Scott Paper Box Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 1949

81 N.L.R.B. 535 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of L. W. ScoTr, DOING BUSINESS AS SCOTT PAPER Box
COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTIiERIIOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE
AND PAPER MILL WORKERS, A. F. L.
Case No. 15M-C-28.-Decided February 10, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On July 27, 1948, Trial Examiner Peter F. Ward issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that he cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices and recommended dismissal of these unproved allegations of
the complaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent
filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, as amended,
the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a
three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members.*
The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied be-
cause the record, exceptions and briefs, in our opinion, adequately
present the issues and the positions of the parties.
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
*Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Gray.
a In the last sentence of the next to the last paragraph on page 5 of the Intermediate
Report, the Trial Examiner erroneously declares that "Blake stated that he did not want
to go to work since the employees were organized..... The record shows, and we find,
that Westlake made this statement.
81 N. L . R. B., No. 98. 535
536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, L. W. Scott,
doing business as Scott Paper Box Company, Little Rock, Arkansas.
and his agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Brotherhood of
Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, A. F. L., or in any other labor
organization of his employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate
any of his employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
their employment;
(b) Interrogating his employees concerning their union affiliations,
activities, or sympathies, or in any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing his employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Inter-
national Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers,
A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as guaranteed
by Section 7 thereof.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Make whole Floyd Beavers, Roy F. Braden, George W. Burton,
Clifton Davis, Houston Durnal, William Eskridge, Leonard Ham-
mons, Dewey Lay, Marthell Murphy, Roy Pearson, Euall Qualls,
Harry Reddick, J. D. Reddick, Clarence Roberts, Harvey Rogers,
Irby Rodgers, Andrew Sims, Henry Sims, Arthur Sowell, Robert
L. Stancil, Leroy Titsworth, Harry Westlake, V. O. Ables, Lola Hen-
drixson, Odessa McGinty, Kathleen McMillian, Merl Richerson, and
Beatrice Wells, 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 he or she would nor-
mally have earned as wages during the period from August 16, 1947,
the first effective day of the lock-out, to August 26, 1947, the day of
their general return to work, less his or her net earnings during said
period;
(b) Post at his plant in Little Rock, Arkansas, copies of the notice
attached to this Order and marked "Appendix A." 2 Copies of said
2 In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted in the notice , before the word "A DECISION AND ORDER," the
words "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
SCOTT PAPER BOX COMPANY 537
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent or his repre-
sentative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by him for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects the complaint herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
APPENDIX A
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 Acts, I hereby notify my employees that :
I WILL NOT interrogate my employees concerning their union
affiliations, activities , or sympathies , or in any other manner inter-
fere with, restrain , or coerce my employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join
or assist INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE AND
PAPER MILL WORKERS, A. F. L., or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to
refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as guaranteed by
Section 7 thereof.
I WILL MAKE the following employees whole for any loss of pay
they may have suffered as the result of my discrimination against
them :
Floyd Beavers William Eskridge
Roy F. Braden Leonard Hammons
George W. Burton Dewey Lay
Clifton Davis Marthell Murphy
Houston Durnal Roy Pearson
538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Euall Qualls
Harry Reddick
J. D. Reddick
Clarence Roberts
Harvey Rogers
Irby Rodgers
Andrew Sims
Arthur Sowell
Henry Sims
Robert L. Stancil
Leroy Titsworth
Harry Westlake
V. 0. Ables
Lola Hendrixson
Odessa McGinty
Kathleen McMillian
Merl Richerson
Beatrice Wells
All my employees are free to become or remain members of the above-
mentioned union or any other labor organization. I will not discrim-
inate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment of any employee because of membership in or activity
on behalf of any such labor organization.
L. W. SCOTT, doing business as
SCOTT PAPER Box COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated --------------- By ----------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from date
thereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Messrs. Richard C. Keenan, William P. Alexander, Andrew P. Carter, and
Victor Hess , Jr., for the General Counsel.
Messrs . Henry Donham. and W. J. Smith of Little Rock, Ark., for the Respondent.
Mr. Fred E. Floyd, International Organizer , for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed December 22, 1947, by International Brother-
hood Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, A. F. of L., herein called the Union,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,' issued a complaint
dated March 30, 1948,' against L. W. Scott, doing business as Scott Paper Box
Company, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, prior
to amendment, and Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Labor Management Relations Act of 1947,' herein called the Act, or the amended
Act. Copies of the complaint, with charge attached, and notice of hearing were
duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.
I The General Counsel and his representatives at the hearing are referred to herein as
General Counsel ; National Labor Relations Board is referred to as the Board.
2 The complaint was amended as to Paragraph VIII , by the General Counsel of the
Board on April 2, 1948
8 The National Labor Relations Act as amended by Public Law 101, Chapter 120, 80th
Cong., 1st Sess. The National Labor Relations Act prior to amendment is sometimes
herein referred to as the Wagner Act.
SCOTT PAPER BOX COMPANY 539
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleges in substance
that: (1) on or about August 15, 1947, the Respondent, personally or by his
officers and agents interrogated his employees concerning their union affiliation ;
denied the employees access to the plant unless they submit to such interrogation
and threatened the employees with discharge if they became or remained mem-
bers of the Union ; (2) Respondent on August 15, 1947, conditioned future employ-
ment of his employees upon their lack of union affiliation, and, until August 26,
1947, denied entrance into the plant and access to their usual working places
all those employees who refused to submit themselves to interrogation, and by
this action the Respondent discharged some 30 employees;` (3) on or about
September 2, 1947, the Respondent discharged Leonard Hammons, Clifford B.
Davis, T. E. Smith, Dewey Lay and George Burton, and thereafter failed and
refused to reinstate said employees; (4) as a result of the discharge of the
five employees named next above, certain employees of the Respondent went on
strike on or about September 3, 194T; and on or about September 5, 1947, the
employees on strike presented themselves and unconditionally offered to return
to work; (5) the Respondent refused to permit the employees to return to work
and by his refusal terminated the employment of these employees named referred
to in footnote 4, together with the employment of Thomas E. Smith and James
Huckabee; (6) on or about October 18, 1947, Respondent discharged M. L. Kin-
ney and James Taylor, thereafter refused to reinstate them ; that the Respondent
on or about July 30, 1947, laid off Adeline Lockridge and Louise Bradley, and on
or about August 29, 1947, and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate them;
(7) that the Respondent discharged and refused to reinstate all of the employees
hereinbefore named, some of whom were discharged and refused reinstatement
more than once, because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the
Union, and because they engaged In concerted activities with other employees for
the purpose of collective bargaining aond other mutual aid and protection; (8)
and that by said acts the Respondent has interfered with, restrained and coerced
his employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On or about April 15, 1948, the Respondent filed an answer to the complaint
wherein certain allegations of the complaint were admitted but denied that he
had engaged in any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on April 19 to 22, 1948, at Little Rock,
Arkansas, before Peter F. Ward, the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated
by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were
represented by counsel and the Union represented by an International Representa-
tive. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties.
During the hearing and at the close of the General Counsel's case he moved
to strike the name of John A. Burton and Arthur F. Stancil from the complaint.
The motion was granted. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties argued
orally on the record. The parties were granted the privilege of filing briefs and/or
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within 15 days after the close
of the hearing. Counsel for the Respondent duly filed a brief and while the brief
contained a number of paragraphs headed "Proposed Findings" none of the
paragraphs so headed are numbered or are they in such form that the undersigned
may adopt any of them ; all such proposed findings are rejected, except insofar
as they are, in part, consistent with the findings and conclusions hereinafter made.
4 See Appendix A.
540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case and upon his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, L. W. Scott, a private individual, doing business under the name
and style of Scott Paper Box Company, has for some 17 years been continuously
engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of paper boxes, and related
products. For the 6-months period preceding November 1947, the Respondent
purchased raw materials, consisting principally of paper board and covered stock,
valued in excess of $100,000, almost all of which was purchased outside the
State of Arkansas and shipped in interstate commerce to the plant at Little Rock,
Arkansas, where the Respondent maintains his principal office and plant.
During the same period Respondent manufactured and sold finished products
valued in excess of $200,000, approximately 70 percent of which was sold and
shipped to customers outside the State of Arkansas. The Respondent admits
and the undersigned finds that he is engaged in interstate commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, A. F. L.,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act and as
re-enacted the same section of the amended Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The lockout; interference, restraint and coercion
1. Sequence of events; the lock-out
Prior to on or about July 1, there had been no union activity at the Respond-
ent's plant.5 At or about that time, Fred E. Floyd, an organizer for the Union
started interviewing employees of the Respondent in an effort to induce them
to organize. By the early part of August, 1947, a sufficient number of employees
had signed application and authorization cards to permit the issuance of a
charter by the Union.
Under date of August 14, Floyd wrote L. W. Scott, the Respondent, as follows
DEAR MR. Scorr: This is to advise that this International Union repre-
sents a majority of your employees. Therefore, we claim exclusive rights to
bargain collectively for these employees, concerning their wages, hours and
working conditions.
In view of the above, we respectively ask for a conference immediately for
the purpose of consummating a time period agreement embracing wages,
hours and working conditions.
(Signed by FLOYD.)
The original of the above letter was addressed to the Respondent, L. W. Scott,
and a copy addressed separately to L. F. Scott,' a brother of the Respondent, and
' The record discloses that during the year 1941 the Board conducted an election among
the Respondent 's employees for the selection of a representative for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining ; and that a majority of the employees voted against such representation.
L. W. Scott, the Respondent, is at times referred to in the record as "L. W." and his
brother, the superintendent , is at times referred to as "L . F." ; the Scotts on occasion
will be referred to by their initials in this report.
SCOTT PAPER BOX COMPANY 541
superintendent of the plant. L. W. Scott was not in the plant on August 15,
when the letter was received. L. F. Scott called him by telephone and told him
of the receipt of the letter from Floyd. At L. W. Scott's direction his brother
took the letters to the former's home.
After the brothers had discussed the Floyd letter claiming to represent the
employees, L. W. Scott directed his brother, the superintendent to close the
plant at quitting time on the night of August 15, 1947.' Prior to quitting time
on August 15, L. W. Scott caused all of the time cards to be withdrawn from this
place at the time clock. He then posted the copy of the letter received from
Floyd, on the time clock.
After the whistle had blown for quitting time at 5:30 on August 15, L. F. Scott
waited until all of the employees were assembled at the time clock. He then
addressed the employees as follows :
It looks like you fellows want to organize a Union here. If you do, you
will have to go somewhere else to do it ; we are not going to have it here.
You can get your checks out of the office for this week, and you can come
back Monday and get your pay for these last two days. The ones of you who
do not want a Union can come to me and talk to me about a job
With reference to the events of the evening of August 15, L. F. Scott testified:
Q. Tell the Examiner just as near as you can remember the exact words
you said to the employees on that occasion.
A. All the employees had come to the clock, I told them that we had to lay
off Saturday, and figure the short pay roll, then I referred to this copy of the
letter on the clock there, and told them It seemed to me there was some
dissatisfaction with some of the employees over their jobs, and that they
wanted to belong to the Union. I told them we did not have a Union, and
to my knowledge and to my brothers knowledge, there were plants in town
that were organized, and that if they were dissatisfied with their jobs, we
expected probably they could go somewhere else and get a job. That was
about the end of the conversation as well as I remember that I stated to the
employees.
The record indicates that as of August 15, not to exceed seven or eight of the
employees had actually joined the Union. Between the closing time on August
15, the morning of August 18 a considerable number of additional employees
signed authorization and application for membership cards with the Union.
On the morning of August 18, some 16 employees returned to work and pur-
suant to L. F. Scott's instructions reported to him through the office ; while some
81 employees returned to the plant on the morning of August 18, but refused to
go through the office and submit to interviews by L. F. Scott.
As all of the employees who returned to the plant on the morning of the 18
arrived, they were met by Charles F. Blake, shipping clerk, and admittedly a
* Unless otherwise Indicated all events referred to herein occurred during the year 1947.
This finding is made upon the credited testimony of Roy Braden, as corroborated by
other witnesses. In this same connection, Lola Jones, an employee of the Respondent for
12 years, was called as a witness by the Respondent, testified :
He, (L. F.) was standing at the clock when we left our department. It is not his
habit to be there, and it came out of a clear sky to me. I started to the dressing
room. I had an arm full of papers, and he said, "Lola, come back." I came back
out, and he said, "It seems the employees here are dissatisfied," and there was this
notice on the clock from the Union. I don't know who put it there. He said, "There
are plenty of places that have Unions, but we don't have one. If you are satisfied
with your fobs, see me Monday morning."
542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
supervisor, who was standing at the gate which lead into the plant and
advised them that it was necessary that they go through the office.
On the following day, August 19, approximately the same group who refused to
go through the office to go to work on the preceding day again went to the plant.
On this occasion they met Blake at the door leading into the main production
building. Blake came out of the door, pulled it to, and it locked. Harry West-
lake, who had not been present on Tuesday, asked, "What is this, a lock-out?"
Blake then replied, "Things are just like they were Saturday," and when West-
lake stated, "Well, I wasn't here and I don't know what that is"; Blake said,
"Well, you'll have to go in the office and talk to Mr. L. F. Scott if you want to go
to work."
Westlake did go to the office and talked with L. F. Scott alone. Westlake said,
"I understand you have some trouble here." L. F. Scott said, "Yes, they want to
organize ," and informed Westlake, "If you want to go to work and not have a
Union, you can go to work." Blake stated that he did not want to go to work
since the employees were organized and he belonged to the Union himself, and
stated that he would wait until things were settled.'
Under date of August 20, a local newspaper, The Arkansas Democrat, pub-
lished a story in connection with the "lock-out" at the Respondent's plant ; on
August 21, the Respondent L. W. Scott caused a statement to be published in
The Arkansas Gazette stating that "no employees were locked-out" at his plant.
Under date of August 20, L. W. Scott sent a letter to some 31 named employees 19
as follows :
It has come to my attention through the public press that a representative
of the International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers
is charging that I have discharged certain employees or refused to permit
them to continue to work on account of their Union activities. In this con-
nection, it is my understanding from Mr. L. F. Scott that in my absence
certain demands were made upon the company by a representative of the
Union mentioned which he would not accede to and on this account nu-
merous employees refused to continue to work, although they were informed
that they or any one of them desiring to work might continue in the employ
of the company.
So that there can be no misunderstanding about this, I am taking this means
of informing you that your employment with the Scott Paper Box Company
has no [sic] been discontinued by an act on the part of the company that
you are welcome to return to your job at any time. However, as explained
to the representative of the Union mentioned, the company does not intend
to negotiate with said Union relative to a contract for the employees until
such time as they had been established by certification of the National
Labor Relations Board that the aforesaid Union is the exclusive bargaining
agent for the employees.
Yours truly,
SCOTT PAPER Box COMPANY,
(s) L. W. ScorT.
9 The findings in connection with the events of August 19th are based upon the credited
and in the main undisputed testimony of Westlake. L. F. Scott gave a different version
of the conversation between him and Westlake which indicates that the Union was discussed
indirectly at least, since L. F. Scott credits Westlake with saying, "I don 't want to be
a scab on the job."
70 See Appendix B.
SCOTT PAPER BOX COMPANY 543
Under date of August 21, 21 of the employees who had received the August 20
letter wrote identical letters to L. W. Scott as general manager. Such letter
states as follows :
DEAa MR. SCOTT : This will acknowledge receipt of your letter as of August
20, 1947, wherein you advise that it is your understanding from Mr. L. F.
Scott that in your absence demands were made upon your company by a
representative of the International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and
Paper Mill Workers, which he would not accede to, and on this account
numerous employees refused to continue to work.
Let me advise you that I am not aware of any demands that have been
made by any Representative of the International Brotherhood of Pulp,
Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers as you charged, and the only reason that
I have not continued to work for Scott Paper Box Company is because on
Tuesday morning, August 19, 1947, when I reported for work at the usual
time, I was stopped at the gate by your foreman and shipping clerk, Mr.
Blake, who would not let me go to work.
Now Mr. Scott, I want to inform you that I am now a member of Little
Rock Local Union # 594, International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and
Paper Mill Workers, A. F. of L., and because of my affiliations with this
union, I am being denied employment by you. Upon instructions from our
International Representative, Mr. Fred E. Floyd, we reported for work on
Tuesday morning, August 19, 1947, at which time we were not permitted
entrance to the plant to continue our tenure of employment.
With further reference to your letter of August 20, 1947, you state that
my employment wtih the Scott Paper Box Company has not been discontinued
by act on part of the company, and that I am welcome to return to my
job at any time. This statement on your part is contrary to what has
actually happened in that your brother, L. F. Scott, sets out as a condition
of employment that I must discontinue my union affiliations , and in this
connection , Mr. Scott , do I now understand from your letter that if I return
to my job, I will be permitted to retain any membership in my local Union
without fear of intimidation , discrimination or coercion concerning my
tenure of employment?
I believe that you well realize the above questions should be made clear
in view of the fact L. F. Scott advised us that if we wanted to return to our
jobs, that we would first have to see him and assure him that we were
not affiliated with and would not affiliate with any union. Such an in-
dividual agreement with Mr. L. F. Scott is a violation of Act 101, adopted
by the 1947 Legislature.
Please give me an immediate reply as I anxious to return to work.
Yours truly,
(Signature.)
On August 23, L. W. Scott wrote the employees in response to the foregoing
letter written the 21 employees, as follows :
DEAR MR . ( name of employee ) : I have your letter dated August 21
acknowledging receipt of my letter of August 20, in which you state that
contrary to what I stated in my letter you were discharged by my brother,
Mr. L. F. Scott.
On the basis of the statements made to me by Mr. L. F. Scott as what
he told you and other employees , of course, I can not agree with your
contention.
544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
My letter to you of August 20 was intended to make it clear that you were
welcome to return to your job without fear of being denied employment
or in any way being intimidated or discriminated against because of any
Union activities.
Yours very truly,
ScoTr PAPEa Box COMPANY,
(S) L. W. Scary.
Following receipt of the last above-mentioned letter all the locked-out
employees returned to work on August 26.
The issues, contentions ; conclusions
The General Counsel contends, in effect, as the complaint alleges, that by
shutting down the plant on August 15, and advising all those interested in organ-
izing a Union to look elsewhere for a job and by informing those who did not
"want" a Union to see him in his office on Monday, August 18, before going to
work, L. F. Scbtt, as agent of the Respondent discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of those employees, who being in favor of the
Union, refused to submit to interrogation on Monday, August 18, or on Tuesday,
August 19, on both of which occasions, Supervisor Blake refused to permit them
to enter the plant, except after an interview or interrogation by L. F. Scott.
The Respondent's brief in this connection reads in part, as follows :
It is admitted by the respondent that the superintendent (L. F. Scott)
for the respondent made certain remarks to the employees as they gathered
around the clock at the regular quitting time on August 15, 1947, concerning
the desire of some of the employees to form a union and that he referred
to a letter which had been received from Fred E. Floyd, a representative of
the union, the letter having been posted on the clock by Scott. At that
time the employees were advised by the superintendent that the plant
would not operate on the following day which was Saturday but that the
plant would operate on Monday and that he wanted to talk to all employees
before they went to work on Monday. [Emphasis added.]
The credible evidence clearly indicates that L. F. Scott told the employees that
those who did not want a Union were to talk to him on Monday and that those
who did could look for work elsewhere and thereby warned Union adherents
that they would have to abandon the Union in order to work for the Respondent.
Conclusions
From the foregoing and the record the undersigned concludes and finds that
by closing the plant on August 16 and by advising those employees who wanted
a Union to look elsewhere for a job and advising those who did not want a
union to see L. F. Scott before going to work on August 18, the Respondent locked
out and discharged all those employees, who desiring to engage in concerted and
Union activities, refused to submit to interrogation between August 15 and
August 26, and the Respondent did thereby interfere with, restrain, and coerce
his employees in the exercise of the right guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The undersigned further concludes and finds that the employees who refused
to return to work as a result of L. W. Scott's letter of August 20, were justified
in requiring further assurance from the Respondent after L. F. Scott had so
clearly indicated on August 15 that only those who did "not want" a union
would be permitted to work. It will be recommended below that the Respondent
make whole those employees discriminated against from August 15, 1947 to
SCOTT PAPER BOX COMPANY 545
August 26, 1947, in the manner more particularly set forth in the Section below
entitled "The remedy."
B. The alleged discriminatory discharges ; and refusals to rehire or reinstate
(1) The discharges of September 2
The complaint alleges that the Respondent discharged Leonard Hammons,
Clifton B. Davis, T. E. Smith, Dewey Lay and George Burton on or about Sep-
tember 2, 1947, and thereafter refused to reinstate them because of their union
activities. The Respondent's answer alleges that the five men were discharged
for good and sufficient cause.
The record discloses that the lock-out on August 15, resulted in the absence of
some 30 production employees from the plant from that date until August 26,
with the further result that the Respondent had insufficient finished products to
fill a rush order for Blevins Popcorn Company of Nashville, Tennessee, the
Respondent 's most valued customer.
On Friday, August 29, L. W. Scott discussed the possibility of getting 2 trucks
loaded out for the Nashville customer with L. F. Scott, who informed him of
the amount needed to load the 2 trucks and the amount necessary to complete the
order. L. W. Scott instructed his brother to make arrangements for the necessary
employees to work overtime on the afternoon of the next day (Saturday, August
30) to complete the order.
Also on August 29, L. W. Scott instructed Charles F. Blake, his shipping clerk,
to contact James Taylor and M. L. Kinney, the Respondent's truck drivers and
see if the two were willing to work over the Labor Day holiday and make delivery
of the above referred to rush order. The Truck Drivers agreed to make the run,
and Blake so reported to L. W. Scott.
On Saturday morning L. F. Scott got in touch with Burton, who worked on
the press, used in fabricating the boxes, and the rest of the crew employed on
press, namely Hammons, Davis, Smith and Lay, and told them of the necessity
for the work to be done that afternoon, and instructed them to report for work
after lunch"
Hammons, Davis, Smith, Lay, and Burton failed to report for work on the
Saturday afternoon in question and thus made it possible for the Respondent to
load but one truck with popcorn boxes for his Nashville customer, which was
done. The second truck was dispatched to another customer at Parsons, Kansas,
with a load of boxes which were in stock, on which the Respondent had a standing
order that permitted delivery at the will of the Respondent.
When the employees returned to work after the Labor Day holiday, on Sep-
tember 2, each of five employees who failed to work on Saturday afternoon,
August 30, received letters reading as follows :
SEPTEMBER 2, 1947.
DEAR MR . ( Employees name ) : Since , you were asked to work a few hours
overtime Saturday afternoon, which has been customary, and you refused
to do so we consider that you have quit your job.
Yours very truly,
(S)
SCOTT PAPER Box COMPANY,
L. W. SCOTT.
u In addition to the 5 employees named above, employees Harry Reddick, Huston, Durnal,
Ezra Shaw, and Robert Branch were also instructed to report for work on Saturday
afternoon to perform certain task in connection with the Nashville rush order and pursu-
ant to such instructions these 4 employees reported.
546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The letters were delivered to the five employees by L F Scott, without com-
ment, and all employees left without comment, except Hammons, who said he
had not "quit." The record discloses that the Respondent, L. W. Scott, per-
sonally decided to terminate the employment of the five employees upon learning
of their failure to work on the afternoon of August 30, and that he personally
composed the letters.
The issues; contentions; conclusions
(a) The General Counsel contends in effect, (1) that overtime work on Satur-
day afternoons was on a voluntary basis only ; and (2) that inasmuch as the
Respondent had been informed by letters from a majority of the discharged
group that they had joined the Union; and since no employee had, prior to
September 2, 1947, ever been discharged for refusing to work overtime on Satur-
day afternoons, it necessarily followed that these five employees were discharged
for Union and/or concerted activities.
As to the first contention, the record discloses that it was customary for the
employees to work overtime on Saturday afternoons," when the occasion re-
quired it. Harry A. Reddick, called as a witness by the General Counsel, testi-
fied in substance, that when he worked overtime on Saturday afternoons, he was
always asked if he wanted to work ; that he was asked to work on Saturday
afternoon on August 30; and did so.
He testified :
Q. . . . but you did consider it your duty to come back to work?
A. I thought he needed the boxes run in order to get his order out.
Q. So you came back?
A. Yes, sir. I did.
Q. (By Mr. Keenan.) Mr. Reddick, did you have anything you wanted
to do that afternoon?
A. Yes, sir, I did, I felt it was my duty to cooperate with him if he wanted
to get an order out.
Huston Durnal, called as a witness by the General Counsel, worked on the
afternoon in question.
He testified :
Q. Were you asked to work overtime that day?
A. Well, now, Mr. L. F. Scott came down there where we were working
there and he said, "I want you fellows to run so many." I don't remember
how many, but anyhow he said, "I want you guys to work." He never called
names, but I suppose he meant all of us, and, of course, I was standing there.
Harry Westlake, also called as a witness by the General Counsel testified that
he had worked a time or two on Saturday afternoons, and had refused to work
overtime without giving a reason to this extent, "well, I usually said I did not
want to work. If he wanted me to work, to let me know ahead of time. I usually
had other plans." Westlake further testified :
Q. You would have worked if he asked you ahead of time?
A. If I didn't hear something else planned, I would work.
ss The employees ' normal workweek included Saturday forenoons , for which they received
overtime pay.
SCOTT PAPER BOX COMPANY 547
Q You would work without advance notice in an emergency, wouldn't
you?
A. In an emergency, yes.
Arthur Sowell, also called as a witness by the General Counsel, testified to the
effect that he had worked for the Respondent, off and on for 10 years ; that the
custom of working overtime " It is on a voluntary basis as far as I know" ; that
he had worked overtime "a lot of times" ; and while he did not always work over-
time when asked, he always gave a reason such as sickness , or going to a party,
or something like that.
Roy Braden, who testified at length on behalf of the General Counsel, stated
that if he had been told to come back and work on this particular Saturday he
would have done so. He testified :
Q. I don't mean ask you. If he had told you to come back and go to work?
A. Yes.
Q. You would have been there on the ball, wouldn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And you think that is any other employee's duty, don't you?
A. Yes.
It is clear from the foregoing that the Respondent's employees were required,
and it was customary for them to work overtime when so instructed, unless they
advanced a reason for not working that was satisfactory to the Respondent.
This contention is without merit.
As to the second contention, while the record does not disclose that any em-
ployees had, prior to September 2, 1947, been discharged for refusing to work
overtime on any Saturday afternoon, neither does it show that as many as 5
employees out of 9 had ever refused to work in an emergency after having been
instructed to do so. Nor does the record disclose that the 5 discharged em-
ployees were more active in Union or concerted activities than the remaining 25
production employees, thus there was no occasion to single this group out for
discharge in order to discourage membership in the Union. The fact that these
5 men were employed in operating a machine that was necessarily used in fabri-
cating the very boxes needed to complete the rush order for an old and valued
customer leads to the conclusion that they were not ordered to work and there-
after discharged after failing to work in the emergency because of their Union
or concerted activities. This contention is without merit.
Contentions of the discharged employees
Hanvmons, contended and testified that L. F. Scott came to him on Saturday,
in question, before noon and said, "I want you boys to run 10,000 sheets," and that
he told L. F. Scott that he could not work "that evening," as he was going to see
a doctor; that Scott said nothing further; and that he (Hammons) did not agree
to work. L. F. Scott testified on the other hand that Hammons said he was
going to pay on a doctor's bill, whereupon Scott told him that was not a good
excuse and asked that he call the doctor's office and put off until the following
week, "which he agreed to do." The undersigned credits L. F. Scott's testimony
in this connection.
Davis, testified that on the Saturday before Labor Day (August 30) L. F.
Scott told him to work overtime that afternoon, "Well, he just came by and said
for me to work and I did not tell him I would or would not." Davis did not
work; did not inform Scott before the afternoon shift that he was not going to
829595-50-vol. 81-36
548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work ; and offered no excuse for failing to do such work, when he reported to the
plant on September 2.
Smith, testified that he was not asked to work overtime on this particular
Saturday. The record indicates that Smith was a member of the crew working
on the press ; and that L. F. Scott talked to the men in a group, of which Smith
was a member, and that he should have heard the instructions. Moreover it
would be reasonable to suppose that the group, including Smith, discussed the
matter after L. F. Scott had issued the instructions and had left.
Assuming, arguendo, that Smith had not, in feet, heard L. F. Scott's orders for
the overtime work, and was discharged by L. W. Scott who believed that he
refused to work, after being instructed to, his discharge under such circumstances
would of itself, be no evidence that he was discharged for Union activities."
Lay testified that L. F. Scott asked him to work on the afternoon of August 30,
and that he told him that he could not work because he was going to a Union
meeting. L. F. Scott in his testimony denied that Lay had told him he was going
to a Union meeting and that Lay agreed to report for work. The record contains
no credible evidence that a Union meeting was held on the afternoon of August
30, and the undersigned being convinced that none was held, credits L. F. Scott
in this connection.
Burton testified that L. F. Scott asked if he "wanted to work Saturday after-
noon," and that, "I told him I might and I might not. I did not promise."
Since it appears that Burton was feeding the press it is most unlikely that L. F.
Scott would have accepted such an indefinite commitment from him. On the
record the undersigned does not credit Burton's testimony quoted herein, and
does credit L. F. Scott's testimony to the effect that Burton indicated that he
would work on the particular Saturday afternoon hereinbefore referred to.
On the foregoing and the record the undersigned is convinced and finds that
Hammons, Davis, Smith, Lay, and Burton were instructed to work overtime on
the afternoon of Saturday, August 30, 1947, and that each of them indicated
that he would do so.
Conclusions
The foregoing and the record discloses that it was customary for the Respond-
ent's employees upon request, to work overtime on Saturday afternoons, and
particularly in the case of an emergency ; that, as is set forth in greater detail
above, such an emergency arose on August 30,1947; that Hammons, Davis, Smith,
Lay, and Burton after being requested and instructed to work on this occasion,
either expressly or tacitly agreed to report for overtime work on this occasion;
that notwithstanding such instructions, and their agreements to report for work
as aforesaid, these employees failed and refused to report for work on the
afternoon of August 30, 1947; and that on September 2, 1947, the Respondent
discharged said Hammons, Davis, Smith, Lay, and Burton. It is so found.
From the foregoing and the entire record the undersigned concluded and finds
that the record will not support a finding that Leonard Hammons, Clifton B.
Davis, T. E. Smith, Dewey Lay, and George Burton were discharged by the
Respondent on September 2, 1947, by reason of their Union membership or
activities ; and that by such discharge the Respondent has not violated Section
8 (1) and (3) of the Wagner Act or Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Amended
Act. It will be recommended below that the complaint be dismissed insofar as
it so alleges.
Is Prior to August 26, Smith had not been employed by the Respondent for some 4 or 5
years ; and had not participated in the events of August 15 to 26.
SCOTT PAPER BOX COMPANY 549
(2) The strike; the alleged discriminatory refusal to rehire the strikers
The complaint alleges in effect that by the alleged discriminatory discharge
on September 2, of Hammons, Davis, Smith, Lay, and Burton, the Respondent
caused an unfair labor practice strike of his employees on September 3, and
that by refusing to reinstate the employees on September 5, he has discrimi-
nated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment.
The record discloses that on August 30 the Respondent requested and in-
structed a group of 9 employees to work overtime on that afternoon. As is found
elsewhere herein 5 of the 9 employees failed to report, and were discharged by
the Respondent on September 2. The undersigned finds above that such dis-
charges were not discriminatory.
On the night of September 2 the Union employees at a meeting determined
to demand the reinstatement of the discharged group or that two other em-
ployees, namely, Irby Rogers and A. D. Bugh, whom it was claimed had also been
instructed to work overtime on the afternoon of August 30, and had not done
so, be discharged. A committee composed of Employees Harry Westlake, Roy
Braden and Arthur Sowell was appointed to call on L. F. Scott on September 3
and submit such demands.
On September 3 the committee of 3 called on L. F. Scott and demanded that he
either reinstate the 5 employees who were discharged on September 2, or to dis-
charge Rogers and Bugh.
L. F. Scott refused to grant either demand, whereupon Sewell pulled the whistle
cord, with the result that the Union group quit work, and immediately set up a
picket line.
On the morning of September 5 those employees who went out on strike on Sep-
tember 3, together with 4 of the 5 discharged employees, whose discharge had
occasioned the strike, namely, Hammons, Smith, Burton, and Lay, went to the
plant in a group to request reinstatement. Westlake, who was spokesman for
the group, testified that when the men returned to the plant in a body on Sep-
tember 5, they found L. F. Scott "-sitting in a car there, and I told him that we
were returning to work and were ready to go to work." Westlake further
testified :
Q. What did he say?
A. He says, "Things are just like they were and I have no further order
and you men will have to get out and stay out."
Q. Were you spokesman for the entire group?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you attach any conditions to your offer to return to work?
A. No, sir.
Four of the five discharged men were in the group on this occasion. In connec-
tion with the offer of the men to go to work, Smith testified ;
Q. What did you go down there that morning for?
A. I went down to go to work.
Q. Was it your understanding that if the rest of them went to work, you
would go to work too?
A. That was it.
Q. All of you to go to work?
A. Yes, Sir.
550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. All or none, wasn't it?
A. That is right, I reckon.
Burton testified :
Q. Were you down there yourself ready to go to work?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you understand that if the rest of them went to work, you were
going to work too?
A. Yes, Sir.
Lay testified that he was in the group that went to the plant on September 5,
and Hammons testified that he was present and was ready to go back to work.
Employee Huston Durnal, called as a witness by the General Counsel, testified
that he went out on strike and "went back at the time we all went back (Sep-
tember 5) to put Mr. Hammons and those boys back to work," thus indicating
that he understood that the discharged group was included with the strikers as
the group who offered to return to work.
Following L. F. Scott's statement to the effect that he had no orders and that
the assembled employees would have to get out and stay out, the latter returned
to the picket line and maintained it until on or about February 1948, during which
time none of the striking employees personally applied for reinstatement to their
former jobs.
The issues ; contentions ; conclusions
The General Counsel in effect contends: (1) that the strike of September 3
began and continued as an unfair labor practice strike : (2) that the striking
employees made an unconditional offer to return to work on September 5, and
that by refusing to reinstate the strikers on September 5, the Respondent dis-
criminated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment.
As to the first contention , the undersigned has found in Section III B (1)
above that by the discharge of Hammons, Davis, Smith, Lay and Burton, the
Respondent did not discriminate in regard to their hire and tenure of employ-
ment. Under these circumstances, the discharge having been for cause and
therefore legal, may not and do not make the strike of September 3 and there-
after an unfair labor practice strike. This contention is without merit.
As to the second contention, the record discloses that neither the Union or the
strikers ever withdrew their demand for the reinstatement of the discharged em-
ployees hereinbefore named ; that 4 of the 5 men so discharged were included
in the group that sought reinstatement on September 5 testified that they ex-
pected to be returned to work if the strikers were reinstated ; and that West-
lake in his offer to return the group to work on September 5, did not exclude the
discharged men present with and in the group from his offer nor did he limit
his offer to strikers only. Under such circumstances Westlake's offer amounted
to a demand that both strikers and discharged employees be reinstated, in effect
an offer that the strikers would return to work if the discharged employees were
reinstated, and thus a conditional rather than an unconditional offer." Since
the Respondent's denial of reinstatement was not in violation of Section 8 (3)
of the Wagner Act or of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Amended Act," this contention
is without merit.
14 Matter of V-C Milling Company, 43 N. L. R. B . 348. See Matter of Wilson & Co. Inc.,
77 N. L. R. B. 959.
"The only concrete proposal in this connection either written or oral made on behalf of
the Union or the strikers , was made by Floyd in a letter dated November 17, 1947, addressed
SCOTT PAPER BOX COMPANY
Conclusion
551
From the foregoing and entire record the undersigned concludes and finds
that by refusing on September 5, 1947, to reinstate the strikers who went on
strike on September 3, 1947 and those employed were discharged on September
2, 1947, the Respondent did not discriminate with regard to their hire and
tenure of employment as alleged in the complaint. It will be recommended
below that the complaint, insofar as it so alleges, be dismissed.
(3) The discharge of two truck drivers on October 18
The complaint alleges the discriminatory discharge of truck drivers, James
Taylor and M. L. Kinney on October 18.
Taylor was hired as a truck driver by L. W. Scott on April 15, 1947. He joined
the Union before August 15. He was not required to punch the time clock and
was not present at L. F. Scott's time clock speech. He worked during the
August 15 to August 26 period at which time Union members and adherents were
idle as a result of the lock-out. He also worked during the strike which started
on September 3 until his lay off or discharge on October 18, during which time
he continuously crossed the picket line 19 set up by the Union. On Saturday,
October 18, when Taylor brought his truck to the plant, Blake told him to report
back on Monday, October 20.
Kinney was employed by the Respondent on June 1, 1946, as a truck driver
and worked as such until October 18, 1947. He like Taylor joined the Union;
continued at work during the lock-out ; and although he was a member of the
Union did not join in the strike. He repeatedly crossed the Union's picket line
in the same manner and for the same reasons as did Taylor 1° When Kinney
brought his truck to the plant on October 18, there was nobody but the watch-
men present. Kinney parked his truck and went home. He returned to the
plant Monday, October 20, and asked Blake where he was going that day.
Blake said he was not going anywhere, as "Mr. Scott is going to sell the truck."
Blake asked both Taylor and Kinney for their "cards" and keys and told
them their checks would be in the office for them.
Both Taylor and Kinney testified that they had not informed Scott that they
had joined the Union. The record indicates that Taylor had been a member of
a union at his last place of employment before L. W. Scott hired him; and that
the Respondent knew the employees of such Company were organized.
The record discloses that the Respondent did not sell the trucks after the dis-
charge of Taylor and Kinney. In this connection L. W. Scott testified that he
found out that used trucks would not bring the amounts that he had anticipated
they would and since he did not wish to take the loss their sale would require, he
retained them.
L. W. Scott further testified that he discontinued making his own deliverieg
in October 1947, because as a result of the strike his production had decreased
Leffel Gentry, attorney, who acted for the Respondent herein, only to the extent that he
would receive and transmit proposals. Such letter proposed that the Union would with-
draw all charges providing the Respondent post a notice in the form usually provided in
Board orders where Respondents have been found to have violated the Act. The proposed
notice further provided that the Respondent would reinstate all strikers and the five
employees discharged September 2, 1947. Thus it will be seen that as late as November
17, 1947, the Union was insisting on the condition that the 5 dischargees be reinstated.
16 Taylor testified that he and Kinney did not join the strike on advice of Organizer
Floyd who told them to "go ahead and work."
11 See footnote next above.
552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and it was more advantageous to ship by common carrier railroads and trucks
than to maintain full time operations of his own trucks. The undersigned credits
L. W. Scott's testimony given in connection with the discharge of Taylor and
Kinney.
The General Counsel does not contend that there is any evidence in the record
to the effect that the Respondent know Taylor and Kinney were "Union men";
but contends that the manner of their discharge indicates "that it could not have
but for any other reason than Union activities, and therefore, the Company must
have known of their Union activities." This contention is without merit.
From the foregoing the undersigned concludes and finds that the record will not
support a finding that Taylor and Kinney or either of them, were discharged on
October 18, 1947 because of their Union membership or activities ; and that b3*
such discharges the Respondent has not violated Section 8 (1) and (3) of the
Wagner Act or Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Amended Act. It will be recom-
mended below that the Complaint insofar as it so alleges, be dismissed.
(4) The refusal to rehire Adeline Lockridge and Louise Bradley
The complaint alleges, in substance, that on or about July 30, 1947, the Respond-
ent laid off Adeline Lockridge and Louise Bradley and on August 29, 1947, and
thereafter refused to reinstate them because of their Union and concerted
activities.
The record discloses without contradiction that Lockridge and Bradley had
been employed by the Respondent on its night shift ; that the night shift was
discontinued in July; and those two girls were laid off.
Lockridge and Bradley did not testify at the hearing and neither has ever made
personal application for reemployment. Insofar as the record discloses, the only
word the Respondent has received concerning the desire of either Lockridge or
Bradley for reemployment, Is contained in a letter written by Floyd, as follows:
Mr. L. W. SCOTT, General Manager, SCOTT PAPER Box COMPANY,
1819-28 East 17th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas.
DEAR MR SCOTT: It is my understanding that you have hired additional
help and possibly plan to hire more help, so I take this means to advise you
that Mrs. Adeline Lockridge, who lives beside your plant , and Miss Louise
Bradley at 1211 College Street, are members of our Union.
It is my understanding that when you discontinued the night shift in your
plant and these employees were laid off, that you informed them that when
you began rehiring, you would be glad to reemploy them. I am advising
you of their membership , hoping that you will reemploy them before hiring
any other help.
Yours very truly,
(s) FRED E. FroYD.
L. F. Scott was the only witness that testified concerning Lockridge and Bradley.
He testified that they worked on the night shift, . . . but not very long" ; that
the night shift was discontinued ; some of the night shift crew were transferred
to the day shift ; that these two girls were not needed ; and were laid off.
L. F. Scott further testified that he had no recollection of having told the two
at the time he laid them off "that if there would be more work needed, he would
rehire them:'
Since Lockridge and Bradley did not testify, and L. F. Scott's testimony stands
uncontradicted, the undersigned cannot upon the record herein, find that the two
SCOTT PAPER BOX COMPANY 553
were promised reemployment or that the Respondent had work which either
Lockridge or Bradley were capable of performing.
The record will not support a finding that the Respondent refused to reemploy
Lockridge or Bradley because of their Union or concerted activities. It is so
found . It will be recommended below, that the complaint be dismissed , insofar
as it so alleges.
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 described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices
the undersigned will recommend that he cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative actions designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The undersigned has found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of the 29 employees named in Appendix A by dis-
charging and locking them out and refusing them employment between August
15 and August 26, 1947, unless and until they submitted to interrogations by
Superintendent L. F. Scott, and by such submission said employees were re-
quired to tacitly agree that they did "not want a union," and thereby conditioned
their future employment upon their lack of union affiliation.
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act it will be recommended that the
Respondent make each of the employees named in Appendix A whole for any loss
of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against
them by payment to them and each of them of a sum of money equivalent to that
which he normally would have earned as wages from August 15, 1947 to August
26, 1947, less his net earnings during such period.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in the case,
the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers,
A. F. L. is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of those
employees listed in "Appendix A," thereby discouraging membership in Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, A. F. L., the Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act prior to amendment, and of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Amended Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing his employees in the exer-
cise of the right guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act the Respondent has ena
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (1) of the Wagner Act, and Section 8 (a) (1) of the Amended Act.
4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent, by on September 2, 1947, terminating the employment of
Leonard Hammons , Clifton B. Davis, T. E. Smith, Dewey Lay, and George Bur-
554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ton ; by on August 29, 1947, refusing to rehire Adeline Lockridge and Louise
Bradley ; by on or about October 18, 1947, terminating the employment of James
Taylor and M. L. Kinney ; and by on September 5, 1947, refusing to reinstate
those employees who went on strike on September 3, 1947, all as is found and
set forth hereinbefore, did not discriminate in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of said employees in violation of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Wag-
ner Act or Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Amended Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that L W. Scott, doing
business as Scott Paper Box Company, the Respondent herein, his officers, agents,
successors , and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite,
and Paper Mill Workers, A. F. L., by discharging and locking out, and thereafter
conditioning future employment of his employees upon their lack of Union affilia-
tion or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of their employment.
(b) Interrogating his employees concerning their union affiliations, activities,
or sympathies, or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights to self organization, to form labor
organizations , to join or assist International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and
Paper Mill Workers, A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities, for the purposes of collective bargaining or other concerted
activities, for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act,
(a) Make whole those employees listed in "Appendix A" for any loss of pay
they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent' s discrimination against
them in the manner provided in the section entitled "The remedy" ;
(b) Post at his plant at Little Rock, Arkansas, copies of the notice attached
hereto marked "Appendix C." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director of the Fifteenth Region, after being signed by the Respond-
ent's representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in writing, within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the re-
ceipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies said Regional Director
in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take action
aforesaid.
It is further recommended that insofar as the complaint alleges that the Re-
spondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Leonard Hammons, Clifton B. Davis, T. E. Smith, Dewey Lay, and George Burton
SCOTT PAPER BOX COMPANY 555
by terminating their employment on September 2, 1947; by refusing to rehire
Adeline Lockridge and Louise Bradley on August 29, 1947; by terminating the
employment of James Taylor and M. L. Kinney on or about October 18, 1947,
and by refusing on September 5, 1947, to reinstate those employees who went on
strike on September 3, 1947, that it be dismissed.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 5, effective August 22, 1947, any party may, within
twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to
the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with
the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C,, an original and six
copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate
Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon
all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and six
copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within the same period,
file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the
party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties.
Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be
promptly made as required by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Sec-
tion 203.46 should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board,
request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days
from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions
and order, and all objections and exceptions thereto shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
Pis F. WARD,
Trial Examiner.
Dated July 27, 1948.
Floyd Beavers
Roy F. Braden
George W. Burton
Clifton Davis
Huston Durnal
Wm. Eskridge
Leonard Hammons
Dewey Lay
Marthell Murphy
Roy Pearson
Eual Qualls
Harry A. Reddick
J. D. Reddick
Clarence Roberts
Floyd Beavers
Roy Fred Braden
George Burton
Clifton B. Davis
APPENDIX A
Harvey Rogers
Irby Rodgers
Andrew Sims
Henry Sims
Arthur Sewell
Arthur F. Stancil
Leroy Titsworth
Harry Westlake
V. O. Ables
Lola Hendrixson
Odessa McGinty
Kathleen McMillian
Merl V. Richerson
Beatrice Wells
APPENDIX B
Huston Durnal
William George Eskridge
Leonard Hammons
Dewey Lay
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Marthel Murphy
Roy O. Pearson
Eual Q'ualis
Harry Reddick
J. D. Reddick
Clarence Roberts
Harvey E. Rogers
Irby Rodgers
Andrew Sims
Henry Sims
Arthur Sewell
Leroy H. Titsworth
Harry Westlake
Lola Hendrixson
Odessa McGinty
Kathleen McMillian
Merl V. Richerson
Beatrice Wells
(John A. Burton and Robert Stancil also received such a letter . Their names
were stricken from the complaint on motion of the General Counsel.)
APPENDIX C
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE AND PAPER
MILL WORKERS, A. F. L. to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL make whole those employees listed on Appendix A of the Inter-
mediate Report of the Trial Examiner in the manner directed by the Trial
Examiner. A copy of said Intermediate Report is on file in our office and
may be examined by all interested employees during business hours.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-
named union or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment against any employee because of mem-
bership in or activity on behalf of such labor organization.
SCOTT PAPER Box COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------------ By ------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for sixty days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.