted
283031-41-vol. 20-34
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the motions. During the hearing counsel for the respondent made
two motions to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the Board
lacked jurisdiction over the respondent. The Trial Examiner denied
both motions. At the close of the Board's case counsel for the Board
moved to conform the complaint to the proof with respect to minor
variances between the proof and allegations of the complaint. No
objection was interposed by counsel for the respondent and the mo-
tion was granted by the Trial Examiner. During the course of the
hearing counsel for the Board moved to strike all testimony con-
cerning Catherine Wilson as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.
The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on the motion and in his Inter-
mediate Report denied, the motion. During the course of the hearing
the Trial Examiner made several other rulings on motions and on
objections 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 rulings are hereby affirmed.
Thereafter the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report dated
September 19, .1938, copies of which were duly served upon the re-
spondent and the Union. The Trial Examiner found that the respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act. and recommendedthat' the- respondent case and
desist therefrom and, affirmatively offer immediate and full reinstate-
ment with back pay, including bonus and Christmas present, to the 12
named employees who had been discharged. The Trial Examiner
further recommended that the complaint be dismissed in so far as it
alleged a violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act. Exceptions to the
Intermediate Report were filed by .the Union on October_ 5,.1938," and
'exceptions and objections by the respondent on October 17, 1938.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board on April
27, 1939, in Washington, D. C., for the purpose of oral argument.
The respondent and the Union were represented by counsel and par-
ticipated in the hearing. The Board has considered the exceptions and
objections to the Intermediate Report and in so far as they are incon-
sistent with the findings, conclusions,. and order set forth below, finds
no merit in them.
Upon' the entire record in the' case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent was incorporated under the laws of the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania in 1917 under the name of Pittsburgh Envelope
Company and operated a factory at Greensburg, Pennsylvania, until
PITTSBURGH STANDARD ENVELOPE COMPANY 519
1932 . At that time it altered its corporate name to its present form
and moved its plant to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where it has operated
ever since and maintains its sole factory and place of business.
The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of paper envelopes in
which process it uses paper, gulp, ink, boxboard, cartons, electrotypes,
and various other items. Scrap paper accumulated in the manufac-
ture of envelopes is sold by the respondent through brokers. The re-
spondent employs five. salesmen in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and, in
addition, an individual in Clarksburg, West Virginia, occasionally
takes orders for the respondent.
Raw materials used by the respondent are shipped from West Vir-
ginia, New York, and other States to its factory at Pittsburgh. It
also purchases certain types of envelopes from firms located in Chi-
cago, Illinois, and Cleveland, Ohio. Approximately 82 per cent of the
dollar value of raw materials used by the respondent are shipped to
it from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
From March 1, 1937, to February 28,1938, 17.8 per cent of the dollar
sales of the respondent were shipped outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Pittsburgh Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, No. 64, is a
labor orgaiization affiliated with the International Printing Pressmen
and Assistants' Union of North America, which in turn is affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to its membership
employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Inte9' f ei ence, restraint, Cdlbd coercion
In December 1936 or January 1937, Elmer G. Overly, president
and general manager of the respondent, called a meeting of employees
in the plant after working hours. Charles McGervey, an employee,
testified that at this meeting Overly told the employees of union
-trouble in other plants and warned them "not to have anything to
-do .with- the -union-,because-'they-would not dictate to him." 'Francis
J. McMahon, another employee, testified that Overly said that there
was trouble in the envelope industry in the east and that, if the em-
ployees "would keep out of trouble" and would not " see any organiz-
•ers," they would work while other shops would be closed. Overly,
on the other hand, testified that he had never expressed hostility to
any organization and. had always told his employees that, if they
wished to organize, he would do all lie could to help them. He ad-
mitted that he discussed unions at this meeting, but stated that he
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was careful to avoid using the word "union " because he did not .wish
to create the impression that he did not want the employees to become
involved in a union . He stated . that he wished them to become
involved only "after due consideration , and after the proper method,
to avoid inconvenience ." He further stated that there was consid-
erable discussion in newspapers at that time concerning sit-down
strikes, plant damage, and loss of time by employees and that he
counseled the employees that all . that "silly business" was unnecessary
and could- be avoided by considering the matter and acting . intelli-
gently. He stated that he also told .them that "the smart thing to
do in these various cases , would be to stick to your knitting," that
is not to go on sit-down strikes, and that the same results could be
accomplished without loss of time . He testified that these statements
were motivated by the prevalence of sit-down strikes, destruction of
property , and other "radical" disturbances at that time , the request
of employees for advice on these matters , and the protection of cus-
tomers and employees . However, he admitted that there were no
radical activities in the plant at that time , no talk of organization,
no labor problem , and no dissatisfaction . Overly testified that he
always counseled the employees to approach new problems slowly.
He stated that his purpose was to assure the employees that there
was nothing to fear and that if they wished to organize the re-
spondent would gladly "go along with them," but admitted that he
-did not know whether or not he accomplished his purpose. In view
of Overly 's admitted statements that he had discussed unions and had
advised the employees to proceed slowly in, organizing activities, his
general denial that he expressed hostility to labor organizations is
not convincing. Moreover, his advice to the employees to proceed
slowly in organizational activities constituted an interference with
the right to self-organization and other rights guaranteed employees
by the Act. We find that Overly expressed hostility to unions and
intentionally conveyed the impression that he was opposed to or-
ganizational activities among the employees.
In March 1937 another meeting , this one for male employees only,
was called by Overly in the plant. - Methods of increasing production
were discussed , it was decided to set up boxes in the plant in which
employees could place suggestions , and a dinner party was suggested.
Several employees testified that Overly said to keep away from or-
ganizers, to see that the plant did not organize , that if it did
organize he would close it down 5 years if necessary , to let other
places organize and "they could work, and that he could get rid..of
an. organizer by, -giving, him a little money. Overly testified that
only routine matters rind ' probably the suggestion boxes were dis-
cussed. However, the uniformity of the employees '..testimony and
PITT3TiTk4_1 -s-'k-- "DAIUD-I, Nv.EL0P1'-.ooTmPAI\,Y _.52L
thelack of any specific de'nial`by Overly' that',hefmade, the'statei7ients,
attributed to him lead us to -believe, and we find, that he did make
such statements.
A dinner party for male employees, which the respondent paid
for, was held on or about April 2, 1937. At this party speeches were
made concerning harmony among the employees, and certain sug=
gestions that had been found in the suggestion boxes were read aloud.
There was some criticism of individuals and of departments. Arthur
Swanson, adjuster and foreman in the Wide Range Department,
proposed the formation of a grievance committee and Overly an-
nounced his approval of the suggestion. It was decided to draw
lots for the selection of a temporary grievance committee.
A few weeks later Overly called a meeting of the female em=
ployees in the plant after working hours. As at the men's dinner,
suggestions found in the suggestion boxes were read. Swanson
explained to the girls the plans for the grievance committee and
the girls also selected a temporary committee by lot. The meeting
was followed by a dinner paid for by the respondent.
Shortly after the girls' dinner the temporary grievance committee
nominated 10 persons, of whom 5 were elected as a permanent griev=
ante committee at a general election among all the employees: The
permanent committee consisted of three men and two women. Bal-
lots for the election were printed in the plant by the temporary
grievance committee at no cost to the employees. The grievance
committee held its first meeting, attended by Overly, Swanson, and
Overly's secretary, in Overly's office. Swanson explained the com-
mittee's functions, advising the committee that it should have its
own secretary, keep minutes of its meetings, and post the minutes
on the bulletin board in the plant for the information of all em-
ployees. He stated that the committee should operate primarily
to settle minor disputes without bringing them to the attention of
the management and should hold meetings with the management
on matters they could not settle among themselves. Overly offered
his office to the committee for, their meetings, and the services of
his secretary to keep the minutes. He also offered to pay for dinner
for the committee after-each meeting.
The grievance committee failed to hold regular meetings and
settled no grievances. It received two or three grievances, but was
unable to obtain satisfactory results. The employees were dissatisfied
with the functioning of the committee.
The events described above amply demonstrate the respondent's
participation in the formation and administration of the grievance
committee. The grievance committee was formed with Overly's
approval after he had disclosed to the employees his antipathy to
522. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
outside unions. The respondent'. permitted ballots, for- the election
of the committee- to be printed in its plant at no cost to the com-
mittee and thereafter further evidenced its sponsorship of the project
by offering the use of office space and a secretary for committee
meetings and by offering to pay for dinners for the committee after
meetings . Finally, when the committee attempted to present -griev-
ances, the respondent rendered it ineffective by refusing to adjust
the grievances. We find that the respondent sponsored this plan as
a device to direct the employees' organizational activities into a
pattern suited to its own purpose and calculated to have a minimum
of effectiveness.
During the period from January to June 11, 1937, Overly talked
at times to James D. Logan, Jr., an employee. In these conversa-
tions Overly questioned Logan with respect to union talk among
the employees and asked Logan to report any union activities or
the presence of organizers among the employees.
Clarence Neff, adjuster and foreman of the Open End Department,
was the subject of certain complaints of a personal nature made by
the female employees working under him to the grievance committee.
On the morning of June 11, 1937, Neff and Logan engaged in a
quarrel over an order. Goldsworthy; foreman of the Cutting De-
partment, instructed Logan and Walter Kinley, chairman of the
grievance committee, to see Overly and tell him that the employees
wished Neff discharged. Some of the employees gathered about and
threatened to close the plant unless Overly discharged Neff. Logan
and Kinley went to Overly and informed.him that Neff had been
causing trouble in the plant and that the employees were going to
close it down unless Neff was discharged. Overly either told them
to tell the other employees that he would give Neff 30 days to
"straighten out," or that he, would straighten the matter out in 30
days. When Logan and Kinley reported Overly's decision to 1 he
other employees, the report caused considerable dissatisfaction, some
of the employees desiring to call a strike. The employees sent Logan
and Kinley to see Overly again. They did so and informed him that
the employees were going to shut the plant down if Neff was not
fired. Overly responded that the employees would not dictate to
him. Logan then told Overly that Bernard Creasy, an employee,
had already shut down his machine, whereupon Overly responded
that both Creasy and Logan were "washed up."
When Logan and. Kinley reported back the second time, the em-
ployees decided it would be wise to join a union before doing any-
thing further. The employees held a meeting during the luncheon
. recess and signatures of employees favoring a union were obtained.
Additional signatures were obtained after work and on Monday,
r PITTSBURGH STANDARD ENVELOPE COMPANY 523
June 14.2 The employees' attempted- to find a union willing to admit
them to membership, no final decision having been made. as;, to,
whiather they should -join -.the' A. F.' of 'L:7or C. I. O. On Monday
the plant was open as usual and there was more general talk about
joining a union, although the employees had not yet gotten in touch
with an organizer. It was again generally agreed to join a union
before doing anything further. Although it is undoubtedly true
that not much work was done, the primary subject, of discussion was
organization and not a strike.
On either the preceding Friday or Saturday night, Overly and
James Robinson, superintendent of the plant, discussed the situation
that had arisen in the plant and Overly instructed Robinson to take
whatever steps might.„be,,necessary. ,to; handle the. situation. ,Overly;
went to Harrisburg on Sunday night on a business trip. When he
returned to Pittsburgh early Tuesday morning, June 15, he telephoned
Robinson, who informed him that he had closed the plant and had
posted a notice to that effect because the Logan-Neff incident had
continued to cause difficulty and the employees were going to close it.
Overly and Robinson agreed that they would meet with the employees
at the William Penn Hotel later that morning. After talking with
Overly, Robinson went to the plant and posted a new notice announc-
ing the indefinite closing of the plant and a meeting to be held at
10:30 a. in.
The complaint alleges that the respondent ceased operations and
locked out its employees to discourage membership or activity in
outside labor organizations in general and in the Union in particular.
The respondent contends, on the other hand,. that the plant was closed
because of the Logan-Neff incident and the threat of the employees
to strike if Neff was not discharged. It also urges additional reasons
in explanation of the closing of the plant. It is significant that at
the time of the closing Robinson informed Overly that the respond-
ent's reason for the shut-down was the Logan-Neff matter and the
accompanying threat to strike. The closing of the plant occurred
immediately after these events, whereas the other matters asserted as
reasons involved events occurring the preceding month. At any rate,
we are satisfied, and we find, that the operative if not sole cause of
the closing of the plant and of its shut-down thereafter was the intent
and desire of the respondent to effectuate, through the intimidating
force of a lock-out, a discouragement of the employees presenting
their collective request for Neff's discharge and of their resorting to
the exercise of their right to strike in furtherance of their interests
2 The plant was closed on Saturday, except for a few employees, in accordance with the
usual custom.
524 DECISIONS of '1vATI6NAL:LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as employees.' ""The collective-request 'f 61r'N6ff's'discharge was proper,
concerted action on the part of the employees for their mutual aid
and protection, for Neff's conduct had demonstrated his unfitness as a
fellow employee, and attainment of the subject of such request was a
lawful strike objective.4
Section 8 (1) of the Act provides that employers shall not inter=
fere with, restrain, or coerce their employees in the exercise of the
fundamental rights which the Act in Section 7 secures to employees:
Section 7 pronounces as a basic right of employees the right "to en-
gage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection." In enacting these provisions it was
the intent of the Congress that employees, irrespective of whether
they are or are not members of a labor organization, have full free=
dour and liberty to enjoy the advantages of concerted action lawfully
designed and engaged in to advance their economic and other interests
as employees.5
In presenting their collective request for Neff's discharge and in'
threatening resort to their right to strike, the employees were en
gaging in concerted activities protected by Section 8 (1) of the Act.
The respondent's use of the lock-out to interfere with, restrain, 'and-
coerce the employees in their engaging in these activities, necessarily
3In National Labor Relations Board v . Stackpole Carbon Company, 105 F. (2d) 167
(C. C. A. 3), cert. denied November 6, 1939, enforcing and modifying Matter of Stackpole
Carbon Company and United ' Electrical & Radio Workers of America , Local No. 502,
6 N. L. R. B. 171, the Court, in speaking of a finding of the Board that interference with
and domination of a labor organization by the respondent was at least one cause of 4
strike, stated
. . . one of those reasons, viz., the interference by the respondent with the right of
Its employees to self -organization as provided by Section 7 of the Act (29 U. S. C. A.
157), was a tort , a "substraction ", to employ the language of the Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of National Labor Relations Board v.
Remington Rand, Inc ., 94 F. (2d) 862, 872, certiorari denied , 304 U. S. 576, and as
stated in the opinion in the cited case ". . . it rested upon the tortfeasor to dis-
entangle the consequences for which it was chargeable from those from which It was
immune." In short , the burden rested upon the respondent to show that the strike
would have taken place even if it had not interfered with the right of its employees
to self-organization in controvention of the provisions of the Act. This the respondent
has not done and this we believe it cannot do.
4 See Restatement of the Law of Torts , American Law Institute, Chapter 38, p. 132,
§ 790, which states : "Dismissal by an employer of an employee is a proper object of con=
certed action by his employees if the employee
(b) is, by virtue of his habits, conduct or character , reasonably believed,-by• the
employees to be an unfit fellow employee,"
The Restatement further states with respect to (b) that "the term `fellow employee'
Includes employees in supervisory positions ." In § 783, p. 116 of the same chapter it is
stated that "Whenever, under the rules stated in this chapter , workers are privileged to
engage in specified concerted action for an object, they are also privileged to threaten to
engage in that action for that object."
5 Matter of Servel, Inc. and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America,
Local No . 1002, 11 N. L. R. B. 1295.
.PITTSBURGH STANDARD. ENVELOPE .COMPANY 525
would: discourage their-joining labor organizations, and the Union,
and engaging. in-activities.i-n behalf of- such organizations
We find that the respondent locked out' its employees on June 15,
1937, because they collectively requested the discharge of Neff and
threatened to strike unless this was done, thereby discouraging mem-
bership and activities in labor organizations in general and the Union
in particular and interfering with, restraining, and coercing the
employees in the exercise of their right to engage in concerted ac-
tivities for mutual aid and protection and in other rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act.
Early Tuesday morning Robinson arranged to have the pay roll
made up, both for the normal week ending the previous Friday and
for the extra day worked on Monday.
When the employees arrived at the plant Tuesday morning they
found it closed. After reading the notice they congregated on the
sidewalk in front of the plant and discussed organization. A by-
stander entered into conversation with them and advised them to go
to the Union. Several of the employees went to the union office and
met Martin J. Dixon, the union secretary: He advised them to at-
tend the meeting announced by the respondent and then to report
back. They thereupon joined the rest of the employees at the hotel.
After Robinson paid the employees, he received a telephone call from
Overly and announced to the group that Overly was out of town
and that they should all reassemble at the same time and place the
following day. After' leaving the meeting a large group of em-
ployees went to the union office and met with Dixon. Thirty-two
of the employees signed application cards for membership in the
Union at that time.' Dixon told the employees that if Logan and
Creasy were barred from the meeting on the following day, they
should all leave.
When the meeting began on the following day, June 16, Overly
announced that he had hired the room personally and that he wanted
Logan and Creasy to leave. They left and the rest of the employees
°Matter of Stehli and Co., Inc . and Textile Workers Union, etc., 11 N. L . R. B. 1397,
and Matter of The Dow Chemical Company and United Mine Workers of America, District
No.. 50, 13 N. L. l 1. B. 993 . Cf. Associated Press v. National Labor Relations Board, 301
U. S. 103. In sustaining a finding of the Board that an employer had committed an
unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 ( 3) of the Act , the Supreme Court
stated : "The Act permits a discharge for any reason other than union activity or agitation
for collective bargaining with employees ... The Petitioner is at liberty , whenever occa-
sion may arise , to exercise its undoubted right to sever his relationship for any cause
that seems to it proper save only as a punishment for or discouragement of, such activities,
as'the Act declares permissible ." [ Italics ours.]
'Two others , Mrs. Elvira Nelson and Alfred Kinkead , were ill at the time . They signed
'application cards on August 16, 1937, and June 25, 1937 , respectively . Arthur Swanson
signed an application card on June 16, 1937. There was some doubt about his eligibility
to membership in the Union because he was classified as a foreman and consequently his
card was not dated until August 24, 1937.
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
remained. Robinson, who had -been. informed a few minutes pre-
viously by McMahon that the employees were considering joining a
union, then whispered the news to Overly, who thereupon told Rob-
-'inson to make a speech while he himself walked around the back of
the.room to,collect his thoughts. Robinson spoke about the merits of
Overly as an employer and the " necessity of harmony in the plant.
Overly then took the floor again. Various employees testified that
he expressed his surprise at the employees joining a union after he
had told them several times not to do so and told them that a union
would cost them money for which they would receive no benefit, that
it would not be necessary to join a union in order to work in the
plant, that those not joining a union would receive as much pay as
those who did join, that there would be no advantage in joining a
union, that he would not permit a closed shop, and that part of
union dues goes to the union and part to politicians.
Overly testified that while walking about in the rear of the room
he decided to handle the matter in the same manner as he had in
the past when discussing organization with the employees. He
stated that he told the employees that he had been informed by
Robinson that they were considering unionization and that while the
meeting had not been called for that purpose, since they were to-
gether the respondent would be glad to cooperate with them and assist
them to organize. He further stated that he told the employees that
the respondent was not opposed to organization and was not inter-
ested in whether or not they organized, but would deal with them on
the same basis whether or not they belonged to a union. He denied
that he made any mention of dues. He stated that he intended to
assist the employees to organize by counseling with them "as to
how genuine their connection was" and that he told the. employees
that he "wanted them to go about the union business wisely to avoid
loss of time." In the nature of general advice he told the employees
to be sure of their objective and not to make any mistake. Overly
testified that his remarks were motivated by the respondent's desire
to avoid sit-down strikes or any inconvenience to itself or its cus-
tomers and its solicitude to make sure that the employees "were in
good hands," would not be "misused,"' and would not lose any time.
Regardless of Overly's motives in discussing the employees' organi-
zational activities with them, it is clear that his, remarks constituted
an unwarranted interference with their right to organize. The gen-
eral tone of the remarks was of such a nature as to restrain the
employees in their efforts to organize. -
During the meeting Overly asked how far the employees had
progressed with respect to joining a union. McMahon responded
that a number of employees had already signed cards. Overly
: PITTSBURGH STANDARD EN VELOP.E . COMPANY 527
requested McMahon to bring the union organizer to the plant. At
the hearing Overly stated that he wished to see the organizer, hear
something about his organization, and see his credentials because
he had heard of unauthorized - sit-down strikes and the respondent
was fearful of having the-employees badly counseled. He further
alleged that he wished to insure that the employees joined a union
which had. jurisdiction over their type of work. Someone suggested
that a vote be taken in order to ascertain the number of employees
favoring a union. Overly asked for a show of hands and two
attempts were made to count hands, Robinson counting for the man-
agement and Swanson, on his own initiative, counting for the em-
ployees. There were discrepancies in the count and Overly
announced that there would be an election by secret ballot when the
employees returned to the plant. There is some testimony that
Overly promised the employees a 10-per cent raise when they returned
to the . plant. However, inasmuch as Overly, Robinson, and
McMahon, a Board witness, denied that such a statement was made,
Ave find that Overly did not make this statement. McGervey asked
about the status of Logan and Creasy and Overly replied that it
would be considered later.
At the end of the meeting Overly asked the employees who re-
sided in Greensburg to remain and told the other employees to return
to work and that they would be paid for the time they had been
absent from work. The other employees left and after some brief
remarks Overly told the Greensburg men to return to work. The
girls who remained included Carrie Kinkead, Madeline Rutherford,
Irene Lynch Miller," Irene Bray, and Effie Wertz, all of Greensburg,
and Fern Wilcox of East McKeesport, a town situated midway be-
tween Greensburg and Pittsburgh, and :a former resident of Greens-
burg. After dismissing Effie Wertz because she was an office
employee, Overly spoke about the unhealthy strain involved in daily
traveling back and forth between Greensburg and Pittsburgh and
asked the girls how long they would continue to work. He also
asked the girls why they did not stay out of that "mess" and "com-
motion" in the plant. Irene Miller replied that the employees of the
Porcellier Company in Greensburg appeared more satisfied since they
had a union and expressed her desire to join a union. Overly then
told Kinkead, Rutherford, Miller, and Bray to go to Greensburg
immediately at his expense and that he would call Emmanuel Dym,
treasurer of the Porcellier Company, and endeavor to secure them
employment there. Overly had, in fact, spoken to Dym in the fall
of 1936 with respect to securing employment at the Porcellier plant
for some of the girls. The girls went to Greensburg without return-
8 Referred to in the complaint as Irene Lynch.
528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL . LABOR . RELATIONS BOARD
ing to•the plant and Overly telephoned Dym. However , Dym had
no work available and the respondent , notified the girls to return to
work the following day, with which instruction they complied.
When the employees left the meeting they understood that the
election would be held immediately upon their return to the plant.
However , it was not held until the close of work. Robinson com-.
piled a list of employees eligible to vote and Charles W. Cox, Sr.,
formerly superintendent of the plant and at that time an office em-
ployee, distributed the ballots , which were printed in the plant at
no cost to the employees . That afternoon Esther Berlin, forelady
in charge of the Hand Fold Department , told several girls in her
department that Overly had instructed her to inform the girls that
they would receive a 10-per cent raise if they voted against having
a union in the plant . The election resulted in an anti -union vote of
32 to 16. On the following pay day, for the week ending on June 19,
the employees received a 10-per cent increase in pay. In explanation
of this increase the respondent stated that after the employees re-
turned to work they asked that they receive weekly a bonus that
they had been receiving quarterly and that the respondent complied
with the request , the increase being merely the quarterly bonus cal-
culated on a weekly basis . The respondent 's explanation was cor-
roborated by the testimony of Charles McGervey , a Board witness,
who stated that on the morning following the election in response
to a query from Berlin with respect to the result of the election,
he replied that she knew the, result and that . he did not think much of
"a lot of yellow girls that will turn around because they have been
given a raise in pay that they had already been receiving ." More-
over, McMahon, another Board witness , testified that at a . meeting
held in July 1937 for the distribution of the quarterly bonus for
April , May, and June, Robinson informed the employees that it
would be the last bonus distribution due to the 10-per cent increase.
Overly denied that he told anyone that receiving the bonus weekly
would be contingent on the result of the election . Although we do
not find that Overly instructed Berlin to inform the employees that
they would receive a 10-per cent raise if the vote was anti-union, we
do find on the basis of the employees ' uncontradicted testimony that
Berlin did make such statements . It is significant to note in this
connection that Berlin did not, testify at the hearing although she
was available as a witness . Her supervisory status makes the re-
spondent responsible for the effect of her statements
The Union contends that the election was not fair because it was
supposed to be held before the employees resumed work ; because
Logan and Creasy, the four Greensburg girls, and one girl who left
early, did not vote ; because due to the absence of Logan and Creasy
other employees feared to vote in favor of a union ; and because the
PITTSBURGH STANDARD EINVELOPE COMPANY 529
respondent had representatives at' the election while the Union had
none. We find that the election, conducted under the supervision
of representatives of the respondent after the anti-union expressions
of Overly and the other interference and coercion described above,
could not result in a. free expression of employee sentiment with re-
spect to organization. The success of the respondent's activities
against organization is attested by the anti-union vote of 32 to 16,
although on only the preceding day 32 employees had signed appli-
cation cards. The result of the election armed the respondent with
a new weapon in its offensive against organization of its employees.
Subsequent to the election, organizational activities in the plant
decreased, the employees being apprehensive of even discussing a
union.
The sequence of events set forth above clearly reveals the interfer-
ence, restraint, and coercion.practiced by the respondent. At various
meetings Overly expressed his hostility to labor organizations. He
also attempted to induce an employee to spy on organizational ac-
tivities of the employees and report back to him. The respondent
participated in the formation and administration of the grievance
committee, then thwarted the employees' efforts to utilize it for the
presentation of grievances. When the employees attempted to im-
plement the presentation of a grievance by the threat of a strike, the
respondent locked them out. Later, when the respondent -learned
of the steps taken by the employees to organize, it continued its
interference by offering to "assist" them, although its "assistance"
consisted of opposition to their efforts to organize. Finally, by
means of the election, the respondent successfully completed its cam-
paign against organizational activities among its employees, with
Forelady Berlin giving the anti-union campaign a special impetus
by holding out the promise of a raise if the employees voted against
a union. We find that the respondent, by the acts described above,
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the ex.
ercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, and assist
labor organizations, 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.
B. The discharges
1. The discharge of Logan and Creasy
James D. Logan, Jr., was employed continuously by the respondent
"from 1928 until his discharge on June 16, 1937. At the time of his
discharge he was employed as a cutter, earning about $30 or $32 per
week.
530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR 'RELATIONS BOARD
Bernard Creasy, a former employee of the Standard Envelope
Company, became an employee of the respondent when it moved to
Pittsburgh and took over the plant of the Standard Envelope Com-
pany in 1932. He worked continuously for the respondent from 1932
until his. discharge on June 16, 1937, doing printing-press work.
At the time of his discharge he was earning $30 per week at an
hourly rate of 75 cents.
The respondent contends and the evidence discloses that both Lo-
gan and Creasy were to some: extent. unsatisfactory employees and
that Creasy was definitely scheduled for discharge at an appropriate
time. However, as disclosed by the testimony of Overly himself, the
actual decision to discharge the twQ employees was reached when
Logan and Kinley returned to Overly the second time on June 11,
1937, and was based on the connection of Logan and Creasy with
the events of that day. When Logan and Kinley interviewed Overly
for the second time on that day Logan informed him that Creasy
had shut his press down, whereupon Overly replied that Creasy had
been "on the pan for a long time," that he was "washed up," and
that the same thing applied to Logan. Overly admitted at the
hearing that at that time he definitely decided that both Logan and
Creasy were to be discharged, although he claimed that in Logan's
case all the previous incidents involving Logan played a part in
his discharge.
On the afternoon of June 11, Overly instructed Robinson to dis-
charge Logan and Creasy as soon as he could conveniently do so.
No action was taken by Robinson on Monday, June 14, and both
men worked that day. On Tuesday morning, June 15, when Robin-.
son paid the employees in full, he made no distinction between
Logan and Creasy and the other employees. When Logan and
Creasy appeared at the meeting at the William Penn Hotel on
Wednesday, June 16, however, Overly ordered . them to leave.
Both Logan and Creasy returned to the.. plant subsequent to
their discharge and both were refused reinstatement. At the hear-
ing. both' testified that they desired: reinstatement. .
It is undisputed that Logan and Creasy on June 11, were leaders
in the concerted movement on the part of the employees for the
discharge of Neff. Since, as we have stated above, this concerted
activity was an exercise of the rights guaranteed to employees in
Section 7 of the Act, Logan and Creasy could not properly be dis-
charged for such activity.
We find that James D. Logan, Jr., and Bernard Creasy-were dis-
charged' by the respondent on June 16, 1937, and thereafter' refused
reinstatement, because they had engaged in concerted. activities for
the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and ' pro-
PITTSBURGH STANDARD' ENVELOPE COMPANY . 531
tection and that the respondent in so discharging them has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the.rights guaranteed to them in Section. 7 of the Act, thereby en-
gaging in an unfair labor practice, within the meaning of Section
8 (1) of the Act. In addition, such discrimination has the effect of
discouraging membership in a labor organization, which is the cus-
tomary instrument utilized by employees to exercise the rights of
collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection guaranteed
by Section. 7, and . constitutes,. an unfair labor practice within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.9
Logan has not worked since his discharge. Prior to his discharge
he operated a tavern and since his discharge has continued to do so,
but he has not worked at the tavern any longer hours than he did
formerly.
Creasy was unemployed from the time of his discharge until
about the middle of November 1937. At that time he secured other
employment at a wage of $25 per week and at the time of the hear-
ing was still thus employed.
2. The discharge of Bohr and Wilcox
On July 23, 1937, Rose Bohr and Fern Wilcox, two employees in
the respondent's Hand Fold Department, were discharged by Robin-
son. They were informed that they were laid off because of poor
business conditions. No other reason was given. Robinson stated
that he did not know whether the lay-off was temporary or perma-
nent. We are satisfied from the surrounding facts and circumstances,
mentioned below, that the respondent intended to and did terminate
permanently the relations of these two employees with the respondent.
Both these employees were members of the group of plant workers
who the previous month had decided upon. the .desirability of joining
a labor organization and theretofore had participated in the concerted
activities engaged in at the plant, above mentioned. Both joined the
Union on June 15, the same, day that Robinson had the short meeting .,
with all the employees. We have no doubt and we find that the
respondent, at the time it discharged these two women, was well aware
of their identification with those employees interested in collective
action and who favored or joined the Union. Both employees had
raised their hands at the meeting at the William Penn Hotel when
the respondent's general manager, Overly, asked all employees present
who favored a union to do so. Before this occurrence Overly had
been apprised of the fact that some of the employees were considering
joining .a union.
See footnote 6. .
532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
About a week or two after her discharge Wilcox went to the plant
to obtain some money due her. On that occasion she met Overly and
asked him why she was discharged. Overly replied, "For the dirty
deal that your gang gave me; you shouldn't have to ask." He then
said "What the hell are you kicking about; you only asked for a
temporary job anyhow." Wilcox stated that while she had been
employed for a temporary position, in fact she had been working for
almost 3 years at her job. Overly replied that that was all the time
he had and that if she wanted to know anything further. to speak with
Robinson. Wilcox then went to see Robinson and spoke at some
length with him, but the conversation was inconclusive., Robinson
adverted to poor business conditions and said that he did' not think
they would improve before January of the following year.
The respondent, in its answer, alleges that Bohr and Wilcox were
laid off because of slack work in their department brought about by
a decrease in the respondent's business, and that they were laid off
rather than other employees in their department because they ap-
peared more able to maintain themselves without employment and
because their services were less essential to the respondent. At the
hearing, the respondent contended with respect to the condition of
its business at the time of the discharges that this condition had
become bad because of the effect of chain-store legislation upon its
customers' business and of increased competition. It also adverted
to an, anticipated loss of an important customer.
The respondent's contention with respect to slack business on and
preceding June 15, 1937, rests upon testimony lacking in specificity.
Overly testified that, prior to the enactment of chain-store legisla-
tion in Pennsylvania on June 5, 1937,10 there was a "movement on
the,part of all people-affected-by that law" and that it seemed "wise"
to the respondent to discontinue all unprofitable operations. He
stated that because of such legislation the respondent's sales to two
customers, the Gulf Oil Company and one of the "5 and 10" chains,
diminished, that its annual sales to the oil company diminished from
60,000 envelopes to 20,000 "over a period" and those to the other
customer "not as much" over such "general period." He explained
that the "general period" was the.-.two -years -preceding -the° hearing,
but admitted that this was only " an impression ," which might not
be correct. The record does not show when with reference to July
23, 1937, the alleged decrease in the respondent' s business resulting
from such legislation occurred; whether or not it was prior to that
date and, if so, how long prior; or the amount of loss compared with
the respondent's total volume of sales. , Indeed, there is .nothing to
10 Store and Theatre Tax Act. June 5. 1.937, P. L. (Pa.) 1656.
PITTSBURGH STANDARD ENVELOPE COMPANY 533
show what the respondent's total volume of sales was at any time
or its relationship on July 23 with previous periods of comparable
employment. Nor is there any other data essential to the question.
Overly testified that "about this same period" the two largest in-
dependent envelope manufacturers in the country lost some large
government orders and, therefore, began competing with the re-
spondent at prices it considered below its cost, adversely affecting
the respondent's entire business. Here again the record is silent as
to the time when this alleged loss of business occurred, the amount
of business lost, and its relationship to the total volume of the re-
spondent's business. The respondent submitted bids on July 9 and
on August 9, 1937, on an annual contract to supply the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania with envelopes. Overly testified that after
July 9 he had little expectation of the respondent being awarded the
contract due to conversations he had with the "principals" in Harris-
burg, Pennsylvania. The fact that the respondent was not awarded
the contract supports this testimony. However, the respondent
failed to show how much business it anticipated losing because of its
failure to secure the contract or the relationship of this business to
the respondent's total volume of sales. In short, these general state-
ments of Overly are not substantiated by any testimony showing an
appreciable decline-in-the respondent's business prior to and on July
23, 1937, or showing any necessity for a reduction in the number of
its employees. It appears from exhibits introduced by the respond-
ent" that both its pay roll and its production decreased during the
second half of 1937 from the levels of the first half of that year and
that the average number of employees and the number of -hours
worked per week by teach employee were less during the second half
of 1937 than during the first half of'the same year. However, in
view of the above facts, we are. not satisfied that the condition of the
respondent's business in July 1937 was such as to explain the lay-off
of Bohr and Wilcox. -
Even if we assume that the respondent did suffer a decline in busi-
ness, the evidence falls far short of proving any necessity for the
lay-off of the two employees. The respondent's usual procedure in
the past during a slowness in its business had been to reduce the num-
ber ' of hours worked by employees rather than to lay them off.
Overly testified that a 25-per cent loss in dollar volume below a three-
or four-year average would be the point at which- he would reduce
the force rather than the number of hours worked by employees.
While respondent's profits dropped considerably during 1937, produc-
tion fell off only 10.6 per cent in the second half of 1937 from the
level of the first half of 1937. There is 'no showing that this decline
1 Resp. Exhs. Nos. ] GA, 19, and 20.
283031-41-vol. 20--35
534 DECISIONS OF ' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was a ' decline in dollar volume . In view . of Overly 's statement and
the fact that the record does not show any reason . for departing from
the respondent 's past policy , we' are not satisfied that business condi-,
tions necessitated a lay-off on July 23.
There ' is no documentary evidence to show any decrease in business
affecting the Hand Fold Department . The record is silent as to the
normal volume of business in this department , its volume at the time.
of the lay=off of the two women, and the correlation between the.
volume of business in this department and that of the entire plant..
Overly testified that a decline of business might affect . different de-
partments in the plant at different times and that there was no rela-
tionship between the respondent 's volume of sales and activity in any
given Department . He stated that there had been little activity in the.
Hand .Fold -Department since 1932 and that in July 1937 it was
affected by the alleged decline in business before other departments.
He further testified that the lay-off of the two girls was due to a
gradual decline in work in that department and the manner in which
the department would be affected in the future and stated that since
the lay-off of the two girls the department had been further reduced
by the ' transfer of another employee to a different company., He
sought ' to explain a Board exhibit 12 which showed that employees
in the Hand Fold ' Department worked fairly regular hours during
March;. April, and May, 1937, by stating that the respondent had
orders during that period and stated that the normal practice of the
respondent for two years prior to the hearing had been to transfer
girls from the Hand Fold Department to other departments when
work was slack in that department and that such could have been
the case when girls in that department were shown on the Board
exhibit as working a 40-hour week . We: are not satisfied by this
vague testimony that business conditions with respect to the Hand
Fold Department .justified the lay-offs.
Nor does the evidence establish any reasonable basis for selecting
these two girls instead of other employees for discharge . Overly
and Robinson testified that in June or , early in July 1937 they began
to discuss the necessity of laying off employees and that in these
discussions they considered the status of every employee in the plant.
Overly left it to Robinson's discretion as to which employees to lay
off,, but told him that Wilcox was employed on a temporary basis
and that Bohr had, had trouble with her supervisor when she worked
on a handclasp machine, that she had been transferred to the Hand
Fold Department rather than having been discharged , and that,
inasmuch as she was the youngest in seniority in that -department, she
-should be the first to be discharged .. The record shows that Wilcox
12 Bd. Exh. No. 8A.
PITTSBIIRGH 'STaNDARD: ENVELOPE ' COMPANY. _ 535
was in the respondent's employ from' 1924 to June 1932 and was
rehired in October 1934 on a temporary basis. Thus Wilcox had a
considerable employment record with the respondent and at the time
of her discharge had been continuously employed for a period of
more than 2 years. Moreover, Wilcox stated, and we find, that a
short time after she returned to work in 1934, she decided to work
permanently, informed Overly of her decision, and received work
smocks from-him, which appear to have been given only to permanent
employees. Overly admitted that the trouble between Bohr and her
supervisor when she worked on the machine ceased with her transfer
to the Hand Fold Department some 2 months before her discharge.
Robinson testified that he laid off Wilcox and Bohr rather than other
employees in the department because they were married and had
homes, because he thought that their husbands were working, because
they were more recent employees than others in the department, be-
cause they lived farther from the plant than other employees and
had a greater distance to travel to work, and because Viola Miller,
the. next employee in point of service, was separated from her hus-
band and had children to support. However, he did not remember
whether or not he asked them if their husbands were working,, al-
though he. stated that he discussed the domestic situation of em-
ployees in conversations with their, fellow workers. It appears from
the record that Bohr had more seniority in the plant than Miller and
that Wilcox had approximately the same amount of seniority. Bohr
testified that she worked the greater part of the time she was in the
respondent's employ in the Hand Fold Department. Moreover, the
theory of seniority'seems to have been invented for this occasion and
was not even mentioned as a factor in connection with the discharge
of the 14 employees occurring subsequently. Overly testified that
seniority was not seriously considered in connection. with any of the
lay-offs that occurred... Robinson. admitted that Bohr, who resided in
Sharpsburg within streetcar distance of the plant, did not live an
inaccessible distance from the plant.
We'are satisfied,' and, we find, that the respondent discharged Bohr
and Wilcox because they had. engaged in the concerted activities
above described and because of their. desire to have a union in the
plant. Furthermore, the discharge of these two employees was in-
tended by the respondent to serve as a warning to other employees
that they would invite discharge by engaging in concerted activities
or..joining the Union. The respondent thus pursued further its anti-
union. activities, which we'have discussed above. Overly's statement,
above quoted, to Wilcox after her discharge shows clearly the anti-
union character of the discharges. Whatever contributory., factors
there may have been in selecting these two girls for discharge the
critical factor was the respondent's desire to abolish concerted ac-
536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tivity among its employees and to prevent the, inception,. of a union
.in the plant.
We find that the respondent by discharging Rose Bohr and Fern
Wilcox on July 23, 1937, discriminated in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the
Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
At the time of their discharge Bohr and Wilcox were earning 44
cents an hour and were working a 40-hour week, the compensation
of each amounting to $17.60 per week. Neither has worked since
her discharge and both desire reinstatement. We regard the evidence
introduced by the respondent as to their failure to seek work else-
where as immaterial13
3. The other discharges
The complaint alleged that the respondent on or about August 24,
1937, discharged and at all times thereafter refused to reinstate
Francis McMahon, Charles McGervey, Madeline Rutherford, Carrie
Kinkead, Irene Miller, Irene Bray, Elvira Nelson, and Arthur Swan-
son because of their membership and activity in the Union, because
they engaged in concerted activity with other employees in the plant
for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and
protection, and to discourage membership in the Union and/or any
other labor organization.
The respondent contends that these discharges were occasioned by
slackness of business and that in selecting the above employees for
discharge it followed a procedure of choosing married women re-
siding in Greensburg whose husbands were working and of choosing
men on their efficiency and relative earnings,. Grp;ensburg men being
discharged in preference to Pittsburgh men where all things were
equal. In the case of Carrie Kinkead, who was unmarried, the de-
terminative factor according to the respondent, was Overly's belief
that her health was suffering from the-daily trip to Pittsburgh and
from the strain involved in operating a machine.
Although the respondent's testimony with respect to the condition
of its business and the operative factors in the selection of those dis-
charged is not wholly convincing, we .do not find upon the record
presented that the sole or contributing cause of these discharges was
anti-union, as alleged. The evidence adduced was insufficient to
establish that fact. We find that the respondent did not discharge
or thereafter refuse to reinstate Francis McMahon, Charles McGer-
vey, Madeline Rutherford, Carrie Kinkead, Irene Miller, Irene Biiiy;
Matter of Western Felt Works, a corporation and Textile Workers Organizing Corn,-
rnittee, Western Felt Local, 10 N. L. R. B. 407, enforced, on consent , We.stern .Fclt Works
v. A. L. R. B ., March 25 , 1939 (C. C. A. 7).
-' PITTS13U-RGH STANDARD -ENVELOPE' COMPANY- . 537
Elvira , Nelson, and Arthur Swanson; or any of them, because of
their membership and activity .in-.the Union, or because they had
engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing and other mutual aid and protection, or to discourage member-
ship in the Union and/or any other labor organization. The
allegations of the complaint -with respect to these employees will,
accordingly, be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent- set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act by restoring as nearly as possible the situation that existed
prior to the commission of the unfair labor practices.
We have found that the respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights which the Act
guarantees to them. We shall, therefore, order the respondent to
cease and desist from such practices.
We have found that the respondent discriminatorily discharged
James D. Logan, Jr., Bernard Creasy, Rose Bohr, and Fern Wilcox.
We shall order the respondent to offer them immediate and full rein-
statement to their former positions, without prejudice to their sen-
iority and other rights and privileges, and to make them whole for
any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of their discharge, by
payment to each of them of a sum equal to the amount which each
would normally have earned as wages from the date of the discharge
of each to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his or her net
earnings 14 during such period, but including any bonuses to which
each would have been entitled had he or she not been discharged.
14 By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union., Local 2590, 8 N.-L. R . B. 440 . Monies received for
work performed upon Federal , State , county , municipal, or other work -relief projects are
not considered as earnings , but, as provided below in the Order , shall be deducted from
the sum due the employee , and the amount thereof shall be paid over to the appropriate
fiscal agency of the Federal , State , county , municipal , or other government or governments
which supplied the funds for said work -relief projects.
538 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL:-LABOR. RELATIONS ;BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Pittsburgh Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, No. 64, is
a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of James D. Logan, Jr., Bernard Creasy, Rose Bohr, and Fern
Wilcox, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization,
the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. 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.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
5. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Francis McMahon, Charles McGervey,
Madeline Rutherford, Carrie Kinkead, Irene Miller, Irene Bray,
Elvira Nelson, and Arthur Swanson, or any of them, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) or (3) 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
respondent, Pittsburgh-Standard Envelope Company, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Pittsburgh Printing Pressmen
and Assistants' Union, No. 64, or any other labor organization, by
discrimination in regard to hire, tenure, terms, or conditions of
employment; -
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the At.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
PITTSBURGH STANDARD ENVELOPE COMPANY 539
(a) Offer to James D. Logan, Jr., Bernard Creasy, Rose Bohr,
and Fern Wilcox immediate and full reinstatement to their former
positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges;
(b) Make whole James D. Logan, Jr., Bernard Creasy, Rose Bohr,
and Fern Wilcox for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason
of their respective discharges, by payment to each of them of a suns
equal to an amount determined in the manner set forth in the section
entitled "The remedy" above ; deducting, however, from the amount
otherwise due to each of said employees, monies received by said
employee during said period for work performed upon Federal,
State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects, and pay over
the amount so deducted to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Fed-
eral, State, county, municipal, or other government or governments
which supplied the funds for said work-relief. projects;
(c) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its
plant and maintain such notices for a period of sixty (60) cpnsecu-
tive days, stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the
manner set forth in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order, that
it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and
(b) of this Order, that the respondent's employees are free to be-
come or remain members of Pittsburgh Printing Pressmen and
Assistants' Union, No. 64, and that the respondent will not discrimi-
nate against any employee because of membership or activity in
that organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND rr Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, in so far as it alleges
that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of Francis McMahon, Charles McGervey, Madeline
Rutherford, Carrie Kinkead, Irene Miller, Irene Bray, Elvira Nelson,
and Arthur Swanson, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3)
of the Act, be, and it hereby is dismissed.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON. took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.