Star Paper Tube, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 19, 1962

135 N.L.R.B. 344 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pacific Transport Lines, Inc. and Ernest Brown
Marine Cooks and Stewards , AFL-CIO and Ernest Brown. Cases
Nos. 2O-CA-1185 and 20-CB-461. January 18, 1969
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On February 10, 1958, the Board issued a Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding 1 finding that Respondent Union violated
Section 8(b) (2) and 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act by causing the dis-
charge of Ernest Brown for the nonpayment of dues. The Board
found that Brown was not given a reasonable time within which to
tender his dues after the Union revoked an extension of time granted
for such payment. The Board also found that Respondent Company
violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act by discharging. Brown with
knowledge of the Union's peremptory revocation of the extension of
time.
Thereafter, on April 3, 1961, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit denied the Board's petition for enforcement of
its Order against both Respondents.' In this connection, the court
rejected the theory upon which the Board predicated its findings.
However, the court noted that the Board had specifically found it
unnecessary to pass upon an issue as to whether the Union could law-
fully effect a discharge of Brown, because included within its demand
for payment were back clues for a period prior to Brown's employment
with the Respondent Company. For this reason, the court remanded
the case to the Board for such further proceedings as the Board deems
justified.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case in the light
of the court's remand. Under all the circumstances, the Board has
concluded that further proceedings are not justified. Accordingly,
the complaint will be dismissed.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
MEMBER BROWN took no part in the consideration of the above-Sup-
plemental Decision and Order.
1 119 NLRB 1505.
2 N.L.R.B . v. Pacific Transpo? t Lines , Inc, and Marine Cooks Stewards , AFL-CIO,
290 F 2d 14.
-135 NLRB No. 50.
Star Paper Tube , Inc. and United Textile Workers of America,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 5-CA-1910. January 19, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 30, 1961, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued
'his- Intermediate Report in the above-entitled ' proceeding, finding
135 NLRB No. 45.
STAR PAPER TUBE, INC. 345
that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor- practices
alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the Intermediate Report at-
tached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report and the entire record in this case, including the
exceptions and the brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended (29 U.S.C. Section 151, et seq.), herein called the Act.
United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein sometimes called the
Union , having filed an original and an amended charge against Star Paper Tube, Inc.,
hereinafter sometimes called the Company or the Respondent, the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board , on behalf of the Board , by the Regional
Director for the Fifth Region , on July 3, 1961, issued a complaint together with
notice of hearing , the complaint alleging that Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce in contravention of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The Respondent filed timely answer to the complaint,
effectively denying the alleged violations of the Act as set forth in the complaint.
On the issues framed by the complaint and the answer , this case came on to be
heard before Arthur E. Reyman , the duly designated Trial Examiner , at Danville,
Virginia , on August 29, the hearing being closed on August 31, 4961. At the hearing
each party was afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine
witnesses , and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues , and each was afforded
opportunity .to argue orally upon the record, to file proposed findings of fact and
conclusions , or both , and to file briefs . A brief filed on behalf of the General
Counsel has been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case , from my observation of the witness , and after
careful consideration , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF STAR PAPER TUBE, INC.
The Respondent , Star Paper Tube , Inc., is and has been at all times material
herein , a corporation duly organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State
of South Carolina, having its principal office and plant at Rock Hill , South Carolina,
and other plants at Austell , Georgia, and Blairs , Virginia, where it is engaged in .the
manufacture of paper tube products for the textile , paper , and carpet industries:
The Company at its plant at Austell , Georgia, manufacturers only spiral tubes, and
its plants at Rock Hill , South Carolina , and Blairs , Virginia , produce both spiral
and convolute paper tubes . The Company 's manufacturing facilities were estab-
lished in Danville , Virginia, in January 1957 , and later , about April 1, 1961, were
moved to newer and larger quarters at a location on Route 29 in Blairs, Virginia.
The plant of the Respondent located at Blairs, Virginia, is the only plant involved
in this proceeding.
The Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations as above de-
scribed , during the 12-month period preceding the issuance of ,the complaint herein, a
representative period, purchased goods, material , equipment , and supplies of -a value
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in excess of $50,000 for its Blairs, Virginia, plant from points -and places outside
the Commonwealth of Virginia, and has shipped finished products of a value in
excess of $50,000 from its plant in Blairs, Virginia, direct to points and places out-
side the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is now and has been at all times
material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)- of the Act.
III TILE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES -
The complaint in substance sets forth that the Respondent engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act in that on May 3, 1961, it terminated the employment of Clarence
Gentry, and on May 5, 1961, terminated the employment of Claude L: Bledsoe,
William H. Evans, Kenneth Gentry, Norman Gentry, Walter Gillespie, Jesse J. Hyler,
and Clyde E. McCormick because of their membership in and activity on behalf
of the Union, or because they engaged in concerted activities with other employees
of the Respondent for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection. It is asserted in the complaint that the Respondent by such discharges
did discourage and is discouraging membership in a labor organization by discrimi-
nation in regard to hire and tenure of employment or terms or conditions of em-
ployment in violation of Section 8(a) (3), and by such acts and conduct did interfere
with, restrain, and coerce its employees and is interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
in violation of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
It was stipulated between the parties at the hearing that Charles L. Roediger, vice
president, Herman Roediger, manager of the Blairs plant, and Richard Roediger
are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
THE INTEREST OF EMPLOYEES IN THE UNION
On Friday, April 28, 1961, Claude Bledsoe and Norman Gentry sought out
Howard Robertson, a union official, and inquired from him concerning the possi-
bility that the Union become the representative of the employees in the Blairs
plant. On the following day, Saturday, Bledsoe obtained a number of blank cards
for application for membership in the Union. At the time Bledsoe obtained the blank
cards from Robertson, the latter suggested that he could meet with the men who
were interested in the Union at Bledsoe's house on the following Sunday. Such
a meeting was held, although Robertson was not present. The meeting was attended
by Claude Bledsoe, Norman Gentry, Glenn Gentry, Kenneth Gentry, Clarence
Gentry, Jesse Hyler, and Bertie Harraway. It appears that Norman Gentry, Claude
Bledsoe, and either Aubrey Matherly or Walter Gillespie, or both, had each signed
an application card at the plant on Saturday, April 29. At any rate 12 signed cards
were obtained from employees on April 29 and Sunday, April 30.1
Robertson, the International Representative of the Union, furnished the blank
application cards for membership in the Union to Bledsoe but apparently took no
further active steps in furtherance of the organization of the employees except to
sign the amended charge against the Employer filed herein on June 29, 1961. It
does not appear from the record that any representation was made by any other
person to the Company that a majority of the employees desired union representation.
Only two incidents were related by witnesses called by the General Counsel
which could in the slightest degree indicate that the men alleged to have been
discharged because of their union activity were discharged at a time when any
one of the company officials had obtained knowledge of their interest in and
activities looking toward union organization.
1 During this period, some 17 or 18 employees, including at least 1 truckdriver, were in
the employ of the Company at its Blairs plant Those employees who signed application
cards for membership In the Union were Aubrey J Matherly, Raymond Scearce, Glenn'
Gentry, Bertie R Harraway, Kenneth Gentry, Clyde McCormick, Jesse Hyler, Clarence
Gentry, William Evans (whose name was signed to the card by Bledsoe with the per-
mission of Evans), Walter Gillespie, Claude Bledsoe, and Norman Gentry. The payroll
for the week ending May 10, 1961, shows 19 names, including the 12 persons who signed
application cards, herein named, including the name of John M. Bailey, stipulated at
the hearing to be a full-time police officer employed by the city of Danville, who works
part time for the Company.
STAR PAPER TUBE, INU. 347-
. The first of these is related by Glenn Gentry. He was discharged on May 2 for
failure to obey safety rules. His job included cooking glue and while doing so he
was supposed to wear goggles and gloves.2 That evening he looked up Richard
Roediger at a place called "The C. and E. Grill." where Richard Roediger, his
brothers, and their wives were at dinner. According to the testimony of Glenn
Gentry:
Well, I walked in there, and Richard he was shooting on that shuffleboard.
And I asked him what was the reason he fired me; was it on account-of us
boys trying to organize a union in there? And he wouldn't talk to me about it.
So him and Rody [Herman Roediger] both got mad about it. And Rody said
to the manager, said, "I amt going to put up with this." He said, "I will leave
if you want me to." So the manager said "No, I don't want- you to leave."
He told me to get out. So I got out.
It clearly appears from the testimony of not only Richard Roediger but of Clarence
Anderson, the manager of the C. ,and E. Grill, J. E. Mustain, a part-time bartender,
and Don Watts, a company employee, that Glenn Gentry was plainly inebriated
and approached Richard Roediger not only once but several times and made himself
so generally obnoxious that he was ejected from the restaurant. It is clear, too, that
Richard Roediger refused to discuss anything at all with Gentry except to ask him
to sit down and stop annoying him.
The second incident on which the General Counsel relies to show company
knowledge of union activity and animus against the Union lies in the report of a
telephone conversation reported by Pearl Gentry, the wife of Kenneth, who sail
that she had telephoned Herman Roediger at his home to ask him why Kenneth had
been discharged. She said that Herman Roediger repeatedly told her to ask Kenneth
why he was discharged but that finally after she had talked to him for some time
he allegedly said, "Well, if you have to know, they are trying to put a union in
there, and we do not want it." At the time Mrs. Kenneth Gentry made this tele-
phone call from a public telephone booth she was accompanied by Lena Gillespie,
the wife of Walter Gillespie, who said she stood in the telephone booth with Mrs.
Gentry and could overhear what Herman Roediger had to say on the telephone.
She corroborated the conversation as related by Mrs. Gentry to the effect that
Roediger repeated several times to Mrs. Gentry to go home and ask Kenneth why
he had been discharged and that Roediger finally said, "The boys out here were
trying to get a union, and they didn't want one." This testimony regarding mention
of the Union by Roediger in the telephone conversation is unequivocably denied
by him. He said he answered the call at his home while he was at the dinner table;
he denied saying anything to Mrs. Gentry concerning the Union; and related that
all he told her was to ask Kenneth the reason given for his being fired and finally
became irritated and terminated the conversation. Mrs. Herman Roediger. who
was present near the telephone, overheard Mr. Roediger's end of the conversation
and corroborated his statement in detail. I attach no credit to the testimony of
either Mrs. Gentry or Mrs. Gillespie.
According to the uncontradicted testimony in the record, the first knowledge that
management had that the men were interested in union organization came on the
evening of May 5, the day of the group discharges. The General Counsel says in his
brief that Glenn Gentry notified Richard Roediger of union activity on May 2.
This statement is not supported by the record. See supra. William Gentry, office
manager for the Company,3 received a telephone call from Norman Gentry who in-
formed him that "he had a union out here at the plant." William Gentry then
telephoned Herman Roediger and repeated the conversation between him and Nor-
man Gentry. Herman Roediger then telephoned Charles Roediger, the general
manager, and repeated to Charles what William Gentry had told him concerning
the statements made by Norman Gentry:
He [Norman Gentry] first started out by saying that he wanted Bill to tell him
why he had lost his job, what was the true reason he lost his job. And he
said, "Bill, don't you know we have a union out here?" He says, "I am not
a union member." He says, "There are two of us, myself and Raymond Ven-
,able that don't belong to the union. But this afternoon I'm going to join the
union and try to get my job back."
The telephone call from Herman to Charles occurred about 9 or 10 o'clock during
the evening of May 5.
2 Glenn Gentry is not alleged as a discriminatee in this proceeding
S Norman , Clarence, Glenn, and Kenneth Gentry are brothers. William Gentry, the
office manager , is not related to the others.
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The General Counsel asserts that, in connection with a finding of a violation of
Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act, even if direct knowledge on the part of the Company
cannot be shown, the Board is empowered to draw an inference of knowledge from
the circumstances of the case. Among the cases cited in support of this statement
is Wiese Plow Welding Co., Inc., 123 NLRB 616, 617-618, wherein the Board said:
The Trial Examiner found that the General Counsel failed to prove that Cald-
well's discharge was violative of the Act because the evidence does not establish
that the Respondent had direct knowledge of Caldwell's activities on behalf of
the Union and his application for membership therein. We disagree with the
Trial Examiner that direct knowledge of the employee's concerted or union
activities is a sine qua non for finding that he has been discharged because of
such activities. On the contrary, there is well-established Board and court
precedent that such knowledge may be inferred from the record as a whole.
The really strong case in support of this thesis is cited by the General Counsel-
The Radio Officers' Union of the Commercial Telegraphers Union, AFL (A. H.
Bull Steamship Company) v. N.L.R.B., 347 U.S. 17.4
I turn now to a discussion of the individuals who were discharged in May 1961.
Before discussing each case however, it seems appropriate to point out that all
except two of these men had something to do with the convolute machine .5
When the Company moved its operations from Danville to Blairs, it installed in
the new plant one machine called the spiral machine which turned out tubes for
which paper had been applied in spiral fashion. A new convolute machine, larger
than the one previously used, was installed in the new plant, this convolute ma-
chine accounting for 80 to 85 percent of the production of the plant. It is in
connection with the work performed on and around this machine that questions
have been raised concerning the quality and amount of work done by men employed
in connection with their work on and near that machine.
The Discharge of Clarence Gentry
Clarence Gentry first went to work for the Company in Danville in September
1958; he quit his job in May 1958 and returned after about a month and a half
absence; he continued to work until shortly after July 15, 1960, after Richard Roe-
diger had been transferred in June or July 1960 from the Austell plant to Blairs.
After a short time Clarence Gentry returned to work and continued until he was
terminated on May 3, 1961. During the times of his employment he worked as a
helper on the convolute machine, later as the operator thereon, then as helper, later
as operator, and then again as a helper. He testified that while working on the car-
buretor on his automobile, away from the plant and off duty, he suffered a burned
arm and consequently was unable to work for about a week His accident was
reported by his brother. On May 3 he returned to the plant to report for work and
Among other cases cited by the General Counsel in brief in support of his statement
that the Board has inferred knowledge from the record as a whole despite the absence of
proof of specific knowledge of the union activities of each individual discriminatee is
Starkville Mills, Inc., and its successor Buck Greek Cotton Mills, Starkville Division,
129 NLRB 1474 , wherein the Board adopted the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations as its own . In that case the Trial Examiner in stating the back-
ground of the company 's general defense, wrote ( p. 1478) .
In the first half of 1959 the Company lost substantial sums of money In an
effort to restore the business to a profitable basis the Company brought in Superin-
tendent Israel on July 1 . He promptly dismissed 4 of the Company 's 6 supervisors,
and in the first 6-week period discharged some 18 employees. The Company con-
tends that the discharges here involved were a part of the "general house cleaning"
initiated by Superintendent Israel in an effort to weed out inefficient employees and
increase production
Somewhat the same circumstances in connection with the discharges in the instant case
and the defense of the Company are here present, as will be shown below
5 According to Herman Roediger, 21 employees were discharged in the year 1961 as
follows, 1 on January 2; 3 on January 3 , 1 on February 17; 1 on April 13; 1 on
April 26; 1 on Anril 28; 1 on May 2; 8 on May 5; 2 on May 23 ; 1 on May 31 ; and
and 1 on August 21. During this time 10 employees quit as follows : 1 on February 6;
1 on February 8; 1 on April 28; 1 on May 3; 1 on May 26 ; 1 on June 8; 1 on June 29;
1 on July 28 ; 1 on August 2 ; and 1 on August 18. He accounted for this turnover be-
cause of "the inability of the personnel to operate the plant, operate the machines, take
care of themselves, be safety minded."
STAR PAPER TUBE, INC. 349
was informed by Herman Roediger, the plant manager, that he had been replaced
because he was "unavailable" for work. He said that on one occasion when he was
operating the convolute machine a run of dry flap tubes "stuck down" and his two
helpers were fired; at that time he was taken off the machine and assigned to the
tying of bundles which he did for about 2 or 3 weeks, and it was on that occasion
that he presented his card (apparently his .timecard) to Richard and told him that
he did not think he ought to go back to tying bundles; and that Herman Roediger
said if he could not do better than he had been he could not go on running the
machine, and therefore he "went home." He said he was sent for, and when he
returned to the plant "Richard said if I wanted to come back in on the first shift, that
he needed me, and it would be all right, that I could come back in to work." That
is when he became a helper and thereafter was again assigned as an operator.
The Discharge of Kenneth Gentry
Kenneth Gentry started to work for the Company in November 1958. He was
discharged on May 5, 1961. His first job was working on the spiral machine, tying
up tubes; after 3 or 4 weeks he was assigned to tying up on the convolute machine.
Thereafter he went to work on the spiral machine to learn how to operate it. In
March 1959 he became a truckdriver and held that job until he was discharged.
He was convicted for speeding in June 1960 and again in April 1961. At the trial
after his second offense he said he was informed by the court that he would have
to be convicted of speeding and was informed by the judge that the latter did not
know whether his license would or would not be revoked by the Richmond office
of, I take it, the State Motor Vehicle Bureau. His license was revoked .approximately
2 weeks after his discharge. When he informed .the plant manager, Herman Roe-
diger, of his second conviction, he asked Roediger whether he wanted him to con-
tinue driving; Roediger replied that he did; Gentry asked Roediger if he lost his
license whether he would lose his job or would work be obtainable for him in the
plant; he said that Roediger finally said yes-"He would place me somewhere out
there. He said he would give me something to do." Gentry continued to drive until
May 5 when he was discharged. On that day, he testified that he returned to the
plant early, went into the office to turn in his delivery tickets and papers, and, as he
was about to punch out, was asked by Herman Roediger to go out in the plant and
help him straighten up and make the rest of the day out there. He said that about
3 or 4 o'clock Herman Roediger informed him that he was wanted in the office, that
he walked into the office and Charles Roediger asked him for his courtesy card and
keys to the truck, informed him that he was not a satisfactory employee, told him
that he was going to lose his driver's license, and informed him that he would no
longer be needed. He was paid in full and instructed to leave the premises immedi-
ately. Clearly, the reason given by Charles Roediger for the discharge of Gentry
was because he either had lost or was about to lose his driver's license, said to be
automatic under Virginia law for a period of 60 days. According to Gentry,
Roediger made him no offer of another job in the plant.6
The Discharge of Claude Bledsoe
Claude Bledsoe started work for the Company in July 1959 as a helper on the con-
volute machine and remained at that job for approximately 1 month, when he was
transferred to the slitter machine where he stayed for about 2 weeks, after which
he was returned to the convolute machine to learn how to operate it. On Febru-
ary 22, 1960, he suffered an accident while working on the convolute machine
which necessitated medical attention and subsequent bone grafting. He returned
to work and was there for approximately 1 week when he was fired for drinking.
He was out of work for approximately 1 week when he was asked by Herman
Roediger if he cared to return to work. He returned and was put to sweeping floors
and other general work in the plant. It was in September of this year that he was
e In a pretrial statement given to a field examiner of the Board, Gentry made the
following statement:
I would say that I received 25 to 40 complaints from Burlington Industries, 15 or
20 different plants I delivered to ; North Carolina Finishing complained 10 to 15
times. The complaints dealt with bundles too loose or too light, mixed up sizes, bad
gluing, and so forth. . . . I would figure that I received on the average one com-
plaint a week which I reported to Bill Gentry.
In general, it appears that these complaints dealt with the way the product was being
made and put together at the plant as well as the way the product got out of shape or
fell apart before or at the time the customer received it.
350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
readmitted to the hospital for the bone grafting operation . While in the hospital,
he testified , both Richard and Herman Roediger assured him that he would be put
back to work when he was able to return , that "We are not going to take the man off
when you come back, but if there ever is an opening for another man on the machine,
you will be one of the first to go back on it ." He returned to the factory in October
1960 and acted as a machine instructor for about a week and then was transferred
to the shipping and receiving department . He was told that the Company had too
many men on the machine so it was decided to place him at the job of loading
trucks-"seeing that the trucks were loaded, unloading trucks, when the paper came
in, and stuff such as that , and keeping the plant as clean as possible." He was put
under the general supervision of William Gentry , the office manager.
He testified that on a particular Friday during the last part of April, he was loading
trucks when William Gentry and he engaged in a discussion concerning Gentry's
order to him to assist in taking inventory on paper on which orders were to be run.
There was some disagreement between the two men, apparently , as to whether or not
Bledsoe should continue the work he was doing or leave it and assist Gentry in the
taking of inventory . The inventory job having been completed , Bledsoe was
assigned to assist on the convolute machine until 4 o'clock at which time he was given
permission to punch out, Gentry saying that the job he was working on could be
finished on Monday . Bledsoe asked William Gentry w'nat time he should report on
the following Monday to which Gentry replied , ". . . call me over the weekend and
I will let you know." In a telephone conversation on Saturday , the following day,
Gentry accused Bledsoe of having "really messed me up" and told him why; told
Bledsoe to report at 8 o'clock on Monday; on Monday Gentry told Bledsoe he had
orders to fire him Ito which Bledsoe replied he would like to talk to Herman Roediger;
he talked to Roediger and was told to return at 1 o'clock in the afternoon; he did
return and Roediger reportedly said that it was just a misunderstanding "between me
and Bill" and for Bledsoe to go on back to work, whereupon Bledsoe said he had
lost most of the day, was nervous, and would like to take the rest of the day off.
Bledsoe returned to work on the following Tuesday. On Friday, while he was on the
loading platform , he was called into the office . According to him, Herman and
Charles Roediger were there and Charles Roediger said:
"Claude, we just don't need you here anymore ." He said , "your work is unsatis-
factory." He said, "we are just not going to have it anymore." He said,
"when I hand you your two checks ," he said , "I want you to leave these premises
immediately and do not let me catch you on them again ." Which I did, sir.
Charles Roediger testified , in connection with the discharge of Bledsoe , that he told
Bledsoe:
. that his work was not satisfactory; that we have had several complaints
here in just the past week about his performance . So, therefore , I was letting
him go. I was discharging him.
Q. (By Mr. ABATO .) Well, now, since he had been brought back , why was
it that you were discharginghim?
A. At this time I hadn 't made a decision to change the personnel in the opera-
tion on the convolute machine nor to get our trucking straightened out better.
This was prior to that. But when we sat down and went over these men and
this was brought to my attention that this man was not dependable , that he
wasn 't doing the job, that he wasn 't reporting as he should have, that he wasn't
getting those trucks out on schedule, I said , "If we're going to straighten this
operation out, we have to replace him also ." So we did.
The Discharge of Norman Gentry
Norman Gentry began work for the Company in early 1958 and worked until
May 5, 1961, when he was discharged. His first job was as a helper on the convolute
machine? He worked as a helper for 6 to 8 months and then became a convolute
operator working at that job for over a year when he was taken off the operating
of that machine and put on the second shift as leadman and to train other operators.
He worked on the second shift (4 p.m. until 12 midnight ) until the plant was moved
to Blairs, when he was put on as the convolute operator on the third shift ( 12 mid-
7 In ordinary course the convolute machine crew consisted of the operator and two
helpers.
STAR PAPER TUBE, INC. 351
night until 8 a.m. ). Norman Gentry testified that he did at times work on the
spiral machine and also on the slitter 8
He testified that there is a great deal of maintenance work to be done on the
new convolute machine, principally because when it was brought into the Blairs
plant it was an old machine in bad shape and in need of repair; that it "stayed
down nearly all the time," was hard to run, and if the operator did not know too
much about the mechanical part of it, it was hard to run because it was worn out.
Except for one incident when he was chided for the running of bad work on the
convolute machine (he was the operator at the time), which he claimed was with
the approval of Richard Roediger, he claimed that he had been complimented on
his work many times and that he had the highest production record of any of the
operators at either the Blairs or Rock Hill plants of the Company. He related the
circumstances of his discharge as follows
Q. (By Mr. ABATO.) You said you worked until May 5, 1961. What hap-
pened on May 5th?
A. Well, I got off-I finished the third shift that morning at 8 o'clock and
went home and went to bed. And some time after 12 that evening Pearl Gentry
came up to my house and told me that Charley Roediger wanted to see me at the
plant. So I went down there, and he called me in the office, handed me my
check and told me he didn't need me no more, that I wasn't a good employee,
and that I was trying to stir up trouble in the plant I asked him what I had
done and wanted him to explain why he was firing me. He wouldn't give me no
answer. He said he wished that I would leave the premises immediately.
Charles Roediger testified in connection with the discharge of Norman Gentry, as
follows:
I had Norman brought into the office. And I said, "Norman, due to your
bad run last night, and from the tubes that we showed you this morning, you
know exactly what we're talking about, that we're having to let you go I am
trying to straighten this organization out, and we feel like in keeping with the
policy of what I am trying to do that we will have to let you go also."
The Discharge of Clyde McCormick
Clyde McCormick began work at Star Paper Tube Company as a machine helper
on the convolute machine in July 1960 and, except for absences due to the death of
his father and the illness of his wife and mother in the month of February 1961,
worked steadily during that time . He testified that each time when he was to be
absent from work he notified the Company and nothing ever was said to him con-
cerning these absences.
On May 5, having worked the third shift (12 midnight to 8 a.m.), he was sent
by Richard Roediger to the office where he met Charles Roediger. He testified that
Roediger informed him that his salary checks were written up, that his work was
unsatisfactory , and "I 'm going to let you go." He said that only about 3 weeks
before his discharge , while he was at work on the second shift, he was complimented
by Richard Roediger who informed him that he was doing a good job . On cross-
examination , he denied that he was ever told by any representative of management
that his production was off or that he ever had received a reprimand in connection
with his work.
The Discharge of"Walter Gillespie
Walter Gillespie first was employed by the Company during the first part of
August 1960, and continued at work until he was discharged on May 5, 1961. He
worked first on the convolute machine as a tieup man for from 2 to 3 months, then
-became a helper on that machine and occasionally did cleanup work as a helper in
the plant , or at times on weekends did maintenance work on the machine. Eventually
he became an operator on the convolute machine . He worked on that machine from
the latter part of November as an operator on different shifts. He testified that 3
or 4 days or perhaps a week before the day of his discharge, he was taken off the
third shift and put on the second shift by Richard Roediger, who at that time remarked
3 According to Norman Gentry, and it 'seems to be the fact, the smaller convolute
machine previously used at the Danville plant was replaced by the large convolute ma-
chine in the new plant at Blairs where there were also two spiral machines, a slitter, and
a baler He said that on the new larger spiral machine at Blairs, three to four men
worked on it-"an operator and two or three helpers or maybe an operator and an
apprentice operator and two helpers "
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the man on the second shift was not performing satisfactory work. He said
further that this one man replaced by him was one Cassell, who remained at work
after Gillespie was discharged; that he had not been during the time of his employ-
ment criticized for any trouble which occurred in the operation of the convolute
machine. He related that 2 days before he was discharged they had some trouble
with the machine and that Richard, Herman, and Charles Roediger witnessed the
difficulty in the running of a small order of tubes, and that at that time after an
attempt was made to adjust the machine, Richard Roediger instructed him ". . . just
to cut the machine off and fixed them up the best I could, glue the flaps down inside,
and try to ship them out." He testified that on May 5, the day of his discharge, he
reported to work on the second shift, that during a coffee or smoke break he was-
asked to report to the office, that he did report, and according to him:
When I got in there, Herman was sitting to the right of Charlie and Charlie
was sitting behind the desk. He opened the drawer there and got two pay
checks out and handed them to me and told me that I wasn't a satisfactory
worker and I didn't meet his standards, their standards, and he was letting me
go, and he would like for me to leave the premises immediately .9
Gillespie testified that Norman Gentry, he, and Richard Roediger at one time en-
tered into a short discussion concerning unionization of another plant and Richard
at that time remarked that "You couldn't fire a man-that there was some kind of
law-I don't know exactly what kind he said, but it wouldn't allow you to fire a
man on account of the union. But they could always find something to fire him
for." He also said that Richard Roediger had told him about a week before he was
fired that he need not worry about losing his job.
The Discharge of William Evans
William Evans started to work for the Company during October 1959, and con-
tinued at work until the day of his discharge, May 5, 1961. He at first tied tubes on
the spiral machine and the convolute machine, continuing at this work for about a
year after which he became a helper on the convolute machine. About a month or 6
weeks before his discharge, he said, he was made an operator on the convolute
machine, working on the first shift. According to Evans, on May 5 he was instructed
to report to Charles Roediger in his office, that he carried his toolbox up to the door
of the office, went on in, that Charles Roediger handed him a check and ". . . told
me he didn't need me no more " He said that Charles Roediger told him to get off
the premises and stay off. Evans, as did Gillespie and other witnesses, testified that
the convolute machine broke down occasionally; that he had not received repri-
mands from management during the course of his work and that upon an occasion
or two he had been told that he was doing good work.
The Discharge of Jesse Hyler
Jesse Hyler began work for the Company during July 1959 as a tieup boy on the
convolute machine, subsequently for 6 or 8 months thereafter was employed as a
machine helper, and worked either on the first or old convolute machine or the new
convolute machine at Blairs until his discharge on May 5, 1961.
After becoming an operator on the convolute machine he apparently ran into some
disagreement with Richard Roediger concerning how he worked; he requested
Roediger to take him off the machine; after a second request he was taken off as
operator and went on the third shift with Clarence Gentry . Sometime during 1960 he
was discharged as a helper on the convolute machine . His testimony in part is thus:
Well, it was Aubrey Templeton and Latman Pearce was on the machine. I was
helping. The machine had been running bad. They had a bad roll of paper
trying to run it. I stood there with the machine like the helper was supposed to
do until I was told to leave. I was told to go in the glue room and make up
some glue. I went in there. In the meantime the machine broke. I think
the tube hung on it. One of them went in and called Mr. Herman Roediger
from C. E.'s Grill out there. He came down and asked him where was his
helper at when this happened. He said, "I had him in there making glue."
He said, "Well, he is fired." When I come out he said, "don't talk to me . You're
6 Gillespie testified that on one occasion, when he was working with Clarence Gentry on
a job for North Carolina Finishing Company, some of the tubes being run were improperly
tied, that they were called into the office by Herman Roediger and at that time Clarence
was taken off the machine . He said no apparent blame was attached to him for that
occurrence.
STAR PAPER TUBE, INC. 353
fired." He said, "Go on out the plant right now." I went out. I borrowed a
boy's pick-up truck and went home on it. We lived about a block apart. .
The next day Mr. Roediger said, "Jesse, I am sorry. It is my fault. I am sorry."
He said, "how many hours did you work?" He said, "I'm going to pay you for
eight." He said, "come on back to work. Do you want to?"
His further testimony is that he went back to work on the following day as a machine
helper and worked until May 5, 1961, when he was fired, according to him, under
the following circumstances:
I was on the second shift. I went in. I went on back to the back end of the
building. We have got a place marked off where you smoke back there. Herman
came back and told me that I was supposed to go in the office. I went in the
office. And he came over there in the chair nand sat down like this, over here.
Charlie was behind the desk. He said, "Here is your money, Jesse." He said,
"We don't need you no more, you're an unsatisfactory worker." I said, "Is that
all?" He said, "That is all." According to Hyler, Roediger asked him to leave
the premises immediately and not to come back.
Other Factors To Be Considered Jointly in Connection With
the Discharges of May 2 and 5, 1961
As will have been noted from comment made above, each one of the alleged dis-
criminatees had indicated their interest in becoming members of the Union and were
in varying degrees active in support of union organization. It has been noted that
there is no real evidence that representatives of the Company in responsible positions
were aware of union activity.
The testimony developed during the course of the hearing showed that employees,
including each one of the eight alleged discriminatees, received varying rates of pay
during the respective terms of the employment of each. There were very few job
classifications as such to be considered in connection with rates of pay; it appears to
the Trial Examiner that at least until the move of the Company from Danville to
Blairs in connection with the plant under discussion and its employees, that rates of
pay were more or less on a personal or individual basis. From the testimony of
Charles Roediger, to be discussed below, it appears that the Company did, in an
effort to formalize its wage structure, assign certain rates of pay within ranges for the
few job classifications involved in the operation of the Blairs plant. These job
classifications briefly were machine operator, machine helper, maintenance, truck-
driving, and miscellaneous labor. I cannot find within the record evidence that any
particular individual employee was demoted in the sense of having his pay rate
lowered because of his interest in or activity on behalf of the Union. I find, rather,
that rates of pay were from time to time adjusted according to the work done by any
particular individual employee, such adjustments being made within a rather flexible
wage rate schedule.
Another major factor mentioned from time to time during the course of the hearing
was the ability or the desire of a particular employee to perform the job to which he
was assigned. Shift changes were made from time to time, job assignments were
changed either at the express order of the employer or at the request of an employee,
and generally the operation (which involved the services of a comparatively few (18
to 20 employees)) were not necessarily arbitrary or capricious on the part of the
employer, so far as the record herein discloses.
It has been pointed out by the General Counsel, with emphasis, that the discharges
involved herein, where alleged discrimination occurred, were made without the Re-
spondent Company having arranged for replacements in the jobs from which men
were discharged. After the discharges in May 1961, for a period of time and before
replacements were made, the employer reduced its operation from three shifts to two,
and utilized the assistance of some supervisory help to maintain production on the
two shifts.
It has been testified, and I find no reason to decide to the contrary, that the Com-
pany ran into serious problems in connection with production both as to quality and
quantity, after the move from Danville to Blairs.10
10 Although the General Counsel has criticized the failure of the Respondent to produce
comparative Individual production records in support of the Respondent's contention that
the work of certain individuals at Blairs did not compare favorably with production
records of employees at Rock Hill or Austell. I cannot find any lack of cooperation on
the part of the Respondent in connection with the furnishing of any such records which
could have been but were not requested by the General Counsel.
634449-62-vol. 135-24
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Defenses Against Alleged Discrimination and Reasons for the
Discharge of the Alleged Discriminatees
Charles Roediger is vice president, treasurer, and general manager of the three
plants of Star Paper Tube, Inc., at Danville, Rock Hill, and Austell. He is in
general overall charge o1 each of these plants.
In his testimony, he described the initial survey made by his Company concern-
ing the opening of operations in Danville, Virginia , and the resultant decision to
open a Danville plant. This was done in January 1958, and from the outset that
plant showed a profitable return in business; it appeared that the initial survey for
prospective production for sales in that area had been on the conservative side,
and that there was more potential in the area than was at first thought would be
there. He testified that the Danville plant showed a reasonable return of profit on
an excellent product by the middle of January 1958 and that the plant continued
to improve and show profit until about the middle of 1960. In the middle of that
year, he testified, the Company's profits began to drop, customer complaints in-
creased, and the quality of the company product was off, so that it was decided
about that time that the comparatively small size of their plant was handicapping
sales and production. It, therefore, was decided to build a larger plant with better
facilities and room for expansion of the operation. Following this policy decision,
the plant at Blairs was acquired and operations there began about April 1, 1961.
According to the testimony of Charles Roediger and Herman Roediger, during the
period mid-1960 up to April 1961, intensive effort was made to improve the Com-
pany's situation, moves which included the shifting of crews, the discharging of
personnel , a better training program , meetings and individual talks to employees,
pay increases, the installation of a bonus system, and a general pay increase.
In the words of Charles Roediger:
And after we had moved into our new operation, the conditions continued to be
the same. And then we knew that our decision at one time for a larger plant,
better facilities, was not our main reason for the trouble we had been having all
through 1960, the last half of 1960. . . The plant, I believe, in April of
1960 showed a tremendous drop in profits, more than ever before; that is when
action was really taken.
We tried a lot of things. We tried the shifting of crews, changing of the
personnel in the operation , more or less a better training program o1 explain-
ing to these men exactly what it is we required, showing what was wrong with
our product. We tried to get as many customers samples as we could to
bring back in there and show them what our competitors were putting out, and
what we were putting out compared to what our competitors were doing, as to
why we were losing business; that our machines were not producing like they
should. Our product was not up to par any longer. We tried to take steps
to overcome these conditions. .
At that time [late April 1961] since we had such a tremendous drop over
the previous months in 1961, I just came to the conclusion that we had to
make changes in personnel; that we had tried improved working conditions;
we had tried raises, we had tried building the morale of our employees through
pats on the back and telling them they were doing a better job. We tried
an incentive plan in the plant to get them to produce better. We tried
numerous things to overcome the conditions that happened .to us. None of
those things worked out whatsoever. I was determined at that time that we
were going to have to make some changes in personnel on this one large con-
volute machine which was running and had been running 80 to 85 percent of
our total sales of the Danville operation. I decided that changes would have
to be made in that machine. Also the fact that our transportation and ware-
housing was not like it should have been. Our trucks weren't getting to the
customers on time due ,to the fact that we were having trouble in the loading of
these trucks.
* * * * * * *
We tried shifting the personnel on that unit [convolute machine]-trying
to get better working crews that would handle that machine more effi-
ciently. . . . We had meetings between management and supervision with my-
,self going over the inefficiencies of the operation, as to what we thought was
wrong. They were instructed, in turn, to inform these employees of their bad
runs, the low production, the waste figures. And I think-in fact, I am quite
certain that these boys knew themselves exactly what was going on out there
as to why they weren',t producing correctly and efficiently in the operation.
STAR PAPER TUBE, INC. 355
They didn't seem to care too much about the organization there in the Com-
pany. That is, some of the employees. . . a lot of things were going on.
The machine was not producing as it should have produced due to the fact that
they weren't watching it like they should watch it. They weren't running it
like it should be run. They weren't capable of making small changeovers,
matters of adjustments in the machine . This machine is a semi -automatic
machine and not an automatic machine in the sense that we do have to have
personnel to operate it. It is not something that runs itself . It is something
that if a roll of paper runs one way or another, the paper might be off caliber,
the glue might not be just right. Adjustments continuously have to be made
in that tube to keep that tube up to standards.
Well I had-as I say, I had tried practically everything that I knew to try in
the book to overcome these conditions. And the only thing that I had not tried
was culling some of these boys out that were not doing their job completely
all at one time and trying ito replace them with fellows that could learn, that
would take an interest in the organization, and that we thought we could train
to make top notch operators so that we could continue to stay in business.
Our business was in jeopardy at this time. . . . We were having customer com-
plaints. We have one account up in this area which very large and very im-
portant to our operation. We were having troubles with them on products not
going out and not meeting deliveries on schedules.
Charles Roediger went on to relate that after his arrival at Blairs on May 3, 1961,
after lengthy meetings with management including the plant manager, the super-
visor, and the office manager, and in going over the records of each man and a
discussion in connection with each case, he decided that in view that most of the pro-
duction depended on the large convolute machine, changes would have to be made.
On the basis of the total review of conditions in the factory , the performance of
individuals and consideration of all of the other factors above mentioned, Charles
Roediger took the responsibility for the discharge of the men he considered were not
helpful to the operation of the convolute machine, to the delivery operation by truck,
and to the warehouse situation . Charles Roediger , on the basis of the information
furnished to him by the plant manager, the plant superintendent and supervisor, the
office manager , and from his own observation , determined the persons to be dis-
charged. His testimony, contained in the transcript of the hearing herein, refers
to each of these men and the reasons supporting his decision to discharge each of
them . After listening to the testimony of each of the eight men discharged and the
testimony of Charles , Herman, and Richard Roediger , and upon review of the
record , I am not convinced that the discharges of the eight men named in the com-
plaint were because they were engaged in union activity. I believe that the General
Counsel has failed to sustain the burden of proof in that connection here and con-
sider, on the preponderance of the evidence, that each one of these men was dis-
charged for cause.
Certain graphs showing comparative profit and losses on sales at the Danville
and Rock Hill plants during the critical periods considered herein, support the
testimony of Charles Roediger that the Blairs factory, operation was not a profitable
one from the Company's point of view.
the General Counsel argues that the exhibits in the form of graphs show a slow
but steady improvement in the profit-and-loss picture at the Blairs plant, after removal
from Danville, through April 1961 ; also show that 'during that period profits fell at
the Danville plant , but also fell at the Rock Hill plant : and that when improvement
in the condition began at- Rock Hill it also began to' Danville. He says that this
would indicate that factors other than the alleged poor work at the Blairs plant
caused the problem of the drop in profits. I do not accept the logic in back of this
argument . I reject it simply because the facts in connection with the performance
of the individual employees involved at the Blairs plant indicate a failure on the
part of these employees properly to perform their work, and that the excuses given
by them , including the poor condition of the convolute machine and errors in
operation , are not convincing in regard to whether or not they were paying proper
attention to their jobs.
On the part of the General Counsel it is said that a careful examination of the
exhibits submitted by the Respondent do not support the assertion of the Respond.
,ent that the situation at the Danville plant deteriorated after April 1, 1961 , to such
an extent "that the drastic and sudden discharge of seven employees on one day
was necessary"; but rather these exhibits and other evidence in the record indicate
that there had been a bad period at the Danville plant commencing in mid-year 1960
caused by factors other than a sudden deterioration in the performance of the
356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees at the Blairs plant; and that in fact the situation was improving at the
time of the "precipitate" discharge of seven employees on 1 day. It seems to me
that it was well within the judgment of management to decide, rightly or wrongly,
that the proper remedy was the discharge of these employees and then the ultimate
replacement of them by other employees capable of proper performance.
The fact that Charles Roediger, the chief executive of the Company, appeared at
Blairs only 3 or 4 days before the discharges were made, to me is of no significance
in the face of the testimony, uncontradicted, of management representatives that
he was in overall charge of the operations of the Company at its three plants, and
was in constant communication, by telephone and otherwise, with management at
the Blairs plant.
In regard to company knowledge of union activity of its employees, the General
Counsel in brief points out that many factors have entered into the drawing of an
inference of knowledge to support findings that a discharge was in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. He includes in his listing such factors as a small
number of employees at a company plant; the discharge of an employee simul-
taneously with the discharge of known union adherents; the timing of the discharges
immediately after the advent of a union or after the commencement of union
activities, in such a situation where an employee had been employed longer than
any other operator in his particular section of a plant and had received no complaints
about his work and had received pay increases; implausibility of defenses set up by
an employer; the retention of persons not shown to be union members and the ter-
mination of persons who were union members; abrupt discharge without prior warn-
ing; false reasons given to employees at the time of their discharge or a refusal to
give an explanation or reason for discharge, a background of activity by an employer
in violation of Section 8(a)(1); and finally, the disproportionate member of union
adherents discharged in relation to the total number of employees. I find myself
unable to apply any of these several criteria to the case under consideration.
Certainly the representative of the Union here showed no special interest in pur-
suing the organization of the employees, nor does it appear that his name ever was
heard by a responsible member of management until the charge of unfair labor
practices was filed. Each one of the employees, alleged discriminatees, who testified
herein specifically denied having had their union activities mentioned to them by
any member of management.
I find that Clarence Gentry, Kenneth Gentry, Claude Bledsoe, Norman Gentry,
Clyde McCormick, Walter Gillespie, William Evans, and Jesse Hyler each was
discharged for proper cause within the proper discretion of management and not
because of their activities on behalf of, or their membership in, or concerted activities
on behalf of the Union.
The General Counsel contends that proft- and-loss statements for April 1961, not
having been produced by the Respondent, would be the only documentary evidence
to support the testimony of Charles Roediger in particular concerning the financial
condition of the Company in April 1961. He relies on Borg-Warner Controls,
Borg-Warner Corporation, 128 NLRB 1035; Concord Supplies & Equipment Corp.,
110 NLRB 1863, 1873; Whitin Machine Works, 100 NLRB 279, and cases cited
therein. The profit-and-loss statements referred to by the General Counsel could
have been made available to him through subpena process, and I can find no reason
to discover a presumption to arise because the Respondent did not voluntarily
produce such records. No question was raised at hearing with respect to the
accuracy of financial condition reflected by the exhibits introduced in graph form,
commented upon extensively by the General Counsel in his brief.
I find that the Respondent herein, Star Paper Tube, Inc., has not been shown by
the preponderance of the evidence herein to have engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 9 (a)(1) and (3) of the Act, as alleged in the
complaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Star Paper Tube, Inc., is now, and has been at all times mate-
rial hereto, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the definition of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in nor is it engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint.
4. The complaint should be dismissed in its entirety.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]