St. Regis Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 9, 1981

253 N.L.R.B. 1224 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
St. Regis Paper Company and Larry Wayne Peaden
and James Waters. Cases 15-CA-7458-1 and
15-CA-7458-2
January 9, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On August 29, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Almira Abbot Stevenson issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General
Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the
Charging Parties filed cross-exceptions and a sup-
porting brief, and Respondent filed a brief in sup-
port of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision.'
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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided toaffirm the rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt her recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby
is, dismissed in its entirety.
I Respondent filed limited exceptions to the Administrative Law
Judge's Decision but subsequently withdrew them.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALMIRA ABBOT STEVENSON, Administrative Law
Judge: A hearing was conducted in this consolidated
proceeding at Pensacola, Florida, on May 27-29, 1980.
Charges were filed by Larry Peaden and James Waters
in both these cases and were served on Respondent on
October 19, 1979. An order consolidating cases, consoli-
dated complaint and notice of hearing was on issued
February 4, 1980, and duly answered by Respondent.
The critical issue is whether or not Respondent's sus-
pension or discharge of employees of its papermill for re-
fusing to cross a picket line set up at the papermill en-
trance by a union representing employees of Respond-
ent's bag factory violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the
National Labor Relations Act, or whether the suspended
and discharged employees were engaged in an unprotect-
ed strike in violation of their no-strike agreement. For
the reasons given below, I conclude that no violation oc-
curred and the complaint should be dismissed.
253 NLRB No. 162
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due considera-
tion of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Re-
spondent, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT' AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a New York corporation, operates a pa-
permill and a bag factory at Cantonment, Florida.
During the past 12 months, Respondent purchased and
received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
directly from points outside Florida, and sold and
shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
customers located outside Florida. The complaint al-
leges, the answer does not deny, and I find that Re-
spondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
I find that the following unions are labor organizations
within Section 2(5) of the Act: United Paperworkers In-
ternational Union, AFL-CIO, Locals 447, 1561, 737, and
444; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, Local 1937; International Association of Ma-
chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 875.
III. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
I. Introduction
Respondent, whose corporate headquarters is located
in New York City, operates 120-125 plants producing a
variety of products throughout the country, organized
into seven or more divisions. All Respondent's employ-
ees are unionized.
The papermill, which manufactures Kraft liner board
and bleached liner board, and the bag factory, which
manufactures multiwalled paper bags out of liner board,
here involved, are located on the same premises at Can-
tonment, Florida, referred to by Respondent as the St.
Regis Kraft Center. The papermill is part of the Kraft di-
vision and the bag factory is part of the bag packaging
division. Industrial Relations Manager Martin Maney,
whose office is in the St. Regis Kraf, Center at Canton-
ment, is responsible for industrial relations at all of Re-
spondent's facilities in the southeastern states. Personnel
matters, including labor relations, employment, employee
benefits, plant security, training, and safety, of both pa-
permill and bag plant are the overall responsibility of
Personnel Manager Bruce Boerner. He and his assistants,
B. B. Carmichael for the bag factory, Travis Bedsole for
the papermill, and their staffs are located in the same
building at the St. Regis Kraft Center.
All employees at the St. Regis Kraft Center are cov-
ered by collective-bargaining agreements, which Boerner
participated in negotiating and under which he repre-
Except where credibility is specifically discussed, the findings of fact
are based on substantially undisputed evidence
1224
ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY
sents Respondent at the third or fourth step of the griev-
ance procedures.
The papermill employs approximately 750 production
and maintenance employees in a continuous, three-shift,
7-day week, operation. These employees have been rep-
resented jointly by UPIU Locals 447, 1561, 737, and 444,
and IBEW Local 1937, and their predecessor unions for
over 30 years. 2 Their most recent contract was ratified
during the summer of 1979 and is effective from July 1,
1979, through June 30, 1982. It contains the following
provision, which has been included in agreements cover-
ing this unit in identical form since at least 1960, and in
similar form for 10 years before that: 3
Section 8-No Interruption of Work.
8.1 The Unions will not authorize any strike, wal-
kout, slowdown, or other interruption of work, and
if a threat of any such occurrence should come to
their attention, they will endeavor to avert it.
8.2 In the event that any strike, walkout, slow-
down, or other interruption of work occurs, neither
the International nor the Local Unions shall be sub-
ject to financial liability, provided they shall have
immediately publicly declared such action a viola-
tion of this agreement and, in utmost good faith,
used their best efforts to terminate such violation; it
being further agreed that any employee or employ-
ees' participation in such violation shall, at the dis-
cretion of the Company, be subject to immediate
discharge or the disciplinary action.
8.3 The Company agrees there shall be no lock-
outs during the life of this Agreement.
UPIU Local 447 also represents 600 production em-
ployees of the bag factory; their current agreement is ef-
fective from June 1, 1979, until May 31, 1982.
Each of the five above-named local Unions is headed
by a chairman and other officers, and there is a "Joint
Locals Committee" as well, of which Clinton Bell, chair-
man of Local 447, is chairman.
I In 1972 the International Brotherhood of Papermakers and the Inter-
national Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers merged
into the United Paperworkers International Union. AFL-CIO
3 The first such clause was negotiated in 1949 and included in the
1950-51 agreement. It provided as follows:
Section 5. Interruption of Work.
It is agreed that there shall be no strikes, lockouts, walkouts, deliber-
ate slowdowns, or other interruptions of work during the period of
this agreement or any extension thereof
In the event that, in violation of the provisions of the preceding
paragraph, a strike, walkout, deliberate slowdown or other interrup-
tion of work shall occur in the mill of the Signatory Company nei-
ther the Signatory Union nor the Local Union shall be subject to fi-
nancial liabilities for such violation provided that the Signatory
Union and the Local Union involved immediately after the begin-
ning of such violation shall have (I) publicly declared such action a
violation of this agreement, and, (2) in utmost good faith used its best
efforts to terminate such violation; it being further agreed that any
employee or employees participating in such violation shall in the
discretion of the Signatory Company be subject to immediate dis-
charge or other disciplinary action.
There is nothing in this agreement that will prohibit St. Regis Paper
Company, Kraft Paper Division, from closing down its plant definitely.
provided that within the judgment of the management the Company
cannot earn money by operating.
IAM Local 875 represents the approximately 40 main-
tenance employees of the bag factory. Their preceding
contract expired September 1, 1979, and the IAM negoti-
ations took place after agreements were reached cover-
ing other employees of the mill and the bag factory.
Before September 1979 all employees of both paper-
mill and bag plant used the same main gate which bore a
sign reading "St. Regis Plant Entrance, Deliveries, Em-
ployment." In September 1979, however, Respondent
opened a parking lot for the bag factory employees and
placed a sign above another entrance reading "Bag Plant
Employee Entrance."
2. Critical events
As stated above, new collective-bargaining agreements
were entered into covering production and maintenance
employees of the papermill and production employees of
the bag factory during the summer of 1979. Negotiations
then began between Respondent and IAM for a new
agreement covering the bag-factory maintenance unit.
No agreement having been reached by Monday, October
1, 1979, a month after the previous agreement expired,
IAM struck and established picket lines at all entrances
to the premises at or about 1:30 p.m.
Officers of all five nonstriking local Unions stationed
themselves at the papermill and bag factory entrances at
all shift change times on October I and 2 and urged their
members to honor their contracts and go to work across
the IAM picket lines. As a result, no employees repre-
sented by these Unions refused to cross the picket lines
during the first week of the strike.
On the first day of the IAM strike, October 1, BE&K,
Inc., a nonunion contractor, began work on the construc-
tion of an expansion and modernization of the St. Regis
Kraft Center facility. A separate gate was set aside for
use of BE&K employees. That afternoon, a group of
men identifying themselves as representatives of the
Mobile-Pensacola Building Trades appeared at the bag-
factory entrance, and their spokesman, Pennington, com-
mented that not many employees were refusing to cross
the picket line. When Chairman of the Joint Locals
Committee Bell explained that "These people have a
labor contract and they're going to work under that con-
tract," Pennington replied, "These people just don't
know how to shut a mill down. We're fixing to show
them how to shut a mill down."
On Friday, October 5, IAM distributed leaflets among
the nonstriking employees stating as follows:
To All Production And Maintenance Employees Of
the St. Regis Paper Company, Cantonment Florida
A lawful strike against St. Regis Paper Company is
in progress and authorized by the International As-
sociation of Machinist Local Union # 875,
A.F.L.C.I.O. All employees have the right under
Federal Law (Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act) to honor the picket-line established by
the I.A.M. If you refuse to cross the picket line in
sympathy with the striking employees, you can not
legally be discharged.
1225
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I.A.M. Local Union #875, respectfully asks for
your support in our effort to achieve better wages
and working conditions St. Regis employees.
IAM held a meeting on Saturday, October 6, to which
nonstrikers were invited and asked them to honor the
picket line.
On Monday morning, October 8, several hundred
people joined the IAM pickets in the vicinity of the main
(mill) gate, including some officials of the Mobile-Pensa-
cola Building Trades Council which was also picketing
the BE&K gate, and one man carried an "Unfair BE&K"
sign. Of the employees of the papermill production and
maintenance unit 90 to 100, including Larry Peaden,
James Waters, Robert Piehl, Walter Gordon, James
Land, Jerry Meriwether, Henry Kenneth Myrick, and
Luther Layton, failed to show up for work that day.
Personnel Manager Boerner dispatched telegrams to
them all informing them that:
Continued failure on your part to report to work
will be considered a wildcat activity in violation of
the Labor Agreement between your Union and St.
Regis Paper Company and will result in disciplinary
action up to and including replacement in your job.
Respondent obtained a temporary injunction that after-
noon prohibiting IAM from engaging in mass picketing,
and BE&K, Inc., obtained a temporary injunction confin-
ing Mobile-Pensacola Building Trades Council to two
pickets at the BE&K entrance. Thereafter, only IAM
continued picketing, with not more than two pickets at
each entrance. Agreement between Respondent and
IAM was reached October 22, 1979.
All employees who failed to show up for work at the
papermill on October 8, but who returned October 9,
were suspended for I day except Luther Layton, who
was discharged. The evidence with respect to the disci-
pline of Layton and the other papermill employees
named above is as follows:
James Waters, a woodyard employee who did not tes-
tify, was one of the 90 to 100 mill employees who failed
to show up for work on October 8, but returned to work
on October 9 and received a -day suspension for "viola-
tion of Section 8 of the current labor agreement," based
on his refusal to cross the picket line at the main en-
trance to the papermill.
Luther Layton was employed as a millwright and was
a member of Local 1561. Layton did not report for work
on Monday, October 8, because, he testified, he had at-
tended the meeting where IAM asked for support, and
he stayed away in sympathy with the machinists. Ac-
cording to Layton, the next day, October 9, he went to
the plant site at or about 6 a.m., 1 hour before shift time,
and he encountered a group of mill employees near the
plant some distance from any of the gates and they said
they received telegrams instructing them to return to
work or be disciplined; although he did not receive a
telegram he decided to return to work because most of
the others were going to, so he got in his truck and went
home. Layton telephoned his supervisor from home at or
about 6:55 a.m. and asked for the day off for personal
reasons unconnected with the picketing. Layton's super-
visor informed him that "in view of what had happened
the day before he should come in, and that they wanted
everybody in there by 7 o'clock. Layton agreed to come
and punched in at 7:39 a.m. Told to report to personnel,
Layton attended a conference with his union officers and
Assistant Personnel Manager Travis Bedsole. Bedsole
told him that his lateness was unexcused and further told
him that:
Some company official had seen me down the road
before work time with a mob and that I was no
longer working there . . . and that I was fired.
Bedsole handed him a termination slip effective October
9 for violating Section 8 of the labor contract.
Henry Kenneth Myrick, a laborer member of Local 447,
received a copy of the IAM flyer and attended the IAM
meeting on Saturday, October 6, where IAM representa-
tives asked those present to honor their picket line.
Myrick was scheduled for the 7 a.m. shift, on October 8,
and he drove to the Center at or about 6 a.m., where he
observed two IAM pickets at the main gate and a large
crowd of people across the street. At 6:45 he notified his
supervisor by telephone that "in sympathy with the strik-
ing machinist's, I would not be in that day due to the
picket line." Hearing that the IAM pickets were still
present on October 9, Myrick again reported to his su-
pervisor at or about 6:45 a.m. that he was not coming in
"in sympathy with the striking machinists." On October
10 Myrick was terminated effective October 8 for honor-
ing the picket line at the main gate in violation of section
8 of the collective-bargaining agreement.
Jerry Meriwether was a member of Local 1561 em-
ployed as a driver. He attended the October 6 IAM
meeting where he promised to honor its picket line.
Scheduled to work October 8 on the 7 a.m. shift, he
drove to the plant, but notified his supervisor at or about
6:45 that he had decided to honor the IAM picket line.
Although he received the Company's mailgram, he again
notified his supervisor on October 9 and 10 that he was
honoring the picket line. On October 10 he was terminat-
ed effective October 10 for violating section 8 of the
contract.
Walter Gordon and Robert Piehl, electrician member of
IBEW Local 1937, received copies of the IAM flyer
Friday, October 5, and took their tools with them at the
end of the day in the event they decided not to work on
Monday. They attended the IAM meeting on Saturday
where they committed themselves to honor the picket
line. Neither went to work on October 8, 9, or 10 be-
cause, they testified, they did not wish to cross the IAM
picket line. They were discharged effective October 9
for failing to honor section 8 of their contract.
James Land and Larry Peaden were pipefitters and
members of Local 1561. Land notified his supervisor on
Friday, October 5, after reading the IAM flyer that he
would not be in to work on Monday if the IAM picket
line was still up. Both attended the October 6 meeting
and promised to honor the picket line. On October 8, 9,
and 10 they did not work because of the picket line.
Peaden was terminated October 11 effective October 9
1226
ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY
for becoming actively involved in the IAM strike and
violating section 8 of the contract. Land was terminated
October 10 effective October 10 for violation of section
8. Peaden conceded he told a television news reporter on
October 8 that he was staying off the job in sympathy
with both the IAM and the Building Trades dispute with
BE&K.
B. Conclusions
The evidence establishes that all the eight employees
named above refused to cross the IAM picket line at the
papermill where they were employed out of sympathy
for the IAM strikers in their dispute with Respondent,
except for Peaden who refused to cross out of sympathy
with both the IAM strikers and the Mobile Pensacola
Building Trades Council in its dispute with BE&K,
Inc., 4 I also find that all eight employees were disci-
plined or discharged 5 for violating section 8, the no-
strike clause, of the collective-bargaining agreement cov-
ering them. 6
As the right of employees to honor a picket line of a
union other than their own is a right granted by statute,
the Board will not infer that the employees own union
has waived their right to engage in sympathy strikes
unless the waiver is clear and unmistakable.' It is now
Board policy not to infer such a waiver solely from an
agreement proscribing "any strike, walkout, slowdown,
or other interruption of work," such as section 8 of the
agreement in issue here. The Board considers contract
provisions like this, which do not specifically refer to
sympathy strikes or crossing picket lines, to be ambigu-
ous and will find waiver in them only where the parties'
4 i credit the undisputed testimony of the employees other than Peaden
as to their reason for not going to work, and find that the Building
Trades Council dispute with BE&K and the presence of council members
and its picket line at BF&K on October 8 were merely coincidental as to
them.
' Respondent does not contend that any of these employees were per-
manently replaced; it concedes that all were discharged except Waters
who was suspended.
6 The General Counsel contends, alternatively, that Luther Layton's
discharge constituted a violation of Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1) because it was
motivated by management's spotting him in the "mob" of strikers, sympa-
thy strikers, and others, near the plant premises before his shift time on
October 9. 1 find no merit in this contention. Aside from other consider-
ations, it seems unlikely that Layton's presence with the group in ques-
tion was an operative factor in his discharge, even though it was men-
tioned at the discharge interview, because there were admittedly other
sympathy strikers in the group and they were not discharged. They
obeyed Respondent's call and returned by shift time on October 9, and
they received I-day suspensions. Layton, on the other hand, did not
report by shift time, but despite the direct order of his supervisor that he
report on time, he reported late, without permission, and without an ac-
ceptable excuse. There is no evidence that other employees have engaged
in such conduct with impunity. I therefore cannot find that Layton was
treated disparately. I find that the basic reason for the discipline of
Layton was, as Respondent warned in advance and stated on his termina-
tion slip, his violation of sec. 8; and that the reason the discipline took the
form of discharge instead of suspension was his unexcused lateness, un-
protected conduct on his part.
I International Union of Operating Engineers. Local Union 18. AFL-CIO
(Davis McKee, Inc.), 238 NLRB 652 (1978); Keller-Crescent Company, a
Division of Mosler, 217 NLRB 685 (1975), enforcement denied 538 F.2d
1231 (7th Cir. 1976); Gary-Hobart Water Corporation, 210 NLRB 742
(1974), enfd. 511 F.2d 284 (7th Cir. 1977).
intent to waive is clearly evident from the relevant bar-
gaining history.8
Evidence of relevant bargaining history in this case
consists of the following undisputed, credible testimony:
Elmore Stanberry, 9 now vice president of UPIU
Local 447, who participated in the negotiation of the
1950 agreement, testified that the original no-interrup-
tion-of-work clause was thoroughly discussed because it
was the first such clause negotiated for these employees,
and that the officials negotiating for the Company as
well as the representatives of his Local and International
explained that the employees were giving up the right to
strike in exchange for a company promise not to lock
them out during the life of the contract "unless other-
wise they would not make any profit and everybody
would say that they would have to close up," and that:
if you negotiate the contract, if'n you sign the con-
tract, it means also that if someone else cannot
[come to] terms with this company . . . if you have
your contract, you must come to work.
Russell Hall, now International representative for the
UPIU, testified that he was an employee of the papermill
from 1948 until after he became president of Local 447
in 1957. He testified that during the early 1950's before
he became president of his local, the Pulp and Sulphite
Local representing the bag factory production employees
put up a picket line at the papermill, and the officers of
the Pulp and Sulphite Local which represented the pa-
permill, as well as International Vice President Lloyd
Oliver who had negotiated what is now section 8 of the
collective-bargaining agreement, instructed the papermill
employees to cross the picket line, and go to work "be-
cause, under the no interruption of work language in sec-
tion 8, we are required to report to work," and they
could not honor the picket line of the bag-plant employ-
ees. Oliver told them:
that the Section 8 was language whereby the unions
guaranteed the operation of the facilities on an unin-
terrupted basis, in return for certain benefits and
also in return for the no-lockout clause.
None of the papermill employees honored that picket
line.
Martin Maney, personnel manager until the early
1960's, testified there was an IAM strike in 1955 and
pickets at the plant entrance but the mill employees
crossed it. Discussions with all union officials, including
Mark Fisher, vice president of Papermakers, and Lloyd
Oliver, vice president of Pulp and Sulphite Workers, re-
vealed that the interpretation of section 8 was already es-
' Daniel Construction Company Inc. 239 NLRB 1335 (1979); W-I Can-
teen Service. Inc.. 238 NLRB 609, fn. I (1978), enforcement denied 606
F.2d. 738 (7th Cir 1979) Accord: Chevron US.4.. Inc.. 244 NLRB 108
(1979); International Union of Operating Engineers. Local Union 18. AlI.-
CIO (Davis-McKee. Inc.). supra: Keller-Crescent Company a Division of
Aosler. supra: Gary-Hohort Water Corporation. supra. Kellogg Company.
189 NLRB 948 (1971). enfd. 457 F.2d 519 (6th Cir. 19721
1I find no merit in the General Counsel's contention that Stanberry
should be discredited. He impressed me as a truthful man with an excel-
lent memory of matters of importance to him.
1227
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tablished, and in subsequent discussions with these offi-
cials as well as with International Representatives and
Vice Presidents Homer Humble and Jesse Whitten, reaf-
firmed, that the unions had a binding contract with the
Company and under the terms of section 8 of the agree-
ment, they were obligated, regardless of what reason for
the picket line or for the attempt to interrupt the work,
they were obligated to cross the picket line and man
their jobs.
John Herndon, employed in the mill since 1955 and
now shop steward of Local 447, was chairman of Local
737 from 1964 until 1972 or 1973. He testified that at the
end of its contract term in 1955, IAM struck and put a
picket line up at the papermill, and H. B. Lister, then
chairman of the predecessor Local, advised Herndon
"under Section 8 of the Labor Agreement that we were
obligated to go to work."
Neil Robbins has been employed at the papermill since
1951. He has been recording secretary of the joint com-
mittee since 1966, an officer of Local 447 since 1970, and
is now treasurer of Local 447. He testified that in the
late 1950's during an unauthorized strike he discussed the
establishment of a picket line at the mill gate while the
mill contract was in effect with Robert Andrews, chair-
man of his predecessor Local, and Andrews told him
that during the "life of the Labor Agreement that we
were required to work" if there was a picket line at the
gate; that "Section 8 . . . of the no work, no interruption
of work strike clause . . . meant strictly that during the
life of the labor agreement, any interruption of work or
authorized slowdown was illegal." Robbins has partici-
pated in negotations since the 1950's and there have been
discussions in joint local committee meetings, when
picket lines were established or there were threats of
strikes, to make sure all officers of the joint locals under-
stood that under the language of the no-interruption-of-
work clause, "we cannot under any circumstances inter-
rupt our work because of a strike" during the life of the
labor agreement.
Clinton Bell, a mill employee who is now president of
Local 447 and has been chairman of the joint locals com-
mittee since 1966, testified that as a shop steward he took
part in negotiations for the first time in 1961. A few
months before the negotiations, "there was some strike
activity around the Bag Plant with pickets at the gate,"
and his union officials advised the mill employees they
had no choice but to work because they had had a con-
tract obligation; Bell asked his International Reresenta-
tive, Delmar James, "if that was reasonable language,
standard language in the contract," and James told him
that that was the proper interpretation of the contract
and that it was reasonable and standard in most contracts
in the industry. Since then, he has had numerous discus-
sions of the interpretation of section 8 with International
representatives and with the members of his Local to the
same effect.
Personnel Manager Bruce Boerner testified that his
first discussion of section 8 was with UPIU International
Representative Delmar James and the then chairman of
the joint mill Locals, Russell Long, in 1962. At the time,
negotiations with IAM, which always took place after
negotiations for the papermill production and mainte-
nance and bag factory production units, were going
poorly and IAM was threatening to strike. Boerner asked
James and Long whether, in view of the section 8 no-
interruption-of-work provisions of their contracts, their
employees would work in the event IAM struck; they
advised Boerner that it had always been the position of
their International that they were to work and they
would do so.
Patrick O'Neal has been a mill employee for 29 years
and is now president of Local 1561. He testified he was
first selected vice president of his Local in 1963 at which
time he attended a training session for new officers con-
ducted by the regional vice president of the Papermakers
International, Mark Fisher, who negotiated section 8 on
behalf of the Papermakers Union.
He said that under no-strike clauses such as this you
don't strike for any reason. No matter if you have a
legal obligation or a moral obligation, you have
given your word to run that plant for the life of this
contract, and regardless of how you feel or how
you sympathize with anybody else, you have an ob-
ligation to run this plant.
There were several instances of strikes by bag-factory
production and maintenance employees when they pick-
eted the mill and the mill employees always crossed the
picket line upon instructions of the officers of their
Locals who checked with their Internationals.
Neil Robbins also described a time in 1974 after the
mill and bag-production contracts had been agreed to
when members of the IAM unit were conducting a strike
vote. The then-personnel manager asked the chairman of
the joint mill locals for assurance that they would honor
their contract and continue to work in the event of a
strike by IAM, and the chairman gave that assurance.
Norris Presley, mill employee and chairman of Local
444 since 1976, testified to a discussion among the chair-
men of the mill Locals (several of whom were new)
about 6 months after his first election, of whether, if they
accepted a contract and the bag factory production or
maintenance units did not accept theirs and went on
strike, the mill-unit employees would have to work; and
Clinton Bell informed them that under their contract
they would have to work.
Extrinsic evidence of the attitude and conduct of the
parties to the collective-bargaining agreement with re-
spect to the 1979 IAM strike which is in issue here is
also undisputed and credible.
UPIU International Representative Russell Hall testi-
fied that upon completion of the negotiations he met
with all his local officers and advised them that in the
event of an IAM strike, it was their obligation under sec-
tion 8 to report for work and that officers should be at
the picket line at the start of each shift to assure their
people of that obligation; and that he held additional
meetings with the local officers during the strike to the
same effect. Local 447 Vice President Stanberry testified
that the president of his Local instructed him to notify
the people in his department, "that if we had a strike,
then their obligation is to come to work under this Sec-
tion 8 in the contract," and he passed the instruction
1228
ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY
along to the drivers in his department. Local 447 Trea-
surer Neil Robbins testified that the chairman of all the
mill locals gathered at the picket line on the first after-
noon of the strike, discussed the situation, and then met
all four shifts on October 1 and 2 and informed their
members of their obligation to work under their agree-
ment. President of Local 1561 Patrick O'Neal testified
there was a long discussion of the strike at a regular
meeting of his Local on October 1, and the position
taken was that under section 8 "there was no way we
could recognize their strike and that it was our legal and
moral obligation to come to work"; dischargees Larry
Peaden, Luther Layton, and James Land, members of
Local 1561, confirmed receiving these instructions.
Personnel Manager Boerner and Local 447 Treasurer
Robbins both testified that Boerner and Assistant Person-
nel Manager Bedsole called the officers of the joint mill
locals together on October 5 and informed them that the
Company had reason to believe the picketing would in-
crease on Monday, October 8, and inquired whether the
locals' "longstanding position was holding fast"; the
union officers caucused and then reported they "were
still all of one accord that the no interruption of work
clause was bind[ing] and [the Union's] position was still
the same. To work as long as the Labor Agreement was
in effect," Doyle Burnett, International representative of
IBEW, testified he met with the members of Local 1937
on Monday afternoon, October 8, and, referring to sec-
tion 8, instructed them, "that we had a no-strike clause
and that they were obligated as local union members to
report to work." When some members asked what they
should do as individuals, Burnett told them he could not
advise on that, "The only thing I could speak for was
the local union and the International." Dischargees
Walter Gordon and Robert Piehl, members of Local
1937, attended the October 8 meeting and recalled being
told that they had a contract and they had to honor it.
This evidence, remarkable in its consistency and the
time span of 30 years covered (demonstrating, I am im-
pelled to observe, an impressive stability in work force
and labor-management relations), in my opinion shows
unequivocally that the intent of the parties in negotiating
the original no-interruption-of-work clause, and the un-
derstanding of the parties responsible for administering it
and its successor clause, Section 8, was, and is, that these
clauses bar observance of picket lines, including those of
IAM, during the term of a collective-bargaining agree-
ment. Accordingly, I find that the overall bargaining his-
tory points decisively to a conscious waiver of the right
to engage in sympathy strikes during a contract period.
In these circumstances, the conduct of the mill employ-
ees who engaged in the sympathy strike by refusing to
cross the IAM picket line on October 8, 9, or 10, 1979,
was in violation of the Joint Locals' agreement covering
them, and was therefore not protected by Section 7 of
the Act, and the discipline they received therefore did
not violate the Act.' ° I therefore conclude that the com-
plaint should be dismissed.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER"
The complaint is dismissed entirety.
10 NL.R.B v. Rockawav 'ews Supply Co., Inc., 345 U.S. 71 (1953);
4merican Cyanamid Company. 246 NLRB 87 (1979); K'-I Canteen Service.
Inc., supra, The Hearsr Corporatrion, .Vevs American Division. 161 NLRB
1405 (1966). enfd. 393 F 2d 673 (D C Cir. 1968) See also Kellogg Compa-
ny, supra at 949. 1 find it unnecessary to rule on the alternate bases of-
fered by Respondent fir finding these employees' conduct unprotected
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec. 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
1229