Reynolds Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 26, 1945

61 N.L.R.B. 1446 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of REYNOLDS CORPORATION and UNITED STEELWO$KERS OF
AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 10-C-1579.Decided May 26, 1945
Messrs. Dan M. Byrd, Jr., and Albert D. Maynard, for the Board.
Mr. Walter L. Rice by Mr. Elmer M. Cunningham, of Richmond,
Va., and Turpin and Lane, by Messrs . McKibben Lane and William
C. Turpin, of Macon, Ga., for the respondent.
Mr. Martin C. Raphael, of Washington, D. C., and Mr. R. E. Starnes,
of Atlanta, Ga., for the CIO.
Mr. C. Baxter Jones, of Macon, Ga., and Mr. Marion Ennis, of
Milledgeville , Ga., for the Association.
Mr. Louis R. Mercado , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended charges duly filed on September 2, 1944, by United
Steelworkers of America, CIO, herein called the CIO, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional
Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia ), issued its com-
plaint dated September 5, 1944, against Reynolds Corporation, Mill-
edgeville , 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), (2), 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 , together with
notice of hearing thereon , were duly served upon the respondent, the
CIO, and the Association. -
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged, in
substance , that the respondent : (1 from about May 1, 1944, to the date
of the complaint , engaged in certain specified conduct interfering with,
restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act ; ( 2) sponsored , formed, pro-
moted, assisted , dominated, and contributed support to the Workers
Welfare Association, Inc., a labor organization hereinafter called the
Association ; and (3 ) during June and August 1944 , discharged em-
61 N. L R B, No. 236.
1446
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1447
ployees George Porter, Sidney Gibson, Thomas Paschal, H. E. Tyler,
and Ruby Collins , and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate them
for the reason that they had joined or assisted the CIO , engaged in
concerted activities , or had refused to join or assist the Association.
On September 8, 1944, the respondent filed a motion for a Bill of
Particulars , and also filed an answer denying that it had engaged in
unfair labor practices . On September 12, 1944, the motion for a Bill
of Particulars was granted in part and denied in part by David Kara-
sick, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Ex-
aminer. On the same day counsel for the Board filed a Notice of
Intention to Move to Amend the Complaint . On September 15,
counsel for the Board filed a Bill of Particulars.
Upon due notice , a hearing was held at Milledgeville , Georgia, from
September 18 to September 27, before Charles W. Schneider , the Trial
Examiner' duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner to take the
place of the Trial Examiner previously designated to conduct the
hearing. The Board , the respondent , the CIO , and the Association
were represented at and participated in the hearing . Full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues , was afforded all parties. At
the opening of the hearing , upon motion by counsel for the Board,
and over objection by the respondent, the complaint was amended in
accordance with the afore -mentioned Notice of Intention . A motion
of counsel for the Board for a Bill of Particulars , with respect to the
respondent 's answer, and a motion by the respondent for a Bill of
Particulars with respect to the amended complaint , were both denied
by the Trial Examiner . During the course of the hearing , upon mo-
tion " by,counsel for the Board and over objection by the respondent,
the complaint was amended to include an allegation that about July'
29, 1944, the respondent discharged Kathryn Cowart because of her
activities on behalf of the CIO . At the conclusion of the Board's
case the Trial Examiner denied , without prejudice to its renewal at a
later point in the hearing , a motion by the respondent and the Asso-
ciation to dismiss the complaint as amended . At the close of the hear-
ing the Trial Examiner denied motions by the respondent and the
Association to strike certain names from the complaint as amended,
and reserved ruling on motions by the same parties to dismiss the
complaint . The motions to dismiss the complaint were denied by the
Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Repoxt.
On October 16, 1944, upon motion filed by counsel for the respondent
on October 10 and over objection by counsel for the Board, the Chief
Trial Examiner reopened the record and directed that a further hear-
ing be held . On October 24, 1944, upon due notice , a further hearing
was held in Washington , D. C. The Board , the respondent , and the
1448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CIO were represented at and participated in this hearing. The Asso-
ciation did not appear. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues, was afforded all parties. At this hearing, upon motion by
counsel for the Board and over objection by the respondent, the com-
plaint was further amended to allege, additionally, that on or about
October 17, 1944, the respondent initiated, formed, sponsored and pro-
moted a grievance committee, hereinafter called the Grievance Com-
mittee, and assisted, dominated, and contributed support thereto in
violation of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
Upon due notice, a further hearing was held at Milledgeville, Geor-
gia, on November 9,1944. The Board, the respondent, the Association,
and the CIO were represented at and participated in this hearing.
The Grievance Committee did not appear. All parties were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine' witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the close of the
hearing the Trial Examiner denied a motion by counsel for the re-
spondent to dismiss the allegations of the amended .complaint with
respect to the Grievance Committee, on the ground that the question
was moot; and reserved ruling on a motion to dismiss on the merits.
The latter motion was denied by the Trial Examiner in his Inter-
mediate Report. Although afforded' the opportunity, none of the
parties filed a brief with the Trial Examiner.
On December _18, 1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent, the
CIO, and the Association. In the Intermediate Report the Trial
Examiner found that the respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act, and recommended that the respondent cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. He further found that the respondent had not
discriminated against Kathryn Cowart and had not engaged in cer-
tain other unfair labor practices, and recommended that the com-
plaint be dismissed in these respects. Thereafter, the respondent and
the Association filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and sup-
porting briefs. Oral argument, in which the respondent and the
Union participated, was had before the Board at Washington, D. C.,
on March 1, 1945. The Board has considered the exceptions and
briefs of the parties and, insofar as the exceptions are inconsistent
with the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order set forth
below, finds them to be without merit.
O
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1449
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT '
Reynolds Corporation, a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of Reynolds Metal Company, is engaged at Milledgeville,
Georgia, in the manufacture of Naval ordnance for the United States
Government under contract with the Navy Department. The plant,
facilities, equipment, raw materials and finished products are at all
times the property of the Navy Department. The respondent is com-
pensated by the Navy Department on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis. In
the course of its business at the Milledgeville plant the respondent
uses raw materials, valued in excess of $100,000, which are shipped to
it from points outside the State of Georgia. A substantial portion
of the products manufactured at the Milledgeville plant, valued in
excess of $100,000, is transported and delivered to points outside the
State of Georgia.
Although the respondent conceded at the hearing before the Trial
Examiner that it was engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act, it now contends that the Board has no jurisdiction over the
respondent because (1) it is not engaged in interstate commerce, (2)
industrial strife at the Milledgeville plant would not tend to affect
commerce within the meaning of the Act, and (3) it is not an em-
ployer within the meaning of the Act. We find no merit in these
contentions. The respondent again concedes in its brief before the
Board that the raw materials used at the Milledgeville plant are
transported to it from points outside the State of Georgia and that
the finished products are transported to points outside the State of
Georgia. It contends, however, that since the plant, equipment, raw
materials and finished products are owned by the United States Gov-
ernment and since the respondent is compensated on a cost-plus-fixed.
fee basis, the movement of raw materials and finished products between
the States is not interstate commerce but "administrative acts of Gov-
ernment unrelated to commerce." We do not agree. The fact that
the materials and products moving to and from the Milledgeville
plant, as well as the plant and equipment themselves, are owned by
the Federal Government, does not deprive the Board of jurisdiction.
The transactions are nonetheless interstate commerce even though
1 The findings in this section are based upon a stipulation entered into by counsel for
the respondent and the Board , upon the respondent's admissions in its answer to the
Board 's complaint , and upon the respondent ' s admissions in its brief submitted to the
Board.
1450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
title to the commodities vests in the Federal government.2 The con-
stitutional concept of interstate commerce encompasses the transpor-
tation and transmission of materials and products across State lines;
there is nothing in the legislative history of the Act which indicates
a congressional intent to narrow the statutory meaning of the term
"commerce" so as to exclude those who manufacture goods for the
Federal Government. Nor are cost-plus-fixed-fee contractors agents
or instrumentalities of the Government so as to share in the Federal
Government's sovereign immunities., Industrial strife at the Mill-
edgeville plant would interrupt the interstate flow of commodities to
and from the plant, and so directly affect commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act. Nor is there any merit to the respondent's conten-
tion that it is not an employer within the meaning of the Act. It
is undisputed that under its contract with the Navy Department the
respondent hires the employees; tells them where to work and what
work to do; promotes and demotes them; determines their wages,
hours, and working conditions; pays their salaries; and discharges
them.4 These factors alone are sufficient to establish the employer-
employee relationship contemplated by the Act. Labor disputes
in the economic aspects of the relationship of these employees to the
respondent will lead to the obstructions to commerce which Con-
gress intended to remove. The conditions of the relationship between
these employees and the respondent require that they be protected
in their self-organizational rights in order to attain the objectives of
the Act.' Thus, we have repeatedly assumed jurisdiction over com-
panies engaged in similar enterprises under similar contracts with
the Federal Government.°
We find that the respondent is an employer and is engaged in com-
merce, within the meaning of the Act.
2 N. L R. B v. Fainblatt, 306 U S. 601 , 605, Timberlake v Day & Zimmerman, 49 F.
Supp 28 (D C S. D. Iowa) ; Umthum v Day ( Zimmerman, decided November 14, 1944,
16 N W . ( 2d) 258; Clyde v Broderick, 144 F . ( 2d) 348 ( C. C A. 10).
3 Penn Dairies v Pennsylvania Milk Control Comm , 318 U . S. 262, Alabama v. King &
Boozer, 314 U S. 1 , Curry v. United States, 314 U . S 1 , Timberlake v Day & Zimmerman,
49 F Supp 28 (D C S D Iowa)
4 The Navy Department maintains supervision and rigid inspection of the plant to see
that it is operated in strict accordance with the contract and in compliance with the
regulations of the Navy Department as well as all State and Federal laws.
Cf. N. L. R B. v Hearst Publications, Inc , 39 N L It B 1245, 1246, enf'd 322 U. S. 111.
s Matter of Lukas -Harold Corp . 44 N L R B. 730 ( private corporation manufacturing
tire control equipment ) Matter of United States Cartridge Company, 42 N. L. R B. 191
(private corporation manufaetuting ammunition ) , Matter of War Emergency Pipelines,
Inc., 56 N L. R . B. 64 (private corporation operating Government -owned pipeline as
"agents" for an R. F C subsidiary ) , Matter of War Hemp Industries , Inc., 57 N L. It. B.
1709 ( private corporation making hemp products for Navy from fibre owned by Commodity
Credit Corporation) ; Matter of H K. Dickson, 41 N L R B 1230 (individual operating
cafeteria on Navy property with general supervision of employees by Navy ) ; Matter of
Brown Shipbuilding Company, Inc, 57 N . L R. B 326, and 58 N. L. It . B 998 ( private
corporation building exclusively combat ships ) See also N L. R. B. v. Carroll, 29 N. L.
R. B. 343, enf 'd 120 F ( 2d) 457 (C. C A. 1) (contract mail carrier , whose employees are
under direction of Postmaster).
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1451
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, and Workers Welfare Association, Inc.,
unaffiliated, are labor organizations admitting to membership em-
ployees of the respondent at the Milledgeville plant.
The Grievance Committee consists of a number of persons selected
by employees of the respondent's Milledgeville plant for the purpose
of representing said employees in the negotiation of grievances. We
find that the Grievance Committee is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion; domination of and inter-
ference with the Association and the Grievance Committee
1. The appearance of the CIO
The respondent's plant at Milledgeville, Georgia, was constructed
by the Government in 1943; partial production was commenced in the
fall of that year. It is the only industrial enterprise of any conse-
quence within a radius of 25 miles. The area is predominantly agri-
cultural. 'Ninety-five percent of the respondent's employees is drawn
from the inhabitants of the surrounding area, whose previous employ-
ment has been mainly agriculture and who were virtually without
previous industrial experience of any kind.
During the latter part of April 1944, following overtures by a num-
ber of the respondent's employees, C. H. Gillman and R. E. Starnes,
representatives of the CIO, conferred with employees respecting the
establishment of a CIO organization at the plant. As a result of
these conferences, the CIO opened an office in Milledgeville about
May 1, 1944, and embarked upon an open organizational campaign.
J he appearance of the CIO in Milledgeville evoked immediate hostile
reaction in the community. The city of Milledgeville adopted a
licensing ordinance requiring union organizers, as a condition of ob-
taining a license, to pay a fee of $5,000 per year and to establish 12
months residence in the town. On May 17, 1944, upon evidence that
Starnes had talked in his office to several men with reference to or-
ganizing the respondent's employees, he was arrested and convicted
of violating the ordinance.?
Similar antagonism to the CIO found expression among certain of
the respondent's employees. The result was to divide a large num-
ber of the respondent's employees into two rival factions, one an-
' On August 29, 1944, the ordinance was declared unconstitutional by the Georgia
Supreme Court Starnes v. City of Milledgeville, 15 L R. R 76
1452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tagonistic to the CIO and the other favorable to it. A third group
stood indecisively aloof from both factions 8
2. The speeches of Lieutenant Commander Banks and General
Manager Smith
On May 18, 1944, the day after organizer Starnes was arrested and
when feeling in the community was at a high pitch, the respondent's
employees on both shifts were assembled at the plant during working
hours and addressed by Lieutenant Commander Banks, a United
States Naval officer on duty at the plant; and Harry G. Smith,
general manager of the plant and vice president of the respondent 10
Banks spoke first. He told the employees that the Navy had to
take notice of anything that might affect production, such as "dissen-
sion among workers, taking of so-called sides, personal arguments or
anything" that would distract their attention from their work; and
that anyone who did those things was as "guilty of treason as the
deserter who assists the enemy." He then told the employees that
because of the necessity for management to devote its full attention
to production many problems had not been remedied, but assured
them that they would be in due time, and expressed confidence that
the employees would not permit "small things" to interfere with their
"real objective" and that they would "set an example for the rest of
the country to follow."
Smith, after some introductory remarks, told the employees that
the Navy and the management were working "shoulder to shoulder,"
and stated that he wanted them to know that rates of pay were set
by the War Labor Board; that the Company had requested approval
of increases three times, each of which had been denied, but that on
the fourth appeal approval had been secured and increases recently
put into effect. He told them that the policy of the company and
his own desire was to treat the employees fairly and to make the plant
the most desirable place to work in the State of Georgia. He then
urged them to bring their grievances directly to management; to take
them first either to the foremen or the personnel director, and that
if they were not thus satisfactorily disposed of, to bring them directly
to him. He then said that he would not permit any interference
with production; that there were reports circulating which tended to
distract the employees' attention; that there were rumors of attempts
to organize a union in the plant; that the employees were free to join
8 No finding of unfair labor practices is predicated upon the above findings. They are
relevant , however, to show the circumstances under which the subsequent events occurred
and. for a proper understanding of the probable effect upon the employees of the events
9 A number of naval officers and civilian employees are stationed at the plant as repre-
sentatives of the Navy Department to insure that the terms of the contract are carried
out.
1°-The full text of these speeches appear in Appendix "A", attached to this Decision.
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1453
or not join, and that whether they did or not would not affect their
jobs. However, he said that it was his duty to advise them; an-
nounced that they would not be required to join a union in order to
hold their jobs, and that wage increases would be given irrespective
of whether or not there was a union; repeated that not only rates of
pay but the rates of increases were fixed by law; and told them they
should ask themselves whether they had a clean, pleasant and safe
place to work, whether their pay was in accordance with their ability
and experience, and whether they needed a union to enjoy those
-things. He concluded with the statement that "personally" he could
`'see no reason for a Union in this plant," but that they were priv-
ileged to accept that opinion or to reject it; that management would
not coerce them either way; and suggested that they not permit
others to coerce them.
Thereafter, the supervisory employees were instructed by Vice-
President Smith and other management officials to be neutral with
respect to union organization and not to express even their personal
opinions thereon. The employees, however, were not at that time
informed of the neutrality instructions given to-the supervisors.
3. The formation of the Association
Shortly after the delivery of the above speeches, literature in op-
position to unions in general and to the CIO in particular and pro-
posing the formation of, and the solicitation of applications for, an
independent organization under the name of Workers Welfare Asso-
ciation, made its appearance in the community. This literature's
was composed by Howard Cass, employed by the respondent as a
senior set-up man and at one time as a "job training coordinator,"
and was distributed by Cass, set-up men Fox, Durden, Sapp, and
machinist repairman Borders, all employees of the respondent, and
by other persons. The distribution of this literature took place over
a period of 5 or 6 weeks on the highway outside the plant, where CIO
adherents also distributed their literature. -James Sibley, a Mill-
edgeville business man, arranged to have some of the literature
printed, took an active part in the promotion of the Association and
"Much of this literature was intemperate in language and emotional in character
Typical of the ideas expressed were the following Employees, while without control over
dues and assessments, had to pay "tribute" to unions or lose their jobs, unions were
undemocratic and interested only in the money they got from the workers, held up produc-
tion, fomented strikes and riots and were communistic , the CIO was an "international
gi oup of bloodsuckers " The literature further stated that the employees could run their
business without outsiders; that the Association would keep out national organizations
and keep money in the community and out of the hands of northern radicals , that it
would have no high-priced leaders, would keep its books open to inspection at all times by
the employees and the management, would outlaw strikes during wartime, and prevent
outside agencies from "interfering with our work," since outside agencies distracted the
minds of the workers and resulted in production slow-downs
639578-45-vol. 61-93
1454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
financed some of its activities. Sibley is a brother of Martha Sibley,
who is assistant personnel director at the respondent's plant and edi-
tor of the Narvord Fuze Box, the respondent's official plant publica-
tion which is distributed to all its employees. General Manager
Smith lives with Sibley.
Early in June, employee Fox presented a letter to General Manager
Smith, reiterating in substance the statements contained in the Asso-
ciation literature referred to heretofore. Smith told Fox that the
company could have nothing to do with the organization.
Thereafter, the Association embarked upon an intensive organiza-
tional campaign both inside and outside the plant. The campaign
inside the plant is discussed more extensively hereinafter.
During the latter part of June or early July, two organizational
meetings of the Association were held in the courthouse at Milledge-
ville, with James Sibley presiding as chairman. Both he and the
Mayor of Milledgeville spoke at the first meeting and urged the em-
ployees to join the Association. On July 29, 1944, the Association
was incorporated and received a charter from the State Court; on
July 30, officers were elected and bylaws adopted. No other general
meetings of the membership have been held. The Association never
asked the respondent for recognition.
4. The respondent's promotion of the Association and opposition to
the CIO
(a) So4icitation in the plant
Non-supervisory adherents of the Association engaged in wide-
spread solicitation in the plant both during and outside of working
hours. Association dues envelopes and literature of the character pre-
viously described made their appearance throughout the plant. These
envelopes and Association petitions were passed down the production
line, freely circulated, and membership openly solicited and clues col-
lected during working hours, without objection by supervisors, al-
though the respondent's rules forbade such activity during working
hours 12
(b) Supervisory promotion of the Association; disparagement of the
CIO and repression of CIO activity
The respondent's supervisory employees actively campaigned on be-
half of the Association and took steps to suppress the CIO. The fol-
lowing supervisors were the most flagrant offenders :
1= The above findings are based on undenied and credible testimony of Myrtle Hack, Mrs.
Adele Johnson, Kathiyn Cowart. Clinton Cowart, Theron McElhenny, William W Holmes,
Ila S. Tanner, Edwin Blount, J. W. Aycock, Pryor Cason, Jewell Harris, and Ruby Collins.
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1455
Foreman Bufngton.-On one occasion Buffington assembled a group
of his subordinates during working hours and talked to them about a
plant union, stating that those who joined the CIO would be sorry
in 6 months because the CIO would bring Negroes into the plant.
He urged them to join the Association and passed around cards for
the employees to sigh. Buffington also told the employees that they'
did not have to sign and not to do so if they were members of the CIO,
stating that he would not fire them if they were CIO members. Many
0F the employees signed the Association cards on this occasion, in-
cluding employee Mathis who concluded that he would "stand a poor
chance" if he did not sign.13 Under all the circumstances the em-
ployees could reasonably conclude from Buffington's statements that,
unless they signed the Association cards, they would be marked as
CIO adherents.
James H. Holton, an employee under Buffington, credibly testified
that he heard Buffington's talk on behalf of the Association and that
on the afternoon of the same day he had a conversation with Buffing-
ton during *hich he asked Holton to joint the Association. Holton
agreed and thereupon gave his CIO dues receipt, signed by H. E.
Tyler (hereinafter found to have been discriminatorily discharged
on the following day), to Buffington who turned it in to Manager
Smith.
Alton T. Ivey, another employee in the group thus addressed by
Buffington, did not sign the Association card. Later, Buffington gave
Ivey a written warning slip for talking about the CIO during working
hours. Buffington then told Ivey that he could talk about anything
else he wanted to but that the union talk was holding up production
and bad to stop. When Ivey protested that it was a free country and
that a man has a right to belon- to a union, Buffington accused him
of attempting to get employees to join the CIO and declared that
he was not going to have it. Ivey thereafter abandoned all his organi-
zational efforts on behalf of the CIO and later withdrew from it 14
On another occasion, Buffington called the employees on the produc-
tion line away from their work one at a time during working hours,
and asked them whether they wished to join the Association. Some
of the employees did join on that occasion.'
About the same time, Buffington unsuccessfully solicited employee
Ruby Collins to join the Association. Collins was an active CIO pro-
n These findings are based on the testimony of employees Mathis, Ivey, and Holton,
NN horn we, like the Trial Examiner , credit Buffington admitted talking to the employees
on the occasion set forth above, and expressing his opinion to the effect that no union was
needed in the plant, that the Association looked like a good thing and that the money
would be kept in the plant for use by the employees themselves He denied having asked
the employees to loin the Association , or having made remarks in opposition to the CIO
"The above findings are based upon Ivey's testimony, winch Buffington did not specifi-
cally deny and which we, like the Trial Examiner , credit.
15 This finding is based on the testimony of Ila Tanner , whom we credit , as did the Trial
Examiner.
1456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tagonist and for several weeks wore a union button in the plant.
Several days after her solicitation, Buffington called Collins into his
office during working hours; reproved her for allegedly suggesting to
several employees that they refrain from joining the Association;
indicated his approval when she told him she was thinking of joining
the Association; stated that he was opposed to the CIO because it
would lead to strikes and the introduction of Negroes in the plant;
and pointed out that the CIO was futile in any event because wages
were frozen 16
About July 19 Dorcas Hargrove, who worked with Ruby Collins,
reported to Buffington that Collins had talked about the CIO on the
job, and had handed out "two fistsfull of buttons." Buffington there-
upon called Collins into his office during working hours, and gave
her a warning slip for "walking arond and talking Union on the job
during working hours. Also being late returning to work after re-
cess." Collins admitted to Buffington that she had engaged in union
talk during production break-downs. Buffington thereupon told her
that the union talk would have to stop ; that it was going to be
stopped; that he did not want 'the Union in the plant; that the Com-
pany did not want it; and that they were not going to have it. He
also told her that if the CIO did not get into the plant he felt sorry
for her.17 We find that the latter statement constituted a threat of
economic reprisal against Collins for her CIO activities, should the
CIO fail to organize the plant and thus be in no position to protect
her. This threat was carried out a°few weeks later when Collins was
in fact discharged because of her activities on behalf of the CIO, as
hereinafter found.
Ila S. Tanner, a lathe operator, joined the CIO at a recess period
on June 23, and received a dues receipt signed by H. E. Tyler. Im-
mediately after the recess she was summoned to the office of Lieu-
tenant Commander Banks, where, in the presence of Banks, Manager
Smith, Buffington, and another naval officer, she was questioned as to
whether she had been, upsetting employees and taking their minds off
their work by telling them that they had to join the CIO in order to
hold their jobs. Tanner denied these accusations. During the ques-
tioning which followed, Tanner, who was nervous and upset, denied
that she was a member of the CIO. Employee Philips was then called
in and confirmed Tanner's denial of the accusations. -Banks then told
Tanner and Philips to keep their minds off the Union and on their
work, and they were excused. As they left, Smith told Tanner to
"hit the ball," because, as Smith testified, he "had been watching her,"
is These findings are based on the credible testimony of Ruby Collins, which Buffington
did not specifically deny
11 These findings are based on the credible testimony of Hargrove and Collins.
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1457
and "knew [that she] was lying." is Later.in the day, Tanner ad-
mitted to Buffington that she was a member of the CIO. Buffington
then secured her dues receipt and sent it to Commander Banks10
Thereafter, Tanner joined the Association at the solicitation of Buf-
fington during working hours.
Foreman Power.20-W. B. Power, foreman of the bar stockroom,
called his employees together during working hours in June and, ac-
cording to the credible testimony of employees Plount and Miller, told
them "not to fool with that loess" and "not to sign CIO cards." s1
A day or two later Power observed Gibson, an employee of the oil
recovery department, talking briefly on several occasions with em-
ployees Crooms and Miller, who worked for Power. During the after-
noon, Power asked Miller what transpired during these conversations.
Miller told Power that Gibson had given Crooms two CIO cards.
Power then asked Crooms if he had the CIO cards, who had given
them to him, and what he was going to do with them. He also asked
to see the cards. Crooms replied that Gibson had given him the CIO
cards during a recess period 22 and gave the cards to Power, who put
them in his pocket and never returned them.21 Later in the same
11 While the testimony of the participants in this incident differs as to some of the
statements made, the Trial Examiner found, and so do we, that the above facts are substan-
tially undisputed Banks testified that the conference was called as a result of a report
from the naval duty officer that Tanner had been causing unrest by stating that employees
would have io join a labor organization [the CIO] to hold their jobs, and that lie and
Smith called the conference in order to get the matter "straightened out "
19 While the above findings are not disputed, there is substantial conflict between Buffing-
ton and Tanner as to the circumstances under which they occurred Tanner testified that,
after she had returned fiom lunch, Buffington approached her and asked whether she had
not in fact joined the CIO Tanner's testimony was that she had "hall enough of it by
that time" , that she therefore admitted that she had joined ; that Buffington then asked
her whether she had any CIO literature , that she answered that she had a dues ieceipt ,
that Buffington asked for it, and that she gave it to him
Buffington's version was that Tanner called him over and told him that she was nervous
and upset ; that she had lied in the conference , that she was a member of the CIO and did
not know at the time she joined what she was joining , and that lie should take her clues
receipt to Banks and assure hum that she would have no more to do with the CIO , that lie
questioned her about Tyler, and that she told him that Tyler had been in the department
soliciting for the CIO.
The Trial E.Nammer did not resolve the conflicts in this testimony, nor do we Like the
Trial Examiner we conclude that Buffington's account, in any event, indicates the
disquieting effect of the conference upon Tanner; a conclusion supported by Manager
Smith's testimony that on the tollowing clay Tanner told him that she had not told the
truth at the conference about her CIO membership, and that she had given her dues receipt
to Buffington.
11 Also sometimes referred to in the record as Powers
21 Powei denied generally that he had ever criticized the CIO or urged his employees to
join or not to join any labor organization However, he did not specifically deny having
made the above statements or the fact that this meeting took place Moreover, he ad-
mitted that lie discussed the CIO and the Association with some employees Since the
Trial Examiner found Power to be a witness unworthy of belief, we find that the meeting
took place and that the statements were made in the manner set forth in the text
2: We, like the Trial Examiner , credit the testimony of Croonis and Gibson that the
cards weie handed to Crooms during the recess period
21 The above findings are based on the credible testimony of Crooms, Miller, and Gibson
The Trial Examiner did not credit Power's testimony insofar as it was in conflict theie-
with, nor do we
1458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
afternoon, Power complained to Gibson's foreman, Brooks, that Gib-
son was loafing in Power's department. Gibson was discharged that
afternoon for his CIO activities, as hereinafter found.
Two or three days later, Power again called his employees together;
read some Association literature to them and told them that they could
join any organization they wanted but that the Association was "a
mighty good thing" and that he was going to join it himself. He then
asked the employees whether they wished to join the Association.
When the men, only one of whom could read or write, indicated their
assent, Power signed their names to an Association petition. Power
also signed his own name to the petition.24
Foreman Brooks.-Ben Brooks, the foreman of the oil recovery
department, questioned C. B. Paradise, one of his subordinates, con-
cerning his joining the CIO. Paradise explained that during his
lunch hour on the preceding day he went to another part of the plant
where employee Tyler, a volunteer CIO organizer, gave him a CIO
card which he had signed. Brooks thereupon requested Paradise to
sign a statement to the effect that he had gone to Tyler "for the dis-
cussion of matters other than our regular duties on the jobs," took
Paradise's CIO card to' substantiate Paradise's statement, and for-
warded both the statement and the dues receipt, containing Tyler's
name, to Personnel Director Massee. Tyler was then discharged be-
cause of his CIO activities, as hereinafter found. Subsequently,
Brooks talked to Paradise, and told him that the Association was a
good thing and that he could join if he wished. Paradise did there-
upon join the Association and offered Brooks a dues payment. Brooks,
however, refused to accept the money, stating that he would send an
Association dues collector to . 25
Foreman Stembridge.-Stembridge, foreman of the plating depart-
ment, assembled the employees of his department during working
hours; talked to them about joining an organization involving a health
plan; told them that "they don't want a union in the plant, they were
trying to keep it out, if the C. I. O. came in the plant, [they] would
work among niggers"; circulated a petition in favor of the Associa-
tion; stated to the employees that he would like to have them sign the
petition although they did not have to; and collected Association dues
in his department?e
24 The above findings are based on the testimony of Crooms and 'Miller, whom we credit,
as did the Trial Examiner.
. 25 The above findings are substantially undisputed Brooks testified that Paradise
volunteered the information that he had joined the CIO, an assertion which the Trial
Examiner did not credit , nor do we Brooks also testified that he had sent the statement
concerning Paradise to Massee because the incident involving the payment of dues oc-
curred during Paradise's working hours Paradise testified that it occurred during his
recess period Like the Trial Examiner, we find it unnecessary to resolve the latter
conflict, since Association activities were carried on during working hours with the knowl-
edge and, in some cases, the assistance of supervisory employees
29 The above findings are based on the uncontradicted testimony of employees Edwin
Blount and J W Aycock, whom we, like the Trial Examiner, credit.
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1459
Foreman Reeves.-According to the credible and uncontradicted
testimony of employee Theron W. McElhenny, Foreman W. E. Reeves
told him While he was employed in the toolroom that he "didn't see
why anybody wanted to belong to the damn Union."
On another occasion Reeves told employee Paschal that he wanted
no part of a union in wartime, although after the war it might be all
right.,, In the latter part of June, Reeves called employee Paschal
to his office and told him that he had to discharge him because "they"
were "on his neck" about Paschal's soliciting employees in the plant
to join the CIO.28 After Paschal's discharge because of his CIO ac-
tivities, as hereinafter found, Reeves told Foreman Rudolph that
Paschal was fired for "Too much talking about the Union around the
plant," and that "he didn't see why anybody wanted to belong to the
damn Union for." 29
Foreman Collins.-Shortly after the commencement of Association
activities, Foreman Cliff Collins asked employee Norman C. Strick-
land when he was going to join the Association, and stated that if
Strickland did not join, the CIO might `-come in." Strickland, who
became a member of a CIO committee, was later advised by Collins
that he (Strickland) "ought to keep his mouth shut about" the
CIO.30
Foreman Long.-Around the end of June, Johnny Long, a foreman,
gave employee William W. Holmes a paper which he told Holmes to
pass around for the signature of employees favoring the Association.
Holmes secured a number of signatures over a period of 2 days, and
then returned the paper to Long.31
Foreman Lee.-Foreman Winifred Lee solicited at least one em-
ployee for the Association. Lee also gave line leader Dixon a paper
for the Association which Dixon circulated among employees on her
line during working hours and which the employees signed.32
Assistant Plant Manager Pittman.-About June 26, at the request of
a number of male operators, a conference was held between these opera-
tors and Jack Pittman, assistant plant manager, in which the men
asked Pittman for information about unions. Pittman answered their
questions. He told the employees that it was up to them whether or
not to join a union, and that there were good and bad unions; produced
union cards showing that he had been a member of several; stated
2i Although Reeves denied having made such a statement, we, like the Trial Examiner,
credit Paschal.
xs This finding is based on Paschal ' s testimony which we, like the Trial Examiner , credit
-D This finding is based on the uncontradicted testimony of employee McElhenny, whom
we, like the Trial Examiner, credit
30 Collins denied generally having asked anyone to loin the Association. The first con-
versation related above is otheiNNise undewed The second conversation was admitted by
Collins. We find that the conversations took place as related in the text.
These findings are based on the uncontradicted testimony of Holmes
These findings are based on the uncontradicted testimony of employees Hack and Jewell
Harris.
1460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the Company could not grant wage increases unless approved by
the War Labor Board , that it had made a request for such , increases,
that he had once been on a sympathetic strike and did not know what
he had been striking about, that he had been assessed twice by unions,
and that he did not see how a union could improve conditions in the
plant. At a similar conference held a few days later, Pittman told a
group of women employees substantially what he had previously told
the men.33 We find that Assistant Plant Manager Plttlhan thereby
gmphasized the futility of the CIO as a bargaining agent and an-
nounced the respondent's requested wage increase as an inducement to
the employees to refrain from joining the CIO.
Other supervisory employees.-Tool engineer Jackson, Foreman
Reeves' superior, referred to McElhenny, a CIO adherent, as John L.
Lewis, and attempted on several occasions to remove the CIO button
which McElhenny wore. When McElhenny offered to provide Jack-
son with a button if he wanted one, Jackson replied that McElhenny
had better not bring him a "Goddaln button." On another occasion
Jackson removed from McElhenny's pocket a pencil marked CIO,
broke it in several pieces, threw it away, and gave him one of his own.34
Supervisor McKinzie, in charge of the drafting room, permitted em-
ployee Cass to solicit an employee in the drafting room during working
hours. 85 According to the uncontradicted and credible testimony of
James Holton, he was solicited for the Association by Assistant Fore-
man Hartley.
(c) Respondent's liability for the activities of supervisory employees
The respondent contends that it is not responsible'for the activities of
the employees set forth in the preceding section. The record shows,
and the respondent concedes in its brief before the Board, that the
assistant plant manager, the personnel director, foremen, assistant
foremen, drafting supervisor McKinzie, and tool engineer Jackson
have authority at least to recommend the discharge of employees.
That these recommendations are acted upon appears from the fact that
many of the discharges, hereinafter found to have been discrimina-
tory, were based at least in part upon such recommendations.
s3 The above findings are based on the testimony of Pittman and employee William
cayheld
"Jackson admitted referring to McElhenny as John L Lewis , and breaking Mc-
EIhenny ' s pencil , but denied that he attempted to remove McElhenny ' s button He testified
that his reference to John L Lewis and the pencil incident were jocular in nature
McEllienny' s testimony does not indicate that he so viewed the incidents We, like the
Trial Examiner, credit the testimony of McElhenny
35 This finding is based on the testinion5 of employee Bell and Cass had a conversation
with McPinrle and then solicited him (Bell ) to join the Association McKinzie did not
testify We are convinced and find, from all of the surrounding cncumstances, that
Cass' solicitation of Bell was itiith the approval of _McKinzie
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1461
The respondent further contends that Long and Lee are set-up men,
that Power is a working leaderman, and that their activities are not
attributable to the respondent. The record shows, and we find, that
these employees are foremen or assistant foremen. Thus, Long, who
was carried on the respondent's books as an assistant foreman, assigned
work to his subQrdinates, attended foremen's meetings, made reports
respecting the conduct and work of employees, and was consulted about
and recommended discharges. According to the credible testimony of
employees Jewell Harris and Myrtle Hack, Lee was assistant foreman
at the time he solicited on behalf of the Association, later became fore-
man over line leader Dixon, Hack's immediate superior. According
to Hack's further credible and uncontradicted testimony, Lee gave
orders through Dixon and Hack received a raise through Lee. The
record shows that Power is in complete charge of the bar stockroom
(a warehouse for metal stock) and supervises a crew of six to eight
employees, most of whom are common laborers and illiterate; that
he makes daily written reports of inventory conditions and is re-
sponsible for the receipt and disbursement of warehouse materials
and for providing machines with stock; and that he is regarded by
the employees as a foreman. Like the Trial Examiner, we credit
the disputed testimony of the employees that Power does no manual
work whatever. That the respondent regarded Power as being iden-
tified with management appears from the fact that shortly after
Power read some Association literature to the employees, Produc-
tion Manager Hall told Power that he was supposed to be neutral.
Upon consideration of the entire record, we find, like the Trial
Examiner, that Assistant Plant Manager Pittman, Personnel Director
Massee, tool engineer Jackson, Drafting Supervisor McKinzie, Assist-
ant Foremen Hartley and Rudolph, and Foremen Buffington, Stem-
bridge, W. B. Power, Long, Collins, W. C. Reeves, Lee and Ben Brooks
are supervisory employees whose conduct and activities are attributable
to the respondent.
(cl) The discriminatory discharges
As hereinafter found, during the organizational campaigns of the
CIO and the Association, the respondent discharged employees Tyler,
Collins, Paschal, Porter, and Gibson because of their activities on
behalf of the CIO. These discharges not only discouraged member-
ship in the CIO but also encouraged membership in and further pro-
moted the Association.
5. The Grievance Committee
On October 9, 1941, following the close of the original hearing herein,
upon the suggestion of Captain Russell G. Sturges, naval commander
at the plant, the following notice was posted by the respondent.
1462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
To All Employees: 9 OCTOBER 1944.
1. The Management of this plant has had many employees sug-
gest the desirability of having a Grievance Committee act for
them. This Committee to be elected by. the employees in the
plant and to have full authority to present the grievances of the
people directly to Management. Management strives to do every-
thing practicable to please the workers in this plant, but it realizes
that it is helpless at times, because it does not know the desires of
the employees. This Grievance Committee, which will be com-
posed of your own fellow-workers, will be in a position to tell
Management of your wishes; and thus Management and the em-
ployees will have a much better understanding than may have
been the case in the past.
2. We offer the following suggestions : That the plant be di-
vided into areas as follows : [the notice then sets out the various
areas being four in number].
That there be three people (including one woman) elected from
each area. It is suggested that voting be held by secret ballot
and that a count be made at the end of the voting and the three
people as named above having the highest total number of votes
be designated as the Grievance Committee from the area. It is
suggested that the day shift hold their voting at second recess
Tuesday, 10 October 1944, and that the night shift hold their
election at first recess, Tuesday, 10 October 1944. It is further
recommended that a chairman be elected by the various Committee
members who will serve for a suggested period of ninety days.
It is also suggested that the Grievance Committee serve ninety
days, with the privilege of re-election.
3. The above are merely suggestions, and the Management
wishes to point out at this time that this is your committee, elected
by you to serve for you and to represent you with Management.
It is in no way a committee sponsored by Management, but in-
stead it is definitely and positively your committee. If you do
not want a committee, so state on your ballot. You have Man-
agement's consent to elect this Committee in any way that you
see fit, but we thought that the above might be the best way to
arrive at same. Management can see many possibilities for a
smooth-working Committee; namely, it could meet once a week
with Management and your wishes could be aired before a repre-
sentative of Management-possibly the General Manager, the
Plant Manager, or the Personnel Director-and the Command-
ing Officer of the Navy. In this way, there is no doubt in our
minds but that we will have the best working conditions possible
in this plant as a result of the work of this suggested Grievance
Committee.
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1463
4. You have the assurance of Management that as soon as you
have elected your Committee of fellow-workers to represent you
it will assist this Committee in every way possible in its work.
S. RR.' SIMPSON,
Plant Manager.
Thereafter, the supervisory employees distributed cards to be used
by the employees in voting, chose employees to conduct the mechanics
of the balloting, and instructed them as to how it should be done. On
October 10, elections were held in the plant in accordance with the
suggestions in the posted notice and the instructions of the supervisory
employees. Although the formality of casting ballots was secret,
employees were required to sign their names on the cards. The
results were then tabulated by the employee tellers and forwarded to
the foreman, who in turn forwarded them, along with the cards, to
Personnel Director Massee.
Shortly, thereafter the CIO filed a charge alleging that by the elec-
tion the respondent had violated Section 8 (2) of the Act.
The results of the election have never been announced to the em-
ployees. On October 20, 1944, following the filing of this CIO
charge, the respondent posted the following notice on its bulletin
board :
BULLETIN
OCTOBER 20, 1944.
To All Employees of U. S. Naval Ordnance Plant, Milledgeville,
Ga.:
It has been suggested that there may exist among the employees
some misunderstanding as to the Grievance Committee, which
was announced in a bulletin on Monday, October 9, 1944, and
for which an election was held Tuesday, October 10, 1944. This
committee is in no way sponsored or favored by Reynolds Corpo-
ration. Neither is the company in any way opposed to it. It
is strictly your con mittee.
From time to time employees have complained to Naval Officers
stationed at this plant. The Commanding Officer had felt that
some procedure to handle such complaints might aid production
and suggested that the employees might select it Grievance Com-
mittee.This suggestion was passed on to you by the bulletin of
October 9, 1944, and a method of selecting such a committee was
suggested. The announcement appropriately stated that if you
did not want a committee you were free to say so on your ballot.
In assuring you that Management was willing to cooperate
with a committee of your fellow workers, which you might elect,
it was not intended by Management to indicate that it would not
1464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cooperate in a like manner and to the same degree with any other
employees ' organization.
We call this matter to your attention now in order to make
clear to each employee the policy of this company in labor mat-
ters as it has existed and as it now exists . Reynolds Corpora-
tion does not favor or oppose any organization , committee, asso-
ciation or union of its employees . It will, under appropriate
circumstances deal with any authorized representative of its
employees or groups of its employees . It has not and it will not
discriminate against any employee because he or she has not
joined any organization of employees , or because he or she has
joined any organization of employees . Mr. Smith has been
carrying out this policy. He is the only one authorized to speak
in these matters for the Reynolds Corporation , at the Milledge-
ville Plant . If any employee at the Milledgeville Plant indicates
that the policy of this company is not as stated above, disci-
plinary action will follow.
The election has now been held, but in view of certain ques-
tions raised by the Regional Director of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, the Management will not deal with the committee
hitherto elected until the matter is settled.
6. Conclusions
(a) The Association
The differences of opinion among some of the respondent's em-
ployees with respect to the CIO, the hesitancy of others, and the op-
position to the CIO among certain community elements, called for the
exercise of scrupulous neutrality on the part of the respondent, in
order to avoid any inference by the employees that the respondent
was taking sides in the controversy. But the respondent did not
observe such a course. Instead it threw its weight on the side of the
anti-CIO opinion.
Plant Manager Smith and Commander Banks testified that the rea-
son for the speeches of May 18, 1944, was that the confusion among
the employees threatened to interfere with production. Smith fur-
ther testified that his purpose was to dissipate that confusion and to
assure the employees that their joining or not joining a union would
have no effect on their jobs. That there was confusion is evident.
That it was Smith's and Banks' duty to allay such a potential source
of trouble in a munitions plant, is unquestioned. Had the speeches
been directed to that purpose alone, they would have been unobjec-
tionable. But they went further than that. After adopting the
sentiments of Banks, Smith urged the employees to deal directly with
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1465
management; emphasized the futility of a union; misled the em-
ployees into believing that there vas no area open for collective bar-
gaining with respect to wages; 36 and bluntly announced that there
was no need for a union in the plant. Smith thus seized upon this
opportunity to align the respondent, in the eyes of the employees,
with the elements in the community and those of the respondent's
employees who were opposing the CIO. The differences in the
violence of the opposition were merely those of degree.
When the Association thereafter emerged, it did so under the spon-
sorship of those same anti-CIO elements. Association literature
adopted some of the ideas advanced in the speeches of Banks and
Smith, particularly in the appeals to patriotism and the claims that
the CIO would distract the minds of employees and interfere with
production. The purpose of the Association was proclaimed to be
to keep national unions out of the plant. Many of the Association's
protagonists were supervisory employees who at times emulated
Smith in their opposition to the CIO, contending that it would be
futile because wages and increases were fixed by the War Labor Board.
Association adherents were permitted the unrestricted use of the re-
spondent's premises during working time in promoting the Associa-
tion and were actively assisted by supervisory employees. Under
these circumstances, the impetus for the formation of the Association
was, if not furnished, at least furthered by the respondent; the em-
ployees could reasonably infer that Smith approved the activities of
the anti-CIO forces, desired the employees to follow the latter's
example, and approved the Association.
In any event, the respondent, through its supervisory employees,
threw the full force of its economic power in favor of the Association
and in opposition to the CIO. While supervisory employees per-
mitted Association solicitors to make widespread use of their working
time in promoting the Association on the respondent's premises, CIO
adherents were watched, reported, questioned, reprimanded, and as
hereinafter found, discharged for CIO activities. At the same time,
not content with passive toleration of the Association's activities,
supervisory employees actively campaigned on its behalf during work-
ing hours, expedited the circulation of its literature and solicited
members and collected dues during working hours, while at the same
time warning employees against joining the CIO and threatening
them with reprisals if they did so. Addressing the employees at vari-
ous times during working hours either in groups or individually, a
9' While Smith stated that sates of pay and of increases were fixed by law, he failed to
point out that a union could still bargain with the respondent on wage increases subject
to war Labor Board approval, a practice frequently engaged in since the establishment
of the war Labor Board
1466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
number of foremen spoke in opposition to the CIO; advised employees
not to sign CIO cards; told them that the respondent would not stand
for the CIO and that the purpose of the Association was to keep the
CIO out; urged them to join the Association, sometimes adding that
otherwise the CIO might get in ; at one time announced that the re-
spondent had already requested a wage increase from the War Labor
Board as an inducement for the employees to refrain from joining the
CIO; reprimanded employees for soliciting for the CIO and against
the Association; threatened economic reprisals against the CIO ad-
herents; and implemented these threats by in fact discharging five
employees for their CIO activities, the most potent form of support
which the respondent could render the Association. The Association
was thus promoted not only by the respondent's opposition to the
CIO but also by the direct participation of its supervisory employees
backed by the respondent's full economic power. Under these cir-
cumstances the Association cannot be said to represent the employees'
free and uncoerced choice; employees joined because, as employee
Mathis so aptly stated, he "would stand a poor chance if he did not
sign" an Association card. Such promotional activities are in them-
selves sufficient to render the Association an organization proscribed
by the Act.
That this conduct by the supervisors was without authority and in
violation of specific instructions to maintain strict neutrality, as the
respondent asserts, is immaterial. The instructions were obviously
not followed, and the employees were not informed of them until
October 20, almost 5 months after the launching of the Association
and after five employees had been discharged for their CIO activities,
when the first statement was posted disavowing partisan conduct by
the supervisors. Under all the circumstances and in view of Plant
Manager Smith's expressed opposition to the CIO, the employees were
justified in inferring that the supervisors' conduct, and not Smith's
assurances, represented the respondent's true position.37
Upon the entire record we find that the respondent has dominated
and interfered with the formation and administration of the Asso-
ciation and contributed support to it, thereby interfering with, re-
straining and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.38
37 The respondent introduced evidence to show the neutral policy of its higher manage-
ment and of its parent company, Reynolds Metals , and to show their favorable labor rela-
tions record while this evidence is persuasive and has been considered , it is not con-
trolling in the light of the opposing policy manifested by local management and its
supervisors I
381n so finding , we, contrary to the Trial Examiner , do not rely upon the membership
and activities of Howard Cass , West F . Mosteller , and leadermen , and the activities of
James Sibley
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1467
•
(b) The Grievance Committee
The Grievance Committee is similarly proscribed by the Act. The
entire plan was suggested by the respondent ; the balloting took place
on the respondent's premises; the ballots were distributed by super-
visory employees ; and the employees were required to sign their names
to the ballots which were then forwarded to Personnel Director Mas-
see. The public selection of representatives at the suggestion of,
under the auspices of, and according to the plan of organization of,
an employer , constitutes neither the self-organization envisioned by
the Act, nor a free and voluntary selection of representatives. Espe-
cially is this so when , as here, another labor organization is engaged
in organizing the employees, and has been the object of unremedied
unfair labor practices. We find that the respondent's conduct with
respect to the Grievance Committee constituted an illegal attempt to
provide its employees with a labor organization.
The respondent contends that the Grievance Committee is not a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act; that the Grievance
Committee never came into existence ; and that in any event the re-
spondent's conduct was not unlawful because it acted at the suggestion
of the naval officer stationed at the plant , who in turn was acting pur-
suant to his interpretation of written instructions from the Navy De-
partment . We find these contentions to be without merit.
The Act defines a labor organization as ". . . any organization of
any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or
plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose,
in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning griev-
ances...." The plan for the establishment of the Grievance Com-
mittee required that the plant be divided into four areas, that three
employees from each area be selected to represent the remaining em-
ployees in the area in dealing with the respondent concerning griev-
ances of the employees in the respective area, that each committee was
to designate one member as chairman , that the committeemen were to
hold office for 90 days with the right of reelection, and that the com-
mittees were to meet weekly with management . The record shows, and
we find , that the Grievance Committee has all the attributes and char-
acteristics of, and is, an employee representation committee for the
purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning employee griev-
ances and is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
We find further that the Grievance'Committee was in fact in exist-
ence. The elections had been held ; the ballots were tabulated by de-
partments ; and only the final tally of the departmental totals and the
announcement of the identity of the committeemen remained. This
final action was withheld by the respondent upon the filing of unfair
1468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
}
labor practice charges with respect to the Grievance Committee.
Moreover, the mere attempt on the part of the respondent to form a
labor organization is violative of Section 8 (2) of the Act even though
the resulting organization never functioned or the respondent's efforts
were unsuccessful and no labor organization resulted.3" Nor may the
respondent's unlawful conduct be condoned because it acted at the
suggestion of the Naval Commander. The respondent was not required
to follow or acquiesce in his suggestion.40
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Grievance Committee and has
contributed support to it, thereby interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in the
Act.
(c) Interference, restraint, and coercion
We find further that the respondent, by Plant Manager Smith's
speech of May 18, 1944, and by the acts and statements of the super-
visory employees heretofore related, particularly the statements of
Foreman Buffington to Ruby Collins that the respondent did not want
the CIO and was'not going to have it in the plant and his threat of
economic reprisals against Collins for her CIO activities should the
CIO fail to organize the plant and thus be in no position to protect
her, Foreman Power's statement to his subordinates "not to fool with
the mess" and "not to sign C. I. O. cards," Foreman Stembridge's
statements to his subordinates that they were trying to keep the CIO
out of the plant, Foreman Collins' statement to employee Strick-
land that if he did not join the Association the CIO might come in the
plant and that Strickland "ought to keep his mouth shut about" the
CIO, Foreman Reeves' statements to employee Paschal that Reeves
wanted no part of the Union during wartime and that he had to dis-
charge Paschal because "they" were "on his neck" about Paschal's
soliciting employees in the plant to join the CIO, and Assistant Plant
Manager Pittman's statements to the assembled employees concerning
the futility of the CIO as a bargaining agent and his announcement of
the respondent's request of a wage increase before the War Labor
Board as an inducement to the employees to refrain from joining the
Matter of Crystal Springs Finishing Company, 12 N L a B 1291, enf'd 116 F (2d)
669 (C C A 1)
0 The respondent contends that the Trial Examiner erred in not admitting into evidence
a letter, dated June 2, 1942, from the Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance to the inspector in
charge of the Milledgeville plant, setting forth the labor policy to he applied in ordnance
plants and pursuant to which the respondent contends that the Naval Commander acted
in suggesting to the respondent the formation of the Grievance Committee We agree
with the Trial Examiner's exclusion of such evidence as being immaterial Apart from
other considerations , the record does not show that the respondent acted upon said letter
or that it was aware of its existence or of the labor policy stated therein at the time when
it suggested the tormation of the Grievance Committee
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1469
CIO, engaged in a course of conduct interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
B. The discharges
1. H. E. Tyler
Tyler was hired as a trainee on March 29, 1943, at 75 cents per
hour, and after about 2 months became an operator of an automatic
screw machine. During his employment by the respondent he re-
ceived three raises aggregating 25 cents per hour. He was regarded
as a good worker and was never criticized by his supervisors.41
Several days before Manager Smith's speech, of May 18, 1944,
Tyler's set-up man, Fulghum, recommended Tyler for a 5 cent per
hour raise, and on the day after the speech, Fulghum recommended
that Tyler be made a set-up man.
Tyler joined the CIO on May 9, 1944. On June 9, he was made
a volunteer organizer and thereafter became one of the CIO's most
active members. He wore a union button in the plant and talked
about the CIO during recess and lunch periods. He wrote many
applications. Among others, he secured the membership of O. B.
Paradise, James Holton, and Ila Tanner, who have been referred to
heretof ore.
On June 24, 1944, Tyler was summoned to the office of Personnel
Director Massee and given a discharge slip signed by J. E. Pittman,
assistant plant manager, and Foreman Greer, on which it was stated
that lie was discharged for "continual loafing and interfering with
other employees." Tyler vehemently denied the truth of the ac-
cusation and demanded that Pittman be called in. When Pittman
appeared he told Tyler that the report had been made by Greer and
that there was nothing he could do about it. Tyler charged that he
was being discharged because of his union activity and demanded
that Greer be called in. This was iefusecl, but he was permitted,
upon request, to see Commander Banks. Tyler repeated to Banks
his charge that he was being discharged because of union activity,
and stated that his production records would disclose that the asser-
tions in the discharge slip were untrue. During the conversation
which ensued, Tyler admitted having signed up some employees at
his machine during working hours. After some further conversation,
Banks suggested that Tyler see Massee and Manager Smith and ask
them to reconsider the discharge. Tyler then saw Massee who said
that he would see Smith and iet Tyler know the outcome. Tyler
then left the plant. He has never heard from Smith or Massee.
"There is some testimony by Foienan Gicer that he once told Tyler that T} lei was not
setting his tools properly Greer admitted, however, that Tyler's work was satisfactory
649678-45-;-o1 61-94
1470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The respondent's contentions respecting Tyler
On July 7, in a memo to the Regional Director, the respondent
gave the following reasons for Tyler's discharge: (1) Reports to the
naval officers at the plant to the effect that Tyler was loafing on the
job; 42 (2) a written report from Foreman Buffington to the effect
that Tyler had been in his department during working hours inter-
fering with Buffington's employees; and (3) complaints from Fore-
man Brooks that his employees were leaving their jobs during work-
ing hours in order to contact Tyler.13
No evidence in support of the first of these allegations, or that any
naval officers had made complaints respecting Tyler, or had requested
his discharge, was introduced at the hearing.
According to the testimony at the hearing, the decision to discharge
Tyler was made by Foreman Greer. Greer's testimony was that he
decided to discharge Tyler because of "inefficiency" and because Tyler
had caused trouble among his fellow employees and kept them in a
state of unrest by complaints that he was being mistreated, and that
this conduct of Tyler's led the other employees to believe that they
were also being mistreated, and they therefore lost interest in their
work. Greer also testified that Tyler could not "get along" with set-
up man Fulghum. However, according to Greer, he had no personal
knowledge of these facts. His testimony was based on statements
purportedly made to him by Fulghum, who had given Greer many
"unfavorable" reports over a period of more than 60 days, the last
occasion being about 10 days prior to the discharge.
According to Greer, nothing unusual occurred on the day of the
discharge. He merely "got to the place where [he] got tired of hear-
ing [the complaints, so he] decided to let Tyler go"; and thereupon
he went to the personnel office and signed a discharge slip in blank and
did not discuss the matter with anyone.
Pittman testified that lie had had reports from Fulghum that Tyler
was causing "dissension" on the line, and reports from Fulghum and
Buffington to the effect that Tyler was soliciting during working
hours.
Buffington's testimony was that he saw Tyler in his department sev-
eral times talking to his employees and "loafing" during working
hours; and that, although he did not know whether Tyler was there
on his own time or on company time, he had sent a report to the per-
sonnel office about it. However, while other employees engaged in
similar conduct, Buffington did not make any reports respecting them.
Fulghum did not testify.
'2 The memo did not indicate who made the reports.
41 A reference to the statement secured by Brooks from O. D. Paradise, which has been
discussed heretofore
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1471
Conclusions respecting Tyler's discharge
It will be recalled that on June 23, the day before Tyler's discharge,
Tanner and Paradise joined the CIO during Tyler's free time. On
the same day, their dues receipts, bearing Tyler's signature, were
taken up by Buffington and Brooks, and Paradise's statement and
dues receipt forwarded to Massee.
The grounds asserted by the respondent for the discharge of Tyler
are in conflict. Thus, of the reasons cited in the memo of July 7, only
one can be construed as having any relation to the complaint stated
in Tyler's discharge slip, and as to that reason no evidence was intro-
duced at the hearing. The grounds asserted by Greer, who claimed
responsibility for the discharge, have no relation either to the reason
stated on the discharge slip or to those asserted in the July 7 memo.
No reliance can be placed on the testimony of Greer. The Trial
Examiner was not favorably impressed by Greer's testimony or by
his demeanor as a witness. The charge of "inefficiency," which Greer
first asserted as a ground for the discharge, is clearly refuted by Greer's
later admission that Tyler was a good worker and producer, and that
he did not discharge him for inefficiency. In addition, various ex-
trinsic factors cast doubt upon Greer's testimony. Thus, Greer's al-
leged decision to discharge Tyler was based on second-hand informa-
tion supplied by Fulghum. The reports ascribed to Fulghum, namely, ,
that Tyler, by complaining of his own mistreatment, caused his fellow
employees to become dissatisfied and to lose interest in their work,
and that Fulghum could not get along with Tyler, are not supported
by the evidence. Fulghum was not called as a witness, and the failure
to do so was not explained. It is implausible that if Fulghum was
making constant complaints to Greer and Pittman respecting Tyler,
he would have recommended him for a raise and a promotion. No
adequate explanation was advanced by Greer as to why, after receiving
Fulghum's final complaint about Tyler, he waited 10 days to discharge,
him.
The persuasive inference from the July 7 memo and Pittman's testi-
mony is that the discharge of Tyler was based upon the reports of
Buffington and Brooks. The reason stated on the discharge slip could
have come only from information supplied by Buffington, who was
actively engaged in promoting the Association and suppressing the
CIO. In view of Buffington's efforts to repress CIO activity, some of
which has already been described heretofore, and more of which will
appear hereinafter, we are unable to credit his testimony that Tyler
"talked" and "loafed around" in his department. In any event there
is no adequate explanation why, of all the employees who engaged in
such conduct, Tyler should have been singled out for special treatment.
We conclude that Bufington's report on Tyler probably resulted from
1472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the discovery of his name on Tanner's dues receipt. In any event, it
appears clear from the July 7 memo and the other circumstances that
the discharge was based on union activities which had occurred on
Tyler's own time. No contention is made by the respondent that
Tyler's conduct in signing up employees at his machine during working
hours, or that be was soliciting during working hours, were grounds
for his discharge; nor would they constitute valid ground if so urged.
We do not condone the misuse of working time, regardless of its pur-
pose. But the respondent's supervisors were permitting the Associa-
tion representatives to make wholesale use of company time for solici-
tation, and were themselves actively assisting such activity during
working hours. The discharge of Tyler for CIO solicitation, while
ignoring the much more widespread similar conduct on the part of
the Association, is discriminatory.44
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Tyler was discharged for
his activities on behalf of the CIO, and that the respondent thereby
discriminated with respect to hire and tenure of employment, dis-
couraged membership in the CIO, encouraged membership in the Asso-
ciation, and interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Ruby Collins
Collins was hired on January 10, 1944, and discharged on August 7.
Her regular job was operating an electric reamer under Foreman
Buffington, Leaderman Vera Barker and line leader Thompson. She
received three raises during her employment by the respondent.
Collins joined the CIO on June 22, became a volunteer organizer,
and secured over 25 members, some in the plant on her own time. Her
connection with the CIO became well known. She wore a union button
in the plant and was the only employee on her line to do so.
About in early July, Collins had a conversation with Leaderman
Barker. Barker told Collins that she had had a conversation with
Buffington in which Buffington had told Barker that he had noticed
Collins "flashing" a CIO button. Barker further told Collins that
she (Barker) had replied to Buffington that she had told her employees
that if she were they and wanted to hold her job, she would not
wear such a button in the plant, and that Buffington had responded
that that was a "bright idea." Buffington did not specifically deny
having made these statements to Barker. The Trial Examiner found
Barker to be a witness unworthy of belief. We do not credit Bar-
ker's denials and find that the conversation occurred as testified to by
Collins.
"+ Matter of Ridge Tool Company, 58 N L R B 1095, Matter of Carter Carburetor
Corporation, 48 N L R B 354, enf 'd 140 F (2d) 714 (C C A 8)
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1473
Buffington, Barker, and Thompson unsuccessfully solicited Collins
to join the Association.
Shortly prior to July 19, Buffington, Assistant Plant Manager Pitt-
man, Assistant Foreman Hartley, and Barker began to watch Collins
at her work. Collins then went to Manager Smith and complained
that she was being spied upon. Smith told her that if she was doing
her work she had nothing to fear. Several days thereafter, Buffing-
ton summoned Collins to his office, accused her of advising employees
not to join the Association, and told her that he was opposed to the
CIO and that it (the CIO) would bring strikes and Negroes into the
plant.
About July 19, Mrs. Dorcas Hargrove, who worked next to Collins,
initiated a conversation with Collins about the CIO. In this conver-
sation Collins told Hargrove that she had distributed a "double
handful" of CIO buttons among the employees. Hargrove then re-
ported the conversation to Buffington and told him that Collins had
engaged in union talk on the job.'
Buffington thereupon called Collins to his office and gave her a
warning slip for "walking around and talking `union' on the job-
during working hours. Also being late returning to work after re-
cess." 46 Collins admitted having engaged in union talk on occasion
when work had halted because of production breakdowns. Buffington
told her that the union talk would have to stop, and that it was going
to be stopped; that he didn't want a union in the plant; that the
company didn't want it; and that they were not going to have it.
He also told her that if the CIO didn't get into the plant he felt
sorry for her.47 As we have heretofore found, the latter statement
constituted a threat of economic reprisal against Collins for her CIO
activities, should the CIO fail to organize the plant and thus be in
no position to protect her.
On August 7, due to a lack of work, several employees, among them
Collins, were transferred to another line. On that clay materials
were slow in conning through, and there were delays of 10 to 20
minutes during which the employees were out of work. In the in-
terim the women, as was the custom, sat at their places and talked.
Near the end of the day Collins was summoned to the personnel
office where Foreman Emmett Harris told her that she had not clone
"two minutes" work all clay, and discharged her. Collins told him
The finding as to Haigrove ' s conversation with Collins and her report to Buffington
are based on Hargrove s tcetnnony , NN hmch the Tiial Examines cmedmted , as do we
"" Collins had been ill on that day and had returned to work 5 minutes late after a recess
period
ar Buffington apparently made no investigation of Hargrove ' s accusation , but accepted it
,as tact He refused to give Collins the name of the inforinei.
6
1474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that he was a liar. As she left the office she met Massee, to whom she
protested. Massee told her that he, Harris, and others had watched
her all day, and that she had done an unusual amount of talking
and laughing.
Other than the warning notice from Buffington, Collins' work or
conduct had never been criticized by her supervisors .41
The respondent's contentions and conclusions
Collins' discharge slip states as the reason for her separation, "loaf-
ing on the job and disturbing others while working, and not a depend-
able worker."
According to the testimony of Massee, on the afternoon of Collins'
discharge, he, Lieutenant Smith (a naval officer) and Production
Manager Tom Hall, saw Collins talking while other employees were
working and called it to Buflington's attention. According to Buf-
fington, he then reported it to Harris.' Harris did not testify. Ac-
cording to Massee he had no knowledge that Collins would be dis-
charged until, an hour and a half later, he received her discharge slip
signed by Harris, and that he approved the discharge because she had
been previously warned by Buffington concerning her loafing on the job.
Buffington's testimony was that Collins had been a good worker up
to about the time the CIO organizational campaign started, and that
then she began to talk and waste her time. He testified that,
I would say that in the beginning that Mrs. Collins used to be
as good a worker as I had in that plant, and at that time I had
about 140. In fact, she was a line leader at one time and she was
really a good worker. And then she got to where she didn't want
to do anything only talk. Well, I watched her about this once
or twice. I didn't give her any written warning slip or anything.
Then, she didn't pay attention to her work, she just kept talking.
I have known her to leave her place of work and go up and down
the line tallying during working hours, during the time the parts
were coming down the line. This was reported by the line leaders
[Barker and Thompson].
However, Buffington's partisan interest in the Association, and his
vigilance in suppressing CIO activity in the plant, as evidenced by
his actions heretofore described and by similar reports he made on
Tyler and Thomas Paschal, whose discharge is discussed hereinafter,
indicate, and we find, that Buffington's objection to Collins' conduct
was based on her activity for the CIO. While some attempt was made
to show that Collins was an inordinate talker, we, like the Trial Ex-
48 The foregoing findings, except where otherwise indicated , are based on Collins ' testi-
mony. Where there is conflict , the Trial Examiner has credited Collins, and $Q 00 we.
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1475
aminer, are persuaded from the evidence that the women were allowed
to and customarily did talk while working, and that Collins was no
greater offender in this respect that the others. The Trial Examiner
did not credit Buffington's testimony that Collins, after months of
satisfactory work, suddenly became talkative, left her work and became
generally unsatisfactory, nor do we. The coincidence between the
advent of the CIO and Buffington's dissatisfaction with her work is
significant.
In approving the discharge, Massee admittedly relied on Buffing-
tofl's reports concerning Collins. We infer and find that Harris also
acted upon them, since there is no evidence that he had personal knowl-
edge of any of the facts. We find that these reports were based not
upon Collins' work or conduct, but upon her CIO affiliation and ac-
tivity, and constituted part of Buffington's total program of support-
ing the Association and discouraging the CIO. Like the Trial Ex-
aminer, we find that Ruby Collins was discharged because of her
activity on behalf of the CIO and that the respondent thereby dis-
criminated with respect to hire and tenure of employment, discouraged
membership in the CIO, encouraged membership in the Association,
and interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
3. Thomas Paschal
Paschal was hired on February 15, 1943, quit voluntarily on
October 16, 1943, was rehired on March 27, 1944, and discharged
on June 24, 1944, the same day on which Tyler was discharged. He
was employed as a tool maker. His work was good. During his
employment he received two raises in pay.
Paschal was a member of the United Automobile Workers union
when he was hired by the respondent. On May 9 he became a mem-
ber of the Steelworkers (the CIO) and was made a volunteer organi-
zer. He secured 10 to 12 members, and wore both Steelworkers' and
Automobile Workers' buttons in the plant. Lanthier, foreman
of the gauge control room, asked him one day if lie had any more
buttons. Reeves, tool maker foreman, told Paschal on one occasion
that he wanted "no part of the Union" during wartime; but that
after the war it might be all right.
Paschal's work required him to go into different departments of
the plant. This was especially true of the toolroom, where the grind-
ing machines were located, and where Paschal had to go for the
grinding of tools and parts which lie used. Sometimes Paschal
would do the grinding himself; at other times it would be done for
hinn if grinder operators were available. Frequently he would have
to wait until someone was free or until a machine was vacant.
I
1476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On May 25 Paschal received a warning slip from Reeves stating :
You are hereby being warned about continued gossiping. You
are not only wasting your own time but the time of others. This
will be your only warning about this matter.
Reeves told Paschal that Jackson, toolroom foreman, whose activities
have been described heretofore, had made complaint about Paschal's
talking to men in the toolroom. Later Paschal went to Jackson and
asked hint whether he had made such reports. Jackson denied it.
On June 24, Reeves called Paschal to his office, told him that "they"
were "on his neck" about Paschal; that Paschal had been reported
as going all over the plant getting employees to join the CIO; and
that he had to discharge hiln.'s
On the same or the following day, Reeves told Rudolph, assistant
toolroom foreman, that Paschal had been discharged for doing too
much talking about the Union in the plant."'
The respondent's contentions, and conclusions
Reeves testified that he discharged Paschal because of oral and
written reports from Jackson and Buffington, oral reports from
Lanthier, and Reeves' own observation, that Paschal went to other
departments, talked to men working there, and wasted his time and
theirs. The warning slip of May 25, according to Reeves, was based
on oral reports by Jackson, Lanthier, and Buffington.
Jackson and Buffington testified that Paschal had, during working
hours "loafed" and talked to men in their departments and that they
had made oral and written reports to Reeves concerning Paschal.
Lanthier did not testify.
Buffington's written report dated June 24, the day of Paschal's
discharge, is as follows:
On several occasions this morning I have observed T. T. Pas-
chal going through the different departments of the plant. He
is not only wasting his time but also the time of others. -I
would investigate this because this is causing unrest among the
employees.
As between Reeves' two statements to Paschal and Rudolph, at
the time of Paschal's discharge, to the effect that Paschal was dis-
charged for talking about the CIO in the plant, and Reeves' testi-
mony at the hearing that Paschal was discharged for the reasons
which are now asserted, we accept, as did the Trial Examiner, the
former two statements, which were made contemporaneously with
the event, as more probably reflecting the true fact.
4" The above findings are based on admitted facts and credible testimony by Paschal
which was not substantially or specifically denied
11 This finding :s based on Theron McEllnenny's uncontradncted testimony.
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1477
Like the Trial Examiner, we find the testimony of Reeves, Jack-
son, and Buffington to be unconvincing. Thus, Reeves asserted at
the hearing that the May warning slip was based on reports of
Jackson, Lanthier, and Buffington, and Jackson testified that he
had made reports to Reeves about Paschal ever since Paschal had
been rehired. Yet when Paschal had asked Jackson about the re-
ports, Jackson had denied having made any. Paschal's work neces-
sarily took him into different departments of the plant, including
Jackson's and Buffington 's. Jackson admitted that Paschal could
have been talking about his work. Jackson's description, on cross-
examination, as to what Paschal was doing when Jackson observed
him, is as consistent with the conclusion that Paschal's conduct was
in the course of his work, as it is with the conclusion that it was
not. Buffington also admitted that he reported Paschal even
though he knew that Paschal came to his department on business,
and also admitted that except for Tyler, he made no written re-
ports on other employees who came into the department without
having business there.
Paschal admittedly did good work and men of his skill were
hard to find. Upon his observation of the witnesses, the Trial
Examiner concluded that the testimony of Reeves, Jackson, and
Buffington, as to the conduct of Paschal and the reasons for the
discharge, is not entitled to credit. We agree and do not credit
the testimony of these witnesses.
On the basis of these conclusions and the whole background of
opposition by the respondent to the CIO, we find, as did the Trial
Examiner , that the reasons asserted by the respondent for the dis-
charge of Paschal were pretexts and without foundation, and that
Paschal was in fact discharged because of his activities on behalf
of the CIO, and that the respondent thereby discriminated with
respect to hire and tenure of employment , discouraged membership
in the CIO, encouraged membership in the Association, and inter-
fered with , restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of
.the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
4. George Porter
Porter was hired in May 1943 at 90 cents per hour, and after
working as a machine operator for some time, was promoted to
set-up man. During his employment he received several wage in-
creases aggregating 35 cents per hour. On March 11, 1944, Porter
quit voluntarily to go into the garage business. Assistant Plant
Manager Pittman unsuccessfully attempted at that time to persuade
him to stay . On April 3, 1944, he was rehired by Pittman and
Massee.
1478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On June 7, 1944, Porter joined the CIO and became a volunteer
organizer. He discussed the union in the plant and solicited mem-
bership during his free time. His foreman, Johnny Long, whose
activity on behalf of the Association has been related heretofore,
was aware of Porter's activity.
On June 13, Porter borrowed $100 from the respondent to pay a
hospital bill of his wife's.
On June 14, during a recess, as Porter was displaying his organ-
izer's card and some 'membership cards to a number of employees,
Long came by and saw him. Later that day, Porter asked Pittman
for permission to work overtime in order to repay the loan. Pitt-
man told Porter that he was sorry; that Porter had already misrep-
resented the company enough. When Porter asked what he meant,
Pittman replied, "you know as well as I do," and directed Porter
to come to his office at 4 o'clock. When Porter went to Pittman's
office at that time, Pittman told him that his work was not satisfac-
tory and discharged him. Long was also present.,"
Conclusions
It will be recalled that late in June Pittman, on two different
occasions, talked to groups of employees about unions and told them,
among other things, that he did not see how a union could improve
conditions in the plant.
According to Pittman, Porter was discharged because of unsatis-
factory work and because he had received unfavorable reports both
oral and written, from Porter's supervisors, Foremen Greer, Gris-
ham, Graves, and Long. The written reports are all dated the day
of Porter's discharge. They indicate that Porter had been "under
surveillance"; that he was inefficient, his work was of the "very
poorest" standard, and his attitude poor; that he loafed, would not
work, displayed no initiative, and wandered off the job.
'Of the four supervisors, only Greer testified.
Pittman's testimony was that, prior to Porter's discharge, he had
received oral reports from four supervisors to the effect that Porter's
work was unsatisfactory; that he spoke to Porter several times about
the quality of his work and about the reports; and that the com-
plaints were reduced to writing when Porter denied their truth.
Porter denied that his work had ever been criticized, or that he was
ever informed of any reports by supervisors. Greer's testimony was
similar to Pittman's. The testimony of neither Pittman nor Greer
indicates that any particular incident relating to his work precipi-
tated the decision to separate Porter.
61 The above findings are based on Porter ' s testimony , which , except for the finding that
Porter asked Pittman whether he could work overtime in order to repay the loan, was
undemed On that point , the Trial Examiner , who had an opportunity of observing
the witnesses , credited Porter, and so do we.
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1479
Like the Trial Examiner, we do not credit the testimony of Pitt-
man and Greer. During 1943 Porter had left the respondent's em-
ployment and subsequently was rehired at a higher rate of pay. His
last pay increase of 15 cents per hour was given on the recommenda-
tion of Pittman. During his employment he was promoted to set-up
man. Pittman tried to persuade him not to quit in March 1944,
and reluctantly gave Porter his release. The separation slip he was
given at that time stated that he would be recommended for rehiring.
On April 3, Pittman rehired him. It is evident therefore, that
Porter's work was satisfactory up to April 1944. The assertions of
Pittman and Greer that it became completely unsatisfactory there-
after are not entitled to credit.
Porter was never given a warning slip, although it is conceded
that that is the customary practice. Pittman first testified that
Porter was transferred from one job to another in order to find a
position where he could do satisfactory work. On cross-examination,
however, he admitted that these transfers were normal shifting
around and had had no connection with the calibre of Porter's work.
Pittman's testimony was in other respects contradictory, evasive, and
unconvincing. We also agree with the Trial Examiner that Greer's
testimony is generally untrustworthy.
Grishman, Graves, and Long did not testify, and no explanation
was advanced for the failure to call them as witnesses.52 .
Upon these considerations, and upon his observation of the wit-
nesses, the Trial Examiner rejected the testimony of Pittman and
Greer, and credited Porter's assertions that his work was never criti-
cized during his employment. We agree with the Trial Examiner
and make the same findings. Porter's previous satisfactory work
record, the failure to give him any warning slips, and the absence
of criticism of his work, indicate that it was not dissatisfaction with
his services that motivated his discharge. The fact that he was
loaned $100 on the day before his discharge indicates that the decision
to separate him was made suddenly thereafter. The fact that Long
alone, of all the supervisors, recommended Porter's discharge in the
written reports, and that Long was present when Pittman discharged
Porter, leads us to infer that Long, who had assisted the Association
and had that day witnessed Porter discussing the CIO with em-
ployees, was immediately responsible for the discharge. In view of
the background of opposition to the CIO among the supervisory em-
ployees, the discriminatory discharges of other volunteer CIO or-
ganizers, and the implausibility of the reasons asserted for the dis-
charge, we, like the Trial Examiner, find that Porter was discharged
because of his activities on behalf of the CIO, and that the respondent
12 J Al. Parker testified that he understood that Graves was in No request was made,
however, for opportunity to take his testimony
1480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thereby discriminated with respect to hire and tenure of employment,
discouraged membership in the CIO, encouraged membership in the
Association, and interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
5. Sidney Gibson
Gibson Was hired on October 12, 1943, laid off on November 6 for
lack of materials, rehired on December 9, 1943, and was thereaftei
continuously employed until June 23, 1944, when he was discharged.
He was employed as a laborer in the oil recovery department under
Foreman Ben Brooks.
Employee Walker Crooms was employed, under Foreman W. B.
Power, in the bar stockroom adjacent to the oil recovery room. On
the evening of June 22, Gibson told Crooms that he was going to join
the CIO. Crooms told Gibson that he would like to join also, and
requested Gibson to get hire a card. On the following morning,
prior to starting work, Gibson joined the CIO, and received a CIO
button and several blank applications for membership.
During the recess that morning Gibson met Crooms in the wash-
room and gave him the blank cards .513
Several times during the course of that day, as Gibson passed
through the bar stockroom on his way to the toilet, he stopped and
spoke briefly to Crooms and Miller. Power watched him each tinge.
During the afternoon Power approached Crooms and Miller and
asked them what Gibson had been talking about. Miller said that
Gibson had asked him to join the CIO. Power asked Crooms
whether Gibson had given him any cards. Croons said that he had.
Power asked Crooms to give him the cards. Crooms did so. Part
of this conversation was in the presence of E. E. Lavendar, assistant
to Production Manager Tom Hall, Brook's superior. Sometime later
in the day Power went into the oil room and talked to Brooks.54
At about 4 p. m. Massee requested Power to make a written report of
the incident. Power sent in the following memorandum :
On June 23, 1944, Mr. Sidney Gibson of the Oil Recovery De-
partment came into my department during working hours upon
three different occasions, and was talking to some of my men.
Upon investigating the reasons for Mr. Gibson's visits, I was
told by my men that he was soliciting membership for the C. I. O.
Union.
51 The above findings are based on undisputed testimony of Gibson, Crooms, and employee
Willie Miller
5, The findings in the above paragraphs are based on testimony by Gibson, Crooms,
Millej, and Power, much of which was in conflict The above findings represent what we,
like the Trial Examiner conclude, after consideration of the testimony and other events
of that day, are the facts.
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1481
At 4: 30 Brooks told Gibson to go to Massee's office, where Gibson
was discharged. During the discharge interview Gibson told Massee
and Brooks that he didn't think that the company would kill anyone
who joined the union; that he had been soliciting for the "0. P. A.";
and either said that he had "hoped to get 5 members that day," or that
lie had "signed up 5 that day."
ri onelmions
Gibson's separation notice states as the reason for his discharge
"Unable to do work, found loafing twice today." According to the
respondent's testimony, the decision to discharge Gibson was made
by Brooks. The latter testified that at the time of the discharge he
had no knowledge of Gibson's visits with Crooms and Miller in the
bar stockroom that afternoon and asserted that the reason for the dis-
charge was that during the day of the 23rd, he saw Gibson standing
in a bin door; that that constituted "proof" that Gibson was loafing;
and that he therefore discharged him.55 According to Brooks, he
had on previous days noticed that Gibson was outside of the department
when he had no business to be; that he had reported it to Pittman, and
that Pittman had "evidently" suggested discharging Gibson. Pitt-
man testified that Brooks had complained to him two or three times
about Gibson leaving the job, and that he had instructed Brooks to
keep Gibson on the job or send him home. On no occasion, however,
did Brooks warn Gibson or speak to him about his conduct.
Like the Trial Examiner, we do not credit the testimony of Brooks
and Pittman. It will be recalled that on the day of Gibson's discharge,
Brooks took O. B. Paradise's CIO dues receipt and forwarded it,
along with a report on Leroy Josey and H. E. Tyler, to Massee. The
incident which allegedly motivated Gibson's discharge is too insig-
nificant to be persuasive. Power's favoritism toward the Association
is evidenced by his action, 2 or 3 days later, in applying for member-
ship himself and inducing his men to join it. The undersigned con-
cludes that both Massee and Brooks were informed of the occurrence
in the bar stockroom during the afternoon of the 23rd and that Gibson
was discharged as a result of that information, and not for the reason
asserted by Brooks.'6 The discharge was thus based upon Gibson's
suspected union activity. It was therefore discriminatory.
The oil room houses bins in which scrap metal is collected . Part of Gibson 's job was
to shovel metal into the birs
"'Thus, Lavendar was present when Power talked to Crooms and Miller ; Power made out
a written report at the request of Massce, and shortly before Gibson's discharge, Power
went into the oil room and talked to Brooks While Brooks testified that he did not know,
at the time of the discharge, of the incident in the bar stockroom, and although both he
and Power denied that Power informed Brooks of it on the 23rd , we, like the Trial
Examiner, do not credit their testimony on this point , and conclude from the circumstances
that Power did inform Brooks.
1452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Whether or not Gibson's conversations in the bar stockroom that day
were on company time, as Power asserts, or at recess, as Crooms and
Gibson assert, and, if so, whether Gibson was actually soliciting for
the CIO1 it is unnecessary to determine. Even though he had been
soliciting during working hours, we would nevertheless find that he
was discriminatorily discharged. Association adherents were solicit-
ing extensively during working hours with impunity, and with the
approval and assistance of supervisors. As has been indicated hereto-
fore, the enforcement against one labor organization of a rule pro-
hibiting solicitation while ignoring and assisting the same activities
by another, is discriminatory.
Like the Trial Examiner, we find that Sidney Gibson was discharged
because of his activities on behalf of the CIO, and that the respondent
thereby discriminated with respect to hire and tenure of employment,
discouraged membership in the CIO, encouraged membership in the
Association and interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
6. The respondent's additional contentions
The respondent contends that any discriminatory motive is rebutted
by the fact that other CIO adherents, some of whom were equally as
active, were not discharged. We find no merit in this contention.
An employer, seeking to make an example for all his employees, may
select for discharge those whom he deems more active or more valuable.
Moreover, a suitable subterfuge for a discharge is not always readily
available. Clearly, a complete house cleaning of union members and
supporters is not essential to a finding that some employees have been
discriminated against.54
The respondent further contends that the Trial Examiner erred in
refusing to admit into evidence exhibits showing that other employees
were discharged. The rejected exhibits do not show whether any of
the discharged employees were members of the CIO or the Association
or of neither organization; nor, do they show the circumstances sur-
rounding the discharges. Under all the circumstances we believe that
these exhibits are immaterial to the relevant issues herein and were
properly excluded.
C. The alleged unfair labor practices
1. The discharge of Kathryn Cowart
Cowart was hired on December 28, 1943, at 55 cents per hour, raised
to 60 cents on January 31, 1944, to 65 cents on May 22, and to 70 cents
57 See, e g, Matter of Stewart Warner Corporation , 55 N L R B 593 , 610; Matter of
Montag Bros ., Inc., 51 N. L. R. B. 366, enf 'd 140 F . ( 2d) 730 (C. C. A. 5).
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1483
on July 3. She was employed on the night shift, originally as a
niachine operator, later as a line leader. She joined the CIO on
May 17 and became one of its most active members and a volunteer
organizer.
During the second week in June, Foreman Harrington promoted
Cowart to line leader.
On July 3, Harrington sent the following letter to Cowart and
Set-up man James Golden, who worked on Cowart's line:
To Kathryn and Golden:
I wish to personally express appreciation to you, your workers,
and the inspectors for the excellent job you all did last month
in meeting the quota on C-48.
It was with your leadership, cooperation, and interest, assisted
by the willing cooperation of your workers and the inspectors that
this job was well done.
I feel sure that even though the quota is gradually increasing,
you and those working with you are qualified to meet it.
Around the first of July Cowart had her picture taken by a photog-
rapher in Milledgeville for the July 31 issue of the CIO newspaper,
which was distributed weekly outside the plant. About 2 weeks later
set-up man Golden approached Cowart and warned her not to let the
picture appear in the paper. He told Cowart: "I am telling you for
your own good." "I On August 1 the CIO paper, carrying Cowart's
picture and a story of her CIO activity on the front page, was
distributed in Milledgeville.
On Tuesday, July 25, Cowart became ill and was advised by her
doctor to remain away from work for several days. Cowart sent word
to the plant. She was out the rest of the week. On the following
Monday afternoon, July 31, Clinton Cowart, Kathryn's husband and
also an employee at the plant, phoned Paul McClanahan, foreman of
both the Cowarts, and told him that he could not come to work that
night because he had to take Kathryn to the hospital for a check-up.
McClanahan told Clinton that it was all right for him not to come in,
but that Kathryn was discharged. When Clinton asked why, Mc-
Clanahan told him that she was out too much.
Subsequently Cowart received a discharged slip marked "Didn't
work regularly. Out due to sickness." When she protested, she was
given a new slip indicating that she had quit, that her services were
satisfactory, but that she had been excessively absent due to sickness
and would not be recommended for rehire.
68 There is no substantial evidence that Golden is a supervisory employee However, he
solicited for the Association on company time , and was a dues collector and active member
1484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Conclusions
The respondent contended that Cowart was discharged for absen-
teeism. It is conceded that she was a good worker. The respondent's
records indicate that she was discharged on July 29.
During the early part of 1944, Cowart had been ill. She was absent
2 days in February and the entire week ending March 12. She worked
on March. 13, but oil the 14th she left to undergo an operation. She
did not return to work until April 21. Thereafter, she did not work
on April 29, May 11, 12, 13, 15, and 22, and July 10. On March 4,
April 2 and July 14 she did not work full shifts.,
The absences of May 11 to 15 were apparently occasioned by the re-
turn home of Cowart's brother, a serviceman, on furlough, and Cowart
received advance permission from her foreman. All the other absences
were for illness, and on each occasion Cowart sent word to the plaut.e0
Cowart's record for absences establishes plausible ground for her
discharge. On the other hand, other factors suggest that the absences
constituted a mere pretext. Thus, Cowart was a volunteer organizer
for the CIO. Other volunteer organizers had been discharged by the
respondent on one pretext or another. Her work was satisfactory.
Her absences appear to have been for adequate cause. They evoked
no comment or warning from her supervisors, and were apparently
deemed sufficiently unimportant to warrant McClanahan's recom-
mending her for a raise on May 22, and again on July 3, and to secure
her promotion in June.
On the other hand, she received the wage increases and the promo-
tion after she had become active in the CIO7 and presumably after the
respondent was aware of that activity. McClanahan and Harrington,
her foremen, are not implicated in any incidents indicating that they
were opposed to theCIO. Cowart's job as lnie leader obviously required
more or less regular attendance. The discharge was contemporaneous
with her first extended absence after May. The recurrence of absences
in July suggests that, whatever the cause, regularity in attendance
could not be expected from her. The supposition that she was dis-
charged because the respondent had learned that her picture would
be published in the CIO paper appears doubtful, in view of the re-
spondent's probable prior knowledge that she was active on behalf of
the CIO. Moreover, on the basis of the evidence adduced, knowledge
of the impending publication cannot be attributed to the respondent.
Therefore, although the discharge of Cowart is suspicious because
of the pattern of the other discriminatory discharges,-because of its
arbitrary nature and the failure to warn Cowart or at least to discuss
50 On July 15, 17, and 18 she was on vacation
60 The above findings are based on admitted facts, Cowart's time records and uncontra-
dicted testimony.
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1485
with her the likelihood of securing more regular attendance, we, like
the Trial Examiner, are unable to find that the respondent seized upon
the week-long absence in July as a pretext for discriminatorily dis-
charging her. We shall, therefore, dismiss the complaint as to Cowart.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent, set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela-
t ion 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 unfair labor
practices, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of, and has contributed sup-
port to the Association and the Grievance Committee. The activities
of the respondent and its supervisors have so permeated the develop-
ment of the Association and the Grievance Committee as to make them
incapable of acquiring, either in fact or in the minds of the employees,
an independent status untainted by the respondent's support and ap-
proval. The effect and consequences of the respondent's domination,
interference and support constitute the Association and the Grievance
Committee continuing obstacles to the free exercise by the respond-
ent's employees of the rights guaranteed them in the Act. Because of
the respondent's illegal conduct, the Association and the Grievance
Committee are incapable of serving the respondent's employees as
genuine and independent collective bargaining agencies. Accord-
ingly, we shall order the respondent to disestablish and withhold all
recognition from the Association and the Grievance Committee as
representatives of any of the respondent's employees for the purpose
of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of
employment.
We have further found that the respondent has discriminated in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment of H. E. Tyler, Ruby
Collins, Thomas Paschal, George Porter, and Sidney Gibson. Since
his discharge, Paschal has secured other employment and does not
desire to be reemployed by the respondent. We shall, therefore,'
order that the respondent offer Tyler, Collins, Porter, and Gibson
639678-45-vol. 61-95
1486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges. We shall further order that the respondent
make whole Tyler, Collins, Porter, and Gibson for any losses of pay
they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination
against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal
to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages from
the date of his discharge to the date of the respondent's offer of
reinstatement, less his net earnings during that period.-
We shall also order that the respondent make whole Paschal for
any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the respondent's
discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money
equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages
from the date of his discharge to July 30, 1944, the date he secured
the employment he held at the time he testified, less his net earnings
during that period.
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. United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, and Workers Welfare Association, Inc.,
and the Grievance Committee, are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and admin-
istration of Workers Welfare Association, Inc., and the Grievance
Committee, and contributing support to them, the respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of H. E. Tyler, Ruby Collins, Thomas Paschal, George Porter,
and Sidney Gibson, thereby discouraging membership in United
Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, and encouraging membership in Workers Welfare
Association, Inc., the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the
Act.
61 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
America Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590 , 8 N L. R. B 440 Monies re-
ceived for work performed upon Federal, State , county, municipal , or other work -relief
projects shall be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L R. B
311 U. S. 7
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1487
4. 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.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
6. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act by the discharge of Kathryn
Cowart.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the respondent, Reynolds Corporation, Milledgeville, Georgia, and
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of, or con-
tributing support to, Workers Welfare Association, Inc., and the
Grievance Committee, and dominating or interfering with the forma-
tion or administration of, or contributing support to, any other labor
organization of its employees;
(b) Discouraging membership in United Steelworkers of America,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other
labor organization, or encouraging membership in Workers Welfare
Association, Inc., or any other labor organization, by discharging or
refusing to reinstate any of its employees or by discriminating in
any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of their employment;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist United Steelworkers of America,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withhold recognition from and completely disestablish Work-
ers Welfare Association, Inc., and the Grievance Committee, as the
representative of any of its employees for the purposes of dealing with
the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment;
1488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Offer H. E. Tyler, Ruby Collins, George Porter, and Sidney
Gibson, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges;
(c) Make whole H. E. Tyler, Ruby Collins, George Porter, and
Sidney Gibson for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason
of the respondent 's discrimination against them ; by payment to each
of them of a sum of money equal to ' the amount which he normally
would have earned as wages during the period from the date of his
discharge to the date of the respondent 's offer of reinstatement, less
his net earnings during such period.
(d) Make whole Thomas Paschal for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the respondent 's discrimination against him, by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he
normally would have earned as wages during the period from the date
of his discharge to July 30 , 1944, less his net earnings during such
period ;
(e) Post at the plant at Milledgeville , Georgia, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix B." Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the respondent 's representative , be posted by the
respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for
sixty ( 60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered , defaced or covered by any other material;
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply therewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint , insofar as it alleges that
the respondent discriminated against Kathryn 'Cowart within the
meaning of Section 8 ( 3) of the Act be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
The speeches of General Manager Smith and Lieutenant Commander
Banks
LIEUTENANT COMMANDER BANKS
I -am very glad of the opportunity to meet you as a group and to
speak a few words to workers whose primary interest , I know, is
winning the war. I am speaking for the Commanding Officer, whose
absence is necessary because of plans to increase this plant 's value in
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1489
accomplishing that result. He regrets that he is not able to be here
personally and talk to you. As you probably all know, this plant is
owned by the Navy, which is a department of the United States
Government. Because it is owned by the Navy and the Government,
it is owned by you. The contractor, who is the Reynolds Corporation,
entered into an agreement with the Navy Department, to operate the
plant for the purpose of manufacturing ordnance equipment. The
contractor and you, the employees, are working to fulfill the terms
of this contract. The Navy's interest is to see to it that the terms
of the contract are met, and to assist, as your representative in exert-
ing every effort to produce in quality and quantity, all that the plant
is capable of producing. To accomplish this, we must take notice of
events that may affect the productive capacity of this plant. I speak
of dissension among workers, taking of so-called sides, personal argu-
ments, or anything that will cause you to take your minds off your
business and be diverted from the primary job which is the winning
of the war. We, the Navy, would be guilty of neglect of duty to the
country and to you if we failed to make every effort to prevent this.
The Commanding Officer does not, nor do I need second hand informa-
tion about the importance of the product that you are making. We
both have seen what your fuzes are doing and we know how essential
it is to have perfect ones in a tremendous quantity. There is no time
for personal animosity to enter into the picture now. This is true
about you as it is about your sons and husbands who are firing the
fuzes that you are making. Anyone,-male, female, manager or
worker, who wilfully commits an act that will retard production-by
that I mean not so much as physical violence but anything that will
take worker's minds off what they are doing so they can produce at
a maximum capacity-is as guilty of treason as the deserter who
assists the enemy. The plant is new and we have not yet hit our stride.
There are many problems having to do with management which have
not, as yet, been given the necessary attention for-smooth running all
around organization. Some of these problems have been buried
because of the necessity of devoting full time to getting the fuzes out.
These problems will be met and solved as time goes on. I am qualified
to speak as a Georgian and I feel confident that we, speaking in that
respect, will not permit small things to interfere with our real objec-
tive and will set an example for the rest of our country to follow.
Thank you for your attention.
HARRY G. SMITH
Thank you, Commander. It has been some time since I have had the
privilege of speaking to, you people as a group, therefore, it is my
desire to compliment you personally for the job you have done. You
1490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have increased production by 250 percent since the first of December
and at the same time, you have decreased scrap and rejects by 50 per-
cent. While you were doing these things, you have been producing
fuzes that our loading plant unqualifiedly states are as good as the
best.
Secondly, I want to outline to you briefly, the job that faces us in
the immediate future. I have just returned from Washington, and
your Navy still needs an increase in production of at least 50 per-cent
on the Mark 46 fuze parts and they need an increase of approximately
60 per-cent on the Mark 20 fuze parts. I have told the Navy, for you,
that we will increase the production in the amount required as soon
as possible. These fuzes that we produce here are some of the most
critical items on the Navy's list and I am sure that each of us will do
everything possible to obtain the quantity required. There are a
number of problems yet facing us and we all know that the majority of
us need more training and more experience in order that we may do the
task required. We must continue to improve the methods of manu-
facturing and we shall aggressively follow this course. Those of you
who are supervisors have a large task before you.
Briefly, each supervisor not only must continue to learn himself,
but must continually pass on to this (sic) people, to you, the best ways
of doing their particular job. They must continually build up a
better understanding between each of us and we must learn to work
with each other, even better than we have done in the past, for it is
only.by teamwork that we can hope to accomplish the results required.
One of the misunderstandings that has existed is that of pay increases,
and I want to take this opportunity of stating the facts connected
with pay increases.
First, the Reynolds Corporation is operating this plant under a di-
rect Navy contract and the terms of this contract require strict ad-
herence to all Federal and State Laws governing the conditions of em-
ployment. Our rates of pay for this plant are set up by the War
Labor Board. Our rates of increases are set up by the same board.
The Navy has stationed at this Ordnance Plant a group of officers
whose duties parallel those of our Management, in that it is their duty
to see that production is attained and that all terms of the contract
are properly carried out. In this, the Navy Officers and your Manage-
ment are working shoulder to shoulder.
Nearly a year ago, the management of this plant asked for certain
changes in rates of pay for toolmakers, tool grinders, and automatic
screw machine set-up men, in view of the fact that our rates of pay as
established by the War Labor Board were, in our opinion, too low for
these classifications. Our request for an increase was rejected and we
appealed the decision. Again it was rejected. We appealed it the
REYNOLDS 'CORPORATION 1491
second time, and the second time it was rejected. We appealed it the
third time and the third time it was rejected, and finally on the fourth
appeal, our request was approved, ancj therefore immediately after
April 14, the date of the approval, your Management made changes
in the rates of pay for the men in the classifications mentioned before,
where the progress of the men warranted the increases, and we also
at that time contacted the other individuals in those departments whom
we felt were not producing up to par, and pointed out to them as-in-
dividuals, ways to improve their work so that they too could be
granted increases in pay.
The policy of the Reynolds Corporation and its affiliated com-
panies (and the history of these companies bear out the fact) has
been, and will continue to be, a policy of treating everyone in the
organization absolutely fairly, being sympathetic at all times to
your desires and at all times we are dedicated to the policy of
doing everything possible toward making this plant a desirable
place to work.
Your General Manager has spent his life in manufacturing plants
and therefore he too has as his personal wish a desire to live as
closely as possible to you people, to know your problems, and to
make this plant the best place to work in the State of Georgia.
I personally want you to feel that all doors are open to you to lay
your suggestions and desires, or complaints directly before the Man-
agement. If at any time you feel that you have a suggestion to
make, or a grievance to air-first contact your foreman. If he does
not handle the matter promptly, contact the Plant Manager or the
Chief Inspector, depending on whether you are in production or
inspection. Now should you choose, you may take another course,
and contact the Personnel Department and Mr. Massee will give
attention to the problem. The General Manager has instructed
these men to handle all of your suggestions or grievances promptly.
I regret that in an organization of this size, it is impossible for
me to talk with each of you individually, however if you feel that
either your foreman, your Plant Manager, your Chief Inspector, or
Personnel Manager has not handled your problem to your satisfac-
tion, please do not hesitate to call upon me if you should meet me
on the floor, or call my secretary, to make an appointment with me
and I will certainly promise that your problem will be handled to
the best of my ability.
Your job, my job, the Navy's job, all our jobs, are one and the
same-to produce the best fuzes possible in the quickest way pos-
sible in order that we may save every hour in the winning of this
war, and in so doing we may save every life possible-your son's,
your husband's-your sweetheart's or your friend's. To this end we
are all pledged and I for one, and I know you too, will not permit
1492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
anything to occur which will delay this job to which we are
pledged. I say again for all of us, that we will not permit any
interference with production, and that is one reason why I say to
you what I am about to say.
Reports are circulating which tend to distract your attention
from your job, and I want to discuss them briefly with you at this
time. During the past two or three weeks you have heard rumors
of activities to organize a Union in this Plant. I want to take this
opportunity of pointing out to you certain facts in the matter.
First, you are free to determine for yourself whether you desire
to join a Union or not desire a Union. There will be no action on
the part of the Management to prevent you from joining a Union or
not joining any organization. Neither your General Manager or any
other part of management will in any way prevent or attempt to'
prevent you from doing as you see fit.
Secondly, let me further state that it is my duty to counsel and
advise with you in the matter and I am therefore going to point out
to you that whether you belong to a Union, or whether you do not
belong to a Union, it is your personal business and it will in no way
affect your job. Let me say to you further, that you will not be re-
quired to belong to a Union in order to hold your job here. Whether
there is a Union here or not, you will be given increases in pay as
fast and as often as your progress and the laws permit. Please re-
member that the War Labor Board has established not only the mini-
mum and maximum rates of pay, but they have established the rates
of increases between minimum and maximum figures. Briefly, if your
work has been satisfactory you may be granted increases in any cal-
endar year up to two-thirds of the difference between the maximum
and minimum limits set by law provided the increases in the plant
do not average more than five cents per hour for all the people now
employed here. This part of the law makes it necessary for us to
check carefully so that any unjustified increases are not granted in
order that more than five cents per hour may be granted to the more
deserving employees. The laws govern the handling of these matters
and regardless of statements made to the contrary, these are facts.
Use your intelligence and carefully consider these facts in deciding
the matter for yourself.
Let me ask a few questions. Do you have a clean place to
work? Is it a safe place to work? Is it a pleasant place to work?
Are you earning rates of pay in keeping with your ability to produce
and in keeping with your experiences in this kind of work? Finally,
ask yourself, do you need a Union to enable you to enjoy your work,
to earn good pay or to have a clean and a pleasant place in which to
work? Personally, I can see no reason for a Union in this plant,
REYNOLDS CORPORATION 1493
This is my personal opinion. You are privileged to accept this
opinion or reject it as you see fit. This management will never
coerce you either way and I suggest that you do not permit anyone
else to coerce you either way. Be your own judge of the matter. In
closing, I am sure that none of us will permit anything to interfere
with our producing our Navy's requirements. We are just beginning
to hit our stride and this plant is really beginning to roll. I know
you will keep it rolling day and night until the war is over. Thank
you.
NLRB 585
(10-1-44)
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We hereby disestablish Workers Welfare Association, Inc., and
the Grievance Committee as the representative of any of our
employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment, and we will not recognize it
either of them or any successor thereto for any of the above
purposes.
We will not dominate or interfere with the formation or admin-
istration of any labor organization or contribute financial or
other support to it.
We will offer to the employees named below -immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to any seniority or other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of the discrimination.
H. E. Tyler
Ruby Collins
George Porter
Sidney Gibson
We will make whole the following employee for any loss of
pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Thomas Paschal
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist United Steelworkers of America,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives
1494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of this
union, or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment against any employee because of membership in or activ-
ity on behalf of any such labor organization.
REYNOLDS CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated-------------------- By -----------------------------
(Representitive) (Title)
NOTE: Any of'the above-named employees presently serving in the armed
forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the armed
forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
9