St. Regis Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 818 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sherman Division , St. Regis Paper Company and
Printing Specialties & Paper Products Union No.
415, affiliated with the International Printing Press-
men & Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-
CIO and Workers Committee Group
Sherman Division , St. Regis Paper Company and
Printing Specialties & Paper Products Union No.
415, affiliated with the International Printing Press-
men and Assistants ' Union of North America, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner . Cases 13-CA-9952 a nd 13-RC-
12178
June 30, 1971
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
On December 15, 1970, Trial Examiner John F.
Funke issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at-
tached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner
also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
and recommended that such allegations be dismissed.
Finally, the Trial Examiner found that certain conduct
of Respondent, after the petition in Case 13-RC-12178
had been filed, interfered with the election and recom-
mended that the election be set aside and that the case
be remanded to the Regional Director for Region 13 for
such action as he may deem appropriate. Thereafter,
the General Counsel and the Charging Union filed ex-
ceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and support-
ing briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers
in connection with these cases to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the
entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, subject to additions and modifications
set forth below:
The Trial Examiner's inadvertent error in referring at certain points to
the meetings of June 10 and 11 as having occurred in July did not affect his
conclusions or our agreement therewith
We agree with, and adopt, the Trial Examiner's
findings that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(2) of the Act by promising and granting certain
benefits to the employees at meetings with the Workers
Committee Group, which conduct strengthened the
prestige and position of the Committee as against the
Charging Union. On the basis of the uncontradicted
testimony of employee Willie Carlson, and her minutes
of the meetings between Respondent and the Commit-
tee, we find, in agreement with the General Counsel,
that Respondent similarly violated the Act by the fol-
lowing additional conduct:
(a) Respondent's statements at the June 19 Respond-
ent-Committee meeting that "the Company would see
about hiring a jeep driver," that the Company would
review the entire seniority structure, and that "the
Committee could act as a review board on seniority."
(b) Respondent's statements at the June 26 meeting
that "the Committee had the power to negotiate with
Management" and that "the jeep driver's job will be
open to plant employees after the vacation."
(c) Respondent's action, at the July 20 meeting, al-
lowing the Committee to act as the seniority review
board on service and reemployment cases, and its state-
ment "that it was dropping departmental seniority and
that plant seniority would be used at all times."
THE REMEDY
We have found, in agreement with the Trial Exam-
iner, that the Respondent engaged in certain conduct
violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, and
accordingly we adopt the remedial recommendations in
that regard. However, as we have found that the Re-
spondent engaged in certain other conduct violative of
Section 8(a)(1) and (2), we shall order the Respondent
to cease and desist from engaging in such conduct.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the record as a whole, we adopt the Trial Ex-
aminer's Conclusions of Law except that we adopt the
following in lieu of Conclusion of Law 1(c) of the Trial
Examiner's Conclusions of Law:
1(c) Promising or granting its employees benefits in
working conditions to induce them to reject the Print-
ing Specialities & Paper Products Union No. 415 or
any other labor organization as their exclusive bargain-
ing representative.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the NationaiLabor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Taborxllations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Orders of'
the Trial Examiner, and hereby, orders-that: the, Re-^
spondent, Sherman- Division, St. Regis Paper - Com--
pany, Bridgeview, ,Illinois, its officers, agents, succes-
191 NLRB No. 114
SHERMAN DIV., ST. REGIS PAPER CO. 819
sors, and assigns , shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's recommended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be,
and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges viola-
tions of the Act not found herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election con-
ducted herein on July 2, 1970, be, and it hereby is, set
aside.
[Direction of Second Election2 omitted from publica-
tion.]
MEMBER BROWN, dissenting in part:
Unlike my colleagues, I would find merit in the ex-
ceptions of the General Counsel and the Union to the
failure of the Trial Examiner to find that the Workers
Committee Group was dominated by the Respondent
and to order its disestablishment . As I view the record
evidence, it adequately supports the conclusion that the
Respondent was overly active in both the formation
and administration of the Committee, far exceeding the
limits of mere permissible cooperation , particularly
since all the events occurred in the face of the organiza-
tional drive of the Charging Party.
' In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their ad-
dresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Underwear
Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N.L R B v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759.
Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, containing
the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the
Employer with the Regional Director for Region 13, within 7 days after the
date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director.
The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the
election . No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional
Director except in extraordinary circumstances . Failure to comply with this
requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper
objections are filed.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN F. FUNKE, Trial Examiner : Upon a charge filed July
9, 1970, by Printing Specialties and Paper Products Union
No. 415 , herein the Union, against Sherman Division, St.
Regis Paper Company, herein the Company , the General
Counsel issue complaint in Case 13-CA-9952, dated August
28, 1970, alleging the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(2) of the Act. The answer of the Company denied the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to a petition filed May 25, 1970, in Case 13-RC-
12178, and an election conducted thereafter on July 2, 1970,
the Union filed objections to conduct affecting the results of
said election on July 8, 1970 . On August 31, 1970 , the Re-
gional Director for Region 13 issued an order consolidating
said cases and.a_notice of,hearing . before a Trial Examiner.
This proceeding , with the General Counsel , the Union, and
the Company represented ,, was heard by me at Chicago, Il-
linois, on October 7 and -8, 1970. At the conclusion of the
hearing the parties were given leave to file briefs, and briefs
were received on -November 18.
Upon the entire record in this case ' and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses while testifying, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND THE OBJECTIONS
A. The Facts
The allegations of violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) are
grounded on testimony which is also used to support the
objections to the election . The most practical way of separat-
ing the testimony is between that respecting the general meet-
ings between Company and all employees (held June 10, 11,
and 30, and July 1 ) and the meetings between the Company
and the Workers Committee Group , herein the Committee
(held June 19, 26, and July 20).2 With this division in mind
the evidence has been treated in chronological order. The
cases rest largely on the testimony of Willie Carlson, an em-
ployee and secretary to the Committee , which was compre-
hensive and credible to such a degree that it was not subject
to substantial attack by any of the parties.
1. The general meetings
June 10. Carlson testified that she attended the first meet-
ing called by the Company to address all the employees. It
was held on June 10 in the company cafeteria about 3 p.m.
so that members of both shifts might be present . Representing
the Company at this meeting were Robert E . Jackson, coun-
sel, Arthur Lytle , regional general manager, Sherman divi-
sion, and Bruce Boerner, regional industrial relations
manager for the midwest division of St . Regis Paper. Fore-
men Maida and Donskis were also present but did not partici-
pate. Jackson first informed the employees that there was
going to be an election and that if anyone had any questions
"this was the time to ask them ." Jackson also informed them
that Mr. Pearson , former personnel and production manager
for the Sherman division, was no longer with the Company.
Carlson could not , remember what questions were asked but
when her memory was refreshed by her pretrial affidavit Carl-
son recalled that , Albert Plochl said the employees wanted a
committee and asked if they could form a committee. Lytle
told him that he could not do that and neither could any
representative of the Company but that the employees could
do what they wanted to do. Plochl then asked all the repre-
sentatives of management to leave to the room . Carlson nomi-
nated Plochl as chairman of the committee and he was ac-
cepted by the employees. Plochl told them he thought a
representative from each section of the Company should be
represented and two members were selected from each of the
five departments (one member from each shift). Carlson was
appointed secretary.
' Counsel for the General Counsel has moved to correct the record herein
in certain respects . There being no opposition the motion is hereby granted
and attached hereto as Appendix D [omitted from publication]
I The minutes of these meetings were received as G C . Exhs . 2-a, 2-b,
and 3. They have been attached hereto as Appendixes A, B, and C.
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On cross-examination by Jackson, Carlson testified that
Jackson told the employees at this first meeting that the
Company could make no promises at that time and each
employee would have to make up his own mind how he
should vote in the election. Jackson also encouraged ques-
tions from the employees but Carlson could not recall the
specific questions.
Albert Plochl, chairman of the Committee, testified that he
attended the June 10 meeting, that Lytle told them a union
was trying to get in and wanted to know what the gripes were.
Plochl thought one of the complaints raised at the meeting
concerned a 19¢ raise which had either been promised or
indicated by the Company but which had not been imple-
mented, at least not to all the employees. The employees were
told nothing could be done until after the election. Plochl
asked if the employees could form their own committee to
submit grievances and were told by Lytle that that was up to
them and that he thought it was a good idea. Plochl then
testified that Carlson asked him if he would be chairman and
he was elected chairman by a vote of the employees. Plochl's
original testimony was that Lytle and Jackson were still
present when he was elected but on cross-examination he
corrected his testimony and stated his election took place
after management left the room. Following his election
Plochl asked that committee members be elected, two from
each department, and the elections were held. Plochl then
notified management of the election and told the committee
members to collect gripes for presentation to management.'
Chester T. Henry, an employee, testified that he attended
the June 10 meeting and that Jackson told them a union was
trying to get in and that if they had gripes they should bring
them up. He also told them Mr. Pearson had been let go.
Plochl asked if it was all right for the employees to form a
committee and Lytle said it was all right with him and asked
Plochl to form a committee.'
On cross-examination, when questioned about the purpose
of the July 10 meeting, Henry admitted that Jackson ex-
plained that the Company was meeting at the National Labor
Relations Board the next day to make arrangements for an
election.
Joseph Cronin, an employee and a member of the Commit-
tee, testified that he attended the meeting of July 10. After his
recollection was refreshed' and in response to leading ques-
tions by the General Counsel, he testified that Lytle told the
employees that the meeting was called to iron out some diffi-
culties and asked the employees what their gripes were.
Plochl, according to Cronin, asked Lytle if the employees
could form a committee and Lytle said it was agreeable. Lytle
suggested that an employee be elected from each department
and suggested a chairman.
Mike Heavrin, an employee, testified that he attended the
first meeting in the cafeteria and that Jackson told the em-
ployees that the Company had been good to them and that
their main problem (Mr. Pearson) was gone. He testified that
Jackson told them Pearson had never done anything and that
after the last election (an election had been held over one year
' Plochl stated that there had been, prior to this meeting, informal discus-
sions among the employees about the desirability of forming an employees'
committee and that on June 3 he broached the subject to Lytle, who was
agreeable.
' Henry's testimony as to Lytle's request to Plochl is not supported by
any other testimony and is disregarded Henry did testify that Plochl was
elected after management representatives left the room, but there is some
confusion in his testimony as to whether this took place on July 10 or 11.
Credible testimony indicates the election of the Committee took place on
July 10.
3 It was refreshed from his pretrial affidavit which was certainly at vari-
ance with some of his testimony given before refreshment
ago and had been lost by the Union) he had been supposed
to organize a union and had never done it. Plochl then raised
certain questions and Jackson suggested they form a commit-
tee and that Plochl be its chairman. Heavrin then testified
that a day or two later at another general meeting with the
employees the Committee was formed after the supervisors
had left the room.'
For the Company, Lytle testified that he and Plochl had
discussed the subject of an employees' committee several
times prior to June 10 and that he approved of the idea. As
to the general meetings with employees his testimony, as to
the meetings of June 10 and 11, was that he could not recol-
lect what he said apart from introducing Jackson.
Bruce Boerner, regional manager of industrial relations,
testified that Jackson acted as spokesman for the Company
on June 10 and told the employees he wanted to get a feeling
from the employees to determine the position the Company
would take at the meeting with the Regional Office of the
Board the next day. There were questions from the floor
which Jackson answered, and, concerning a committee, Jack-
son neither suggested a committee nor suggested that Plochl
be chairman and told them the Company could not partici-
pate in its formation. He did say the Company would talk to
the employees' committee. Later Plochl told them a Commit-
tee had been elected and wanted to meet with the Company.
June 11. Following the meeting at the Board office at
which a consent election was scheduled, Lytle, Jackson,
Boemer, and the foremen again met with the employees in the
cafeteria. Mike Heavrin testified that at this meeting Jackson
told them the date of the election, but as to other matters
relevant to the election Heavrin had no recollection. He could
recall that Jackson told them they could make up their, own
minds and to ask questions if they had any. No other tes-
timony was offered at this meeting of any relevance to the
issues.
June 30. This was not a general meeting since it was
confined to the night-shift employees but it is so classified to
distinguish it from the Committee meetings . Mike Heavrin
testified that when the employees reported for the night shift
on June 30 they were told by Wally Donskis, night-shift
foreman, to go to the cafeteria when the buzzer sounded.
Only Donskis and the shift employees were present. Donskis
told them what the Company had done for them and that
they would get along all right without the Union. He re-
minded them that he had punched out for them when they
wanted to leave early. On examination by counsel for the
Charging Party Heavrin stated that Donskis told them that
if the Union got in he would no longer be able to punch out
for them and that they would have to go to work. Donskis
did not testify.
July 1. On July 1, the date before the election, another
meeting of the employees was called in the cafeteria. Carlson
testified that Lytle, Jackson, and Boerner represented the
Company and that all the employees were present. Jackson
asked the employees to be sure to vote the next day and
explained that void ballots would not be counted. Questions
were invited and one employee asked that the minutes of the
Committee's meetings with management be available. Carl-
son replied that they had been posted on the bulletin board
and the employees should take the trouble to read them.'
Lytle told her that if she was having difficulty with typing
5 In response to interrogation by Jackson as to what took place at the
meetings on June 10 and 11 Heavrin answered 10 questions by stating he
could not remember. Where his testimony is contradicted by that of other
witnesses it is not credited
' These "minutes" were typed by Carlson from the notes she had taken
at the meetings
SHERMAN DIV., ST. REGIS PAPER CO. 821
(Carlson typed them on her own time) she should see his
secretary about making sufficient copies for distribution.' The
copies of the minutes were received as General Counsel's
Exhibits 2-a, 2-b , and 2-c, the last being a brief summary of
achievements of the Committee rather than minutes . (Exhs.
2-a and 2-b are Appendixes A and B.)
Plochl testified that at this meeting Jackson told the em-
ployees the Committee was doing a good job and could con-
tinue to do a good job and that Lytle told Carlson his secre-
tary could help her with the minutes.
Chester Henry testified that Jackson gave them instruc-
tions on the voting procedure and also told them that if the
Union got in and called a strike a member could be fined
$1,000 for crossing the picket line. He corroborated previous
testimony that they were told the Committee was doing a
good job and that Lytle 's secretary could provide help with
the minutes.'
Lytle testified that the question of the minutes was raised
at this meeting and that he told Carlson his secretary would
run off copies of the minutes and that Jackson told the em-
ployees it had been held that a union could fine its members
one thousand dollars for crossing a picket line.
2. The committee meetings
The committee meetings were held in the plant conference
room and the members were paid for their time in attendance.
The substance of the meetings has been capsulized in the
minutes taken by Carlson , Appendixes A, B, and C, attached,
and will be further capsulized here.
June 19. The first problem raised at the July 19 meeting
was that of the 19 -cent raise which was to have been given
employees on their anniversary dates. Management promised
to work out a solution.
As to equipment, Lytle told the members that a lift truck,
a hand truck , and new pallets had been ordered.
An additional jeep driver was proposed and the minutes
reflect "It is a very good point and was well taken."
The plastic and finishing department wanted a paid lunch
period with the same starting and quitting time as other
departments . Management would look into this situation.
The members were told that lights for the parking lot had
been ordered that would be installed in about 1 week.
Press operators complained that wages were inequitable in
that some newer employees were getting higher rates than
older employees . Management agreed to review seniority.
The members complained of the vending service and re-
quested new chairs and tables for the cafeteria . Management
agreed to "see to this matter."
Complaints were submitted as to equipment failure in the
corrugating department and the plastics department. The
response of management was not noted.
An additional help was requested as chopper operator.
Management would look into it.
The first aid room was described as a "disaster area" and
corrections proposed.
It was suggested that the pension plan be better explained
and management promised to 'supply booklets.
Attic fans were proposed to circulate steam . This was re-
jected.
8 Louise, the secretary , did make copies for Carlson and the next day
Carlson placed them on a table "downstairs" where the employees could
pick them up The General Counsel elicited the vital testimony that the
Committee did not pay for the paper or ink for the copies.
' This testimony was corroborated on all points by Keither Schipits,
another employee, and Mike Heavrin.
A new mattress was requested for the first aid room. One
had been ordered but not received.
The shipping department presented wage grievances and
management agreed to pursue the matter.
Sick pay was refused.
Cost-of-living raises were to be compensated for by the
19-cent raise. The entire rate structure would be reviewed.
Paid insurance was postponed for further discussion.
Delay in the payment of hospitalization insurance by the
insurer was discussed and action postponed.
June 26. The 19-cent raise was set aside.
A new lift truck and 100 new pallets had been received. As
to the lift operator management said this should be postponed
until after the shutdown . The job would be posted.
Shift schedules would be rearranged so all employees
would start and finish at the same time.
Management was undertaking a new system for making
bags by automation.
A slowdown of machinery to allow employees to take
breaks was proposed and a trial period was suggested.
Parking lights would be installed in about 60 days,
Seniority was to be fixed by department as to brief layoffs,
by plant as to long ones.
Jobs and rates would be reclassified.
The vending machine was being taken care of and new
tables and chairs had been ordered.
Aluminum blocks and bolts were ordered for the plastic
department and repairs would be made during the shutdown.
The first aid room was being renovated and a recliner
ordered.
A new vacuum system for the plastic department was being
studied.
Explanations would be given any employee who did not
understand the pension booklet.
The Company could not pay full insurance charges.
July 20. At this meeting the Committee was informed that
the Union had filed charges against the Company and the
Committee members said they would defend the Company.
It would be kept informed as to the proceedings.
Management would be careful about committments but
would fulfill any that did not jeopardize its position before the
Board.
Painting and repairs had been accomplished during the
shutdown.
The new couch had been received but the tables and chairs
had not.
Lights for the parking lot were expected to be installed
during the next week and gravel had been poured on the lot.
Management worked out a system for the anniversary
raise. (Set forth).
Shift changes would be made effective August 3.
Plant seniority would be followed at all times.
3. The poster
Mike Heavrin testified that when he entered the plant on
July 1 he saw a poster (G. C. Exh. 5) hanging over a table
in the entrance hallway. This poster, a cartoon , indicated that
employees at two of Respondent's other plants had to pay $30
initiation fees to enjoy the benefits of employment while those
at the plant affected did not.
Bruce Boerner, who dealt with Local 415 as the representa-
tive of the employees at the Company's plant at Cicero and
Bridgeview, testified that the union contracts at those plants
contained union -security clauses under which the Company
deducted $30 in initiation fees from the employees after 30
days of employment.
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Harold Koons, an organizer for the Union, stated the em-
ployees at Cicero and Bridgeview were not required to pay an
initiation fee. He did not attempt to explain the requirements
of the union-security or checkoff clauses nor was the contract
offered in evidence.
B. Conclusions
1. Independent violations of Section 8(a)(1)
The complaint herein, based on facts which are reasonably
simple and clear, sets forth in 10 separate Roman -numerated
paragraphs 65 separate allegations of conduct violative of the
Act. The allegations which allege violations of Section 8(a)(1)
and 8(a)(2) have been commingled and intermingled without
distinction. This paragraph will consider those allegations
which refer to violations of Section 8(a)(1) apart from Re-
spondent's conduct which is also alleged to be in violation of
Section 8(a)(2).
I find Foreman Donskis violated the Act by telling his
employees on June 30 that he would no longer punch out for
them when they left early (presumably in violation of com-
pany regulations) and that they would have to work if the
Union came in. The statement respecting punching out
threatened the withdrawal of a special privilege in retaliation
for unionization and was therefore coercive. The statement
that they would have to work implies that their working
conditions might be sterner and their working pace ac-
celerated and is, to this extent, coercive.10 I find the General
Counsel's description of these threats as "dire" to be a typical
exaggeration.
I reject the contention of the General Counsel that Jack-
son's statement respecting union fines was violative of the
Act. I do not believe that Jackson's statement was to the effect
that the employees "would be fined" $1,000 if they crossed
a picket line. Heavrin, whose recollection was poor through-
out his testimony, as has been stated, testified that Jackson
said "something about if the union goes on strike if we cross
the picket line we'd be fined up to a thousand dollars." Schi-
pits testified that Jackson told them "you could be fined a
thousand dollars for this:" Henry also testified that Jackson
told them they "could" be fined $ 1,000 in response to a
question from the floor by an employee. I find no misrepre-
sentation in this statement even accepting the testimony of
the General Counsel's witnesses. I cannot refrain from the
comment that I think the General Counsel's brief distorts this
incident and I find the Charging Party's brief more accurate.
In any event the U.S. Supreme Court in Allis-Chalmers"
upheld, with certain implied qualifications, the right of a
union to impose fines upon members who cross picket lines
and in Arrow Development12 the Board refused to pass on the
reasonableness of fines which might be imposed. A fine in the
amount of $100 per day could quickly reach the sum of
$1,000 and I do not think counsel for Respondent misrepre-
sented the law on this subject. I do not know how the em-
ployees would have benefited by a citation of cases and courts,
as suggested by the General Counsel.
The complaint further alleges that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) by posting, on or about July 1, a poster (G.
C. Exh. 5) which "impliedly communicated" to the em-
ployees that they would be required to pay an initiation fee
of $30 if the Union "came in." The contention is made that
the poster was a misrepresentation of the facts. It is true, or
° Fire Alert Co, 182 NLRB 218.
N.L.R.B. v Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U.S 175
z 185 NLRB No 22. The Board passed the question of the reasonable-
ness of fines to local courts for decision , thereby entrusting a facet of na-
tional labor policy to courts of limited jurisdiction
at least the contrary was not proved, that employees at a
newly organized plant were not required to pay initiation fees
or dues. It is equally true, or at least the contrary was not
proved, that Respondent had contracts with the Union at two
of its other plants in the area which requiredthat the Re-
spondent collect and pay to the Union $30 initiation fee after
30 days employment. Under these circumstances I find the
contention that this poster constituted a misrepresentation of
fact no more than quibbling. This nation has survived na-
tional elections in which a large part of the campaign was
grounded on misrepresentation of fact and policy and the
good judgment of the electorate seems usually to' have pre-
vailed. While I do not think that such permissiveness accepta-
ble in Board elections, neither do I think, as the Board appar-
ently does, that the American workingman is so fully
indentured to his employer that he has neither the sense to
evaluate propaganda nor the courage to withstand it."
2. Violations of Section 8(a)(2)
a. The Committee as a labor organization
The Committee was formed not in part but wholly for the
purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, wages, rate of pay, hours and condi-
tions of work. Although the Committee lacked the formal
organizational structure characteristic of most "outside"
unions, apart from its elected officers, it clearly met the test
of Section 2(5). (N.L.R.B. v. Cabot Carbon Co., 360 U.S. 203,
44 LRRM 2204.)
b. The formation of the Committee-domination
The testimony of the General Counsel's witness, Joseph
Cronin, was to the effect that the employees "got wind" of an
outside union coming in and they (the employees) did not
want anybody outside bargaining. As he said, "We knew the
people, the people knew us. We figured we could do things
more above board, let's call it."
Plochl spoke to Lytle on June 3, at his (Plochl's) request
about forming an employees' union after he had spoken to
other employees and found them agreeable. Since all of the
parties seem to agree that Willie Carlson was a credible wit-
ness her testimony as to the formation of the Committee at
the meeting on July 10 is set forth:
Q. Can you recall what Albert Plochl said then?
A. He said the people wanted a committee.
Q. His first question was what?
A. Could we form a committee.
Q, No, Mr. Plochl's first question was what?
A. He wanted-he wanted to know if we could form
a committee-if the people could form a committee.
Q. And did someone answer that question?
A. I believe Mr. Lytle said that he would have no
jurisdiction to do that, he could not do that and he could
not allow any representative of the company to do that.
That that would be strictly up to the people because it
would jeopardize the company's position at that time.
Q. Did Mr. Lytle say the people could form the com-
mittee?
A. He said that it was up to us as to what we wanted
to do.
Q. You cannot recall Mr. Lytle saying that the people
could form the committee?
" See the dissent of Chairman Miller in National Mobile Homes, 186
NLRB No 86 The above comment was included before the Chairman's
dissent was issued
SHERMAN DIV., ST. REGIS PAPER CO. 823
A. Not in direct words.
Well, he said the company can't do it, the people
could. I just got through saying that.
Q. Did Mr. Plochl ask any more questions at that
meeting?
A. He asked all of the company representatives to
please leave the cafeteria.
Q. Did he ask if he could start the committee now?
A. He said we the people will do our own formation
of the committee.
Q. Can you recall Mr. Plochl asking can we form the
committee right now?
A. Yes, I believe he did.
Q. What did Mr. Lytle say to this, if anything?
A. He said, that is up to you.
Q. Mr. Lytle say what the purpose of the committee
was?
A. No, he did not.
Q. What then happened next, if anything?
A. Mr. Plochl asked all the representatives of the
company to leave the cafeteria.
Q. And did they?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. And then what happened next, if anything?
A. I nominated Mr. Plochl as chairman.
Q. And how did you do this?
A. I got up, I said I nominate Albert Plochl as chair-
man of the committee.
Q. Then what happened next, if anything?
A. Then the people who were present said they would
accept it.
Q. Then what happened next, if anything?
A. Well, then Mr. Plochl stated that he thought that
there should be a representative from each department
from day shift and a representativq from night shift for
each department so we started to having elections from
each department.
Ordinarily, a witnesses' verbatim testimony is inappropriate
in a Trial Examiner's argument but I believe that this tes-
timony not only better lays the charge to rest but also that
it is less susceptible to misconstruction. If any further nails
were needed for this particular coffin I also find that the
agenda for the meetings with Respondent were prepared by
the Committee and the requests for the meeting came from
the Committee. Giving full scope to "domination" as a word
of art I cannot find Respondent's relationship to the Commit-
tee can be so characterized on the facts of this case.
c. Support and assistance to the Committee
The transcendent issue in this case , immersed as it is in
barely relevant trivia, is the support and assistance given the
Committee by Respondent's action in recognizing and de
ing with it as the bargaining representative of its employees
at a time when another labor organization was seeking certifi-
cation . This has been the classic 8(a)(2) violation since Mid-
west Piping Co., 63 NLRB 1060. A principle so rudimentary,
so historical, and so consistently followed needs no explica-
tion or interpretation.14
Turning to the 65 allegations of violations aforementioned,
I find the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
promising and granting certain benefits to the employees at
14 See also Welch Scientific Co. v NL.R.B., 340 F.2d 199 (C.A 2), 58
LRRM 2237, International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO v
N.L.R.B., 366 U S. 731; 48 LRRM 2251; N.L.R.B. v. Trosch, 321 F.2d 947
(C.A. 6), 54 LRRM 2001
the meetings with the Committee's and that this conduct
further strengthened the prestige and position of the Commit-
tee as against the petitioning labor organization thereby vi-
olating Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. Those promises and their
implementation which I find unlawful are: (a) installation of
lights on the parking lot, (b) review and correction of senior-
ity standards in the press department, (c) improvement in the
vending machines, (d) improvements in the first aid depart-
ment, (e) purchase of a new lift truck, (f) change in starting
and quitting times so all employees on a shift would start and
finish at the same time, (g) reclassification of wage rates and
job classifications, and (h) redetermination of the anniversary
wage issue requested by the employees.
I do not find unlawful, on the other hand, or an indicia of
violation of Section 8(a)(2) the fact that the members of the
Committee were paid for their time while attending the meet-
ings with the Respondent. (See proviso to Section 8(a)(2) of
the Act.) It may be distressing to some that an employer and
his employees should have a relationship free from animus
and hostility (particularly when an "inside" union is in-
volved) but I do not know that it is unlawful.
The Respondent's generosity in permitting the Committee
to avail itself of its copying machine and the use of its paper
and ink to make copies of the Committee's minutes and to
further offer the services of the general manager's secretary
in assisting in the process is clearly unlawful under the
Board's construction of Section 8(a)(2).16 I do find a clear
conflict exists between some of the Courts and the Board on
this issue."
3. Case 13-RC-12178
By contributing unlawful assistance to the Committee, as
above set forth, and particularly in view of the extensive
nature and substantial impact which such conduct must have
had on its employees I find Respondent prevented the holding
of a free election in Case 13-RC-12178. By recognizing and
bargaining with the Committee during the preelection period
and by granting its employees benefits through the Commit-
tee Respondent engaged in conduct effectively designed to
preclude the free choice of a bargaining -agent under Section
9(c) of the Act. The election must be set aside.
IV THE REMEDY
Having found the Respondent Company engaged in and is
engaging in certain unfair labor practices it shall be recom-
mended that it cease and desist from the same and take
certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Since it has not been found that the Company dominated
the Committee it will not be recommended that it disestablish
the Committee.
15 XL R.B v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405.
16 The Board decisions, I find, reject the approach taken toward the
relationship between an employer and an independent union by the Court
in N.L.R.B. v. Post Publishing Co., 311 F.2d 565 (C.A 7) where the Court,
p 59, stated.
We conclude that the Board erred in failing to properly distinguish
between "support" and "cooperation." . The course of conduct en-
gaged in by the Respondent in its relationship with [independent union]
follows the pattern of friendly and courteous cooperation, or even
generous action, of the sort we feel brings about the end result in
labor-management relations sought by the underlying philosphy moti-
vating the National Labor Relations Act.
For the other side of the coin see N.LR.B. v. Exchange Parts Co., supra
last sentence.
17 Continental Distilling Sales Co. v N.LR.B., 348 F 2d 246 (C.A. 7),
Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co. v N.LR.B., 221 F.2d 165 (C A, 7); Lake City
Foundry Company, Inc., 432 F.2d 1162 (C.A. 7).
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the foregoing findings I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by:
(a) Telling its employees that if the Union came in a super-
visor would no longer punch out for them when they wanted
to leave early.
(b) Telling its employees that if the Union came in they
would have to work.
(c) Promising or granting its employees benefits in working
conditions, as herein found, to induce them to reject the
Printing Specialties & Paper Products Union No. 415 or any
other labor organization as their exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative.
2. The Workers Committee Group is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent Company violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of
the Act by: (a) contributing support to the administration of
the Workers Committee Group and (b) recognizing and deal-
ing with the Committee as the exclusive bargaining represent-
ative of its employees concerning grievances, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment at a time when another labor organization had
filed a petition for certification as such bargaining representa-
tive.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act,
I make the following recommended:"
ORDER
Respondent Sherman Division, St. Regis Paper Company,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Telling its employees that a supervisor could no longer
check out for them and that they would have to go to work
if a union came in.
(b) Granting or promising its employees benefits in work-
ing conditions to induce them to reject the Printing Special-
ties & Paper Products Union No. 415 or any other labor
organization as their bargaining representative.
(c) Contributing support to the administration of the
Workers Committee Group, or any successor thereto, or any
other labor organization of its employees.
(d) Recognizing and dealing with the Committee or any
successor thereto, respecting grievances, wages, hours of em-
ployment, rates of pay, or other terms and conditions of
employment unless and until such labor organization shall
have been certified by the Board as the exclusive representa-
tive of its employees."
2. Take the following affirmative action:
Is In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall
be deemed waived for all purposes.
'9 Nothing in this Order shall require Respondent Company to vary or
abandon any wage, hour, semority, or other substantive benefit which it has
established for its employees because of the Committee and nothing herein
shall be construed as prohibiting its employees from themselves forming or
joining a committee or from continuing their membership in said Commit-
tee. United States Railway Equipment Company, 172 NLRB No. 51.
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Work-
ers Committee Group, or any successor thereto, as the exclu-
sive representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing
with it respecting grievances, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employment
unless and until said Committee shall have been certified by
the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive repre-
sentative of such employees.
(b) Post at its plant at Bridgeview, Illinois, copies of the
attached notice and marked "Appendix E."20 Copies of said
notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for
Region 13, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent, be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including 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.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith."
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election in Case
13-RC-12178 be set aside and that case be remanded to the
Regional Director for Region 13 for such action as he may
deem appropriate.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint, as to
all allegations nor specifically found to have been in violation
of the Act, shall be dismissed.
APPENDIX "A"
To: ALL CONCERNED
FROM: WILLIE CARLSON
DATE: JUNE 19, 1970
On Friday, June 19, 1970, a "Grievance Committee' meeting
was held in the Conference Room . This meeting was re-
quested by people working in the factory and not by manage-
ment . Following are the minutes taken at this meeting.
* * *
The first problem brought up by the "Grievance Committee"
was the 19¢ raise and the reasons for the delay in getting
anniversary raises on the anniversary date. Management
promised to try to work out a system where the anniversary
increase would be for all workers on one date.
Next was the problem of new equipment. Mr. Lytle informed
us that a new lift truck has been ordered-also, a hand truck
and pallets. These are all on consignment except for the pal-
lets.
The fact was also brought up that a jeep man is needed and
the workers asked that one be hired to take over the work
load that the machine operators are doing; such as, having to
leave their machines, go look for the jeep, pick up the needed
materials and then take the jeep back. It was also suggested
putting a call for the job on the bulletin board. The reason for
this being to give someone in the plant first priority for said
job. If there are no takers, then one should be advertised for
11 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
21 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
SHERMAN DIV., ST. REGIS PAPER CO. 825
as soon as possible. This point was made so that the people
in the plant would be given first offer on any job opening. It
is a very good point and was well taken.
The Plastic and Finishing Departments have a grievance as
to the paid lunch factor. What is wanted is: All get paid for
lunch or none get paid for lunch-let all start at the same
time and quit at the same time except for overtime. Manage-
ment gave the argument that Corrugated cannot stop for
break periods-that is the reason for the time set-up. However,
they promised to look into the situation to see what could be
worked out.
A plan for lights for the parking lot was made. It was said
that thefts of batteries and item from trunks have been a
problem off and on because of lack of sufficient lighting. Mr.
Lytle said that the lights were supposed to have been ordered
long ago, but unfortunately were not. We have now been
advised they have been ordered and should be installed in
about a week. Mr. Lytle also said that blacktop could not be
put on the parking lot as the storm sewers have not been
installed as yet. When this is done, the parking lot will be
covered with blacktop.
Finishing reported complaints from the press operators stat-
ing that some of the newer operators are making more than
some of those with much more seniority. He wanted to know
how the company rated the seniority and why there was no
set rate for operators. Management agreed to review the se-
niority standards. The question arose as to whether seniority
is regulated or recognized in terms of plant seniority or job
seniority. Mr. Lytle stated that plant seniority should be
standard, but there are times when exceptions must be made-
such as layoff. If a person with more seniority than another
cannot do the job required, the job should be put to each
person in seniority order.
It was also stated that seniority can be re-established when
there are extenuating circumstances. The company rules state
that this is not to be, but Management does not agree. There-
fore, as per Management, there will be a review board formed
in order to see if the person seeking to re-establish their
seniority is qualified.
Vending service is considered very poor. It was requested that
a pop machine with cans instead of cups be installed and that
all other machines be kept in working condition-or change
companies.
A request was also made for additional tables and chairs for
the cafeteria. Management agreed to see to this matter.
Respect for one another should be applied at all times-no one
should have to ask for it, but it was, and by this date has been
brought about.
When a report is made that a machine is not working prop-
erly, the request was made that corrective action be taken
immediately. The complaint was brought by Plastics as there
were three different times when bolts had broken and the die
fallen. Also, a request for aluminum blocks (not wood) as a
protective measure.
The maintenance in the Corrugating Department does not
seem to be proper. Water is pouring into the rollers and
freezing the bearings, therefore, making the equipment use-
less. It was stated that it seems to boil down to a bit of poor
housekeeping. Therefore, those maintaining the equipment
will have to do a better job.
Plastic waste is quite a problem-it was asked that an indus-
trial vacuum system be looked into. This is not considered a
matter of being lazy, but a necessary piece of equipment.
An additional helper on nights is needed to be used as a
chopper operator. Management claims this has been done
before, but they will look into it again.
The First Aid Room is considered a "disaster area" as there
is nothing in that room but Tincture of Green Soap. It has
been requested by all of the people to keep this room supplied
with the proper equipment. Management said that this had
been done, but when new supplies were received, they were
stolen before a week had passed and it was impossible to keep
on spending large sums of money to keep the people supplied
at home. If a solution can be met that will rectify this condi-
tion, the First Aid Room will be kept supplied. A suggestion
was then made in that a key to this room be held by a person
who can be trusted. This person must be located very close
to the First Aid Room, so that they can see when the call for
the use of the room is needed. Also, a key should be held by
the supervisor. The key should not be taken home in case of
absence or forgetfulness.
The Pension Plan is not satisfactory and the explanation of
the Plan should be clearer. Booklets are to be distributed so
that the Plan can be better understood by all.
The need for more fans was brought up and we were told that
they had been ordered.
Complaints were made about the amount of steam that re-
mains in the plant because of lack of circulating air-a
suggestion was made for attic type fans. That was rejected
because of winter winds creating too much cold in the plant,
but there are exhaust blowers that are not being used so the
request was made that they be turned on.
A new mattress was requested for the cot in the First Aid
Room and Management said that one had been ordered, but
cannot be delivered because of the truck strike. Some sheets,
pillow cases and a pillow are also needed, but that question
was never answered.
The Shipping Department has a low salary grievance. They
would like to know how the rates were established. Manage-
ment will see what rate structure is for dock workers and
pursue the matter in future meetings.
The question of sick pay was given a very definite "NO"!
Cost of living expense was questioned and the Committee was
told that the 19¢ raise was taking care of the cost of living.
The entire rate structure of all employees is to be reviewed.
This will be brought forward at the next meeting held on
Friday, June 26th.
It was asked if the company would consider paying the insur-
ance for the employees. An explanation of what it costs the
company as the insurance stands at present will be given and
shown at the next meeting.
The hospital benefits were discussed because of the length of
time the insurance company takes to reimburse anemployee
after the employee has paid the bills. The length of time taken
by the insurance company has created hardships. Further
talks and action must take place as this is a very important
matter.
There was a motion to adjourn made by Mac and seconded
by Joan. The meeting ended at 5:00 P.M.
APPENDIX "B"
TO: ALL CONCERNED
FROM: WILLIE CARLSON
DATE: JULY 1, 1970
The second meeting of the newly titled, "WORKERS' COM-
MITTEE GROUP", took place in the Conference Room on
June 26, 1970. Following is a brief explanation of the issues
in question:
The matter of the 19¢ raise was set aside by request of the
Committee Chairman, so that a more lengthy discussion
could be had . (See minutes of June 30th.)
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I am sure all have noticed the new lift truck-also, the 100
new pallets. A hand truck is on order and will be here shortly.
Mac from Corrugated expressed appreciation for the new
equipment and asked about repairs on the old truck. Mr.
Lytle agreed that repairs are needed and this will be done as
soon as possible. Al Maida stated that repairs were hapbaz-
zard before as the truck was always in use.
The request for a lift truck operator was brought up again,
and Management said that a man would be hired for said job,
but that it could not be done until after shutdown when it
would be more feasible to start a man on a new job. The man
hired will be informed as to all duties. His working hours will
overlap both shifts.
Mr. Lytle expressed a dislike for the name given the
Committee (Grievance Committee) and suggested the
name be changed to "WORKERS' COMMITTEE
GROUP". This was accepted by all concerned.
Management stated the need for a jeep driver is for the good
of the Company, and that this Committee has the power to
negotiate with the Company on such matters. As stated
before, this job will be opened to plant employees after vaca-
tion.
Vexar girls would like to rotate positions. This was requested
and the problem is to be taken care of by Mr. Maida.
As to time differences-a system will be set up so that everyone
will start and finish at the same time. The day shift will start
at the same time and finish at the same time. The second shift
will have the same system.
Management is in the process of finding a better system to
make bags. They would like to have a more automated sys-
tem.
A suggestion was made that the machines be slowed down
enabling the employees of each department to relieve each
other for breaks. The thought of shutting down the corruga-
tors for breaks was also mentioned as this was the system
used years ago. This may be tried for a 3 or 6 month period.
After much bouncing around on this, it was asked by one of
the representatives to have the Company look into the eco-
nomics of the problem. The idea was agreed upon and the
answer was to be given the following Tuesday, June 30th. It
was concurred that there would be no ill feelings if the eco-
nomics of this problem showed that the time difference would
have to be set as the Company sees fit. (These minutes were
taken before the special meeting was called on Tuesday, June
30th, therefore, you will find the answers to some questions
on the sheet containing the minutes from that meeting.)
Lights for the parking lot will be installed in about 60 days.
The "seniority situation" was brought up and the manner in
which it will be enforced .... .
If there is to be a layoff for a few days, job seniority will
be used, but if there is a longer layoff period, then plant
seniority will be put into effect. There will be a book in
Al Maida's office, so that anyone wishing to sign up for
a job that is available in the plant may do so. Seniority
will be put into effect as well as ability and work record.
All jobs will be classified and wage rates worked out. Nothing
can be promised at this time, as you all know, because of the
election coming up. All wage rates will be set according to job
classification and you will be fully informed on this.
The vending machine problem is being taken care of and pop
machines with cans will be installed.
Three tables and 12 chairs have been ordered for the cafeteria.
Aluminum blocks with handles are being ordered for the
Plastic Department. Also, the bolts have been bought that are
needed for the repairs of the plastic machines. Repairs will be
made on these machines and others during shutdown.
A new lock for the First Aid Room is needed. Al Maida is
in the process of getting that done.
A naugahyde recliner has been ordered for the First Aid
Room, but is being held up because of the truck strike.
Management is looking into the different types of industrial
vacuum systems to see which would best suit our needs for
the Plastic Department.
It had been requested that a chopper man be hired to help in
Corrugated on nights. Unless an excellent man is hired,
Frank is not interestedhe would rather wait for a good
man, who knows his job as he has had problems with helpers
before.
If the booklet on the Pension Plan is not understood; if any-
one needs any part explained, Management will be very
happy to do this. If you do not have a copy of the "Retirement
Plan", ask for one. Also, there will be a copy on the bulletin
board.
Many adjustments and repairs will be made during vacation
period. The blowers will be worked on to relieve the steam
problem. All important repairs will be done first.
INSURANCE-The Company pays $37.82 per month to-
wards each employee's insurance. A family man or main
supporter of family contributes $4.02. Each person contribut-
ing for only one pays $3.10. With the Company paying out
this much, they cannot take and pay the full charge.
The Prudential Insurance Company has issued a "master
card" to all hospitals which informs the hospital of what
benefits you are to receive. Just show your card when you
enter the hospital-by doing this you will not have to pay the
bill before you leave. If a person should encounter any prob-
lem with this system, the Prudential Company wants to know
about it! Call one of their local offices or their main office
downtown, but be sure you report any difficulties...
It is suggested that you find out from the bookkeeping or
insurance departments in the hospital how you are situated.
Make sure your bills are accounted for-do not wait until you
are walking out of the door. There is no need for any problem
with the "master card" being at all hospitals.
Management made it clear that if the Committee has any
issues to be brought forth, they should schedule a meet-
ing and such issues will be discussed.
If all goes well, there will be a scheduled meeting for July
30, 1970 at 2:30 P.M.
APPENDIX "C"
TO: ALL CONCERNED
FROM : WILLIE CARLSON
DATE JULY 20, 1970
Following are the minutes taken at the "Workers' Committee
Group" meeting held in the Conference Room on July 20,
1970:
s
First of all, the Committee was informed by Management
that the Union has filed charges against the Company. The
Labor Board in turn will inform the Company as to just what
the charges are-at this point, the Company is not familiar
with said charges.
The Committee members stated that they would meet
with the Labor Board in defense of the Company as it
was not the Company's idea to form this Committee, but
the people themselves who wanted it. We the people
asked for permission to form this Committee and it was
so granted by the Company.
Management feels that the majority of the people will go
along with the Company during this trial period. We will be
SHERMAN DIV., ST. REGIS PAPER CO.
kept informed as much as possible as to the proceedings of
the National Labor Relations Board.
Since before the election, and now that charges have been
filed, the Company has had to be very careful in not commit-
ting itself in any monetary way. However, Management will
fulfill any commitments that will not jeopardize its position.
During vacation a painting program was carried out with
success. The rollers on the corrugating machines were
cleaned and many other details were seen to, however, many
of the people have not taken notice of them.
The new couch is in the First Aid Room, but the tables and
chairs for the cafeteria have not arrived as yet.
The lights for the parking lot should be installed next week.
Gravel has been poured and spread on the parking lot and
road-more is on stand-by when needed.
Management has worked on the anniversary raise issue and
came up with 'a system that will set a general anniversary
date. For example:
From April 1, 1970 thru July 30, 1970, the 19¢ raise will
be received by those whose anniversary falls within this
particular period on their specific anniversary date. All
those with anniversary dates in the period of August 1,
1970 thru April 1, 1971 will receive their raise on their
check of August 13, 1970. (After that has been accom-
plished, a general raise date, which will be set for the
automatic raise, can be expected by approximately April
1, 1971.)
It has been established that on August 3, 1970 the working
hours will be changed so that all will start and finish at the
same time on each shift....
DAYS NIGHTS
7 A.M.-3:30 P.M. 3:30 P.M. to 12 A.M.
Half Hour Lunch Half Hour Lunch
2-10 Min. Breaks 2-10 Min. Breaks
SHIPPING ROOM & LATE SHIFT OF
RECEIVING SHIPPING
7 A.M. to 3:30 P.M . 10 A.M. to 6:30 P.M.
MAINTENANCE HELPER
10 A.M . to 6:30 P.M.
Plant seniority will be used at all times. Departmental senior-
ity has been dropped.
A review was held on service cases. Management thought
that this should be brought to the attention of the Committee.
Copies of such were passed out, reviewed and voted on.
If a person is laid off, he automatically returns to work
with the same seniority he had before layoff. However,
if the Company calls a person back to work and that
person does not return in a reasonable length of time, he
will lose his seniority rights. A "leave of absence" will
be granted for any legitimate reason. A seniority listing
will be posted on the board . If any questions about your
seniority need answering, you are to see Management
and get it straightened out.
A suggestion was made that the girls wear more substantial
foot protection . However, the girls desire comfort in sandals
and light weight shoes but, of course, they will have to be
much more cautious.
A question arose wherein if a committee member could not
827
get to a meeting, would it be possible for them to get a person
from the same department to substitute for them? This should
be and will be done. All departments take notice as some of
you will be called at one time or another.
THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE HELD ON
AUGUST 17, 1970... .
APPENDIX E
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT tell our employees we will no longer
punch out early for them if they select the Printing
Specialties & Paper Products Union No. 415 as their
bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees they will have to
work if they select said union as their bargaining repre-
sentative.
WE WILL NOT promise or grant our employees be-
nefits for the purpose of inducing them to reject the
Printing Specialties & Paper Products Union No. 415 or
any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT contribute support to the administra-
tion of the workers Committee Group.
WE WILL NOT recognize the Workers Committee
Group as the exclusive bargaining representative of our
employees unless and, until said Committee shall have
been certified as such bargaining agent by the National
Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT bargain or deal with the Workers
Committee Group concerning grievances, wages, hours
of employment, or other terms and conditions of em-
ployment unless and until said Committee shall have
been certified as exclusive bargaining representative of
our employees by the National Labor Relations Board.
All of our employees are free to become or remain or to
refrain from becoming or remaining' members of the Workers
Committee Group or any other labor organization except to
the extent such right may be affected by a contract with a
labor organization containing a union-security clause lawful
under Section 8(a)(3) of the Labor Management Relations
Act, as amended. Nothing in the decision of the Trial Exam-
iner shall be construed as requiring the Company to vary or
abandon any wage, hour, seniority, or other benefit which it
shall have established for its employees because of the Work-
ers Committee Group.
SHERMAN DIVISION,
ST. REGIS
PAPER COMPANY
Employer
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, 881 U.S.
Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn
Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone 312-353-7572.