The American Envelope Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 5, 1952

97 N.L.R.B. 1541 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

THE AMERICAN ENVELOPE CO. 1541
drivers who were sufficient to take care of the needs of the business for that day
at least. The Employer was under no obligation to discharge the 8 men it had
hired on the morning of August 18 in order to substitute the former employees.
Even if it were held that the entire group had not been replaced, at least a
majority of the jobs had been filled by permanent employees and a majority of
the individuals named in the complaint were no longer employees of Respondent.
Thus the Union had lost its status as the bargaining representative of a majority
of Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit before 3 p. in. on the 18th
when Respondent was first requested to reinstate the members of such unit and
Respondent was not required to bargain with the Union. In view of the fore-
going conclusions as well as my conviction that it has not been shown that the
Union coerced, threatened, interrogated, or made promises of benefit to em-
ployees, in violation of the Act, I find that the evidence warrants no finding that
Respondent committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (1), (3), and (5) of the Act. It will therefore be recommended that the
complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record in the case, I make the
following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Gulf Coast Oil Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and
Helpers of America, General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local
270, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. All employees classified as truck drivers at Respondent's New Orleans,
Louisiana, place of business, excluding office and clerical personnel, mechanics,
servicemen, service station operators, supervisors as defined in the Act, and all
other employees of Respondent, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. At all times material herein, the Union was not, and is not now, the exclusive
representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining.
5. Gulf Coast Oil Company, its successors, assigns, or affiliates neither directly,
nor through its successors, assigns, or affiliates, has engaged in any of the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint.
Recommendations
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the
entire record in the case, I hereby recommend that the complaint be dismissed
in its entirety.
THE AMERICAN ENVELOPE Co. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD or
PULP, SULPHITE AND PAPER MILL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case
No. 9-IBC-10,¢5. February 5, 1952
Decision and Order
On January 18, 1951, pursuant to a stipulation for certification
upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted in
the above-entitled matter under the direction and supervision of the
97 NLRB No. 239.
986209-52-vol. 97-98
1542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Regional Director for the Ninth Region among the employees in the
agreed unit. The tally of ballots issued after the election showed
that, of the approximately 379 eligible voters, 367 cast ballots, of
which 145 were for the Petitioner, 209 were against the Petitioner,
and 13 were challenged.
On January 25, 1951, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct of
election and to conduct affecting results of election. Thereafter, in
accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
Director conducted an investigation and on May 28, 1951, issued and
duly served upon the parties a report on objections in which he rec-
ommended that a hearing be held on the issues raised by the Peti-
tioner's objections. On June 4 and 7, 1951, respectively, the Em-
ployer and Petitioner filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report
and recommendations. Subsequently, on June 20, 1951, the Board
issued an order directing that a hearing be held on the issues raised
by the objections and remanded the case to the Regional Director for
that purpose.
Pursuant -to the Board's order, a hearing was held in Dayton, Ohio,
from September 11 through 14, and September 18 through 21, 1951,
before Bernard Ness, hearing officer. Both the petitioner and Em-
ployer appeared and participated. On November 1, 1951, the hearing
officer issued and had served upon the parties his report on objections
to election, a copy of which it attached hereto, in which he recom-
mended that the Petitioner's objections be overruled. The Petitioner
filed exceptions to the hearing officer's report on objections to election
and a supplemental brief," and the Employer filed an answer to the
latter brief.
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the hearing officer
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the hearing
officer's report on objections to election, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the hearing officer's
findings, conclusions, and recommendations, with the following
additions :
The Petitioner's exceptions to the hearing officer's report are prin-
cipally that (1) he erred in not crediting the testimony of the Peti-
tioner's witnesses on such matters as the alleged supervisory status of
Starnes, who engaged in various acts of interrogation, the alleged as-
sistance given by the Employer to the antiunion committee, and
alleged coercive remarks made by Superintendent Arnold; and (2)
' In view of our determination herein , we do not pass upon the timeliness of the Peti-
tioner's filing of its supplemental brief.
2 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 Houston, Murdock,
.and Styles]. 14
THE AMERICAN ENVELOPE CO. 1543
that the election should have been set aside under the General Shoe
decision,3 because Superintendent Arnold's meetings with employees
during the election campaign constituted interference with the free
choice of the employees to select their own bargaining representative.
We find no merit in the Petitioner's contentions.
With respect to (1), the Board has repeatedly held that in proceed-
ings of this nature the hearing officer occupies a position similar to that
of a Trial Examiner in an unfair labor practice proceeding and, as he
has the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and hear their
testimony, we attach great weight to his credibility findings. We will
not overrule them unless the preponderance of all of the relevant evi-
dence convinces us that he is incorrect 4 In the present case, we are
not convinced that the hearing officer's findings are incorrect.
As to (2), the facts surrounding Superintendent Arnold's meetings
with employees are as follows : In letters sent on January 10 and 12 to
all employees by Smith, the Employer's president, all employees were
invited to go to Arnold's office and inspect the Petitioner's constitu-
tion and bylaws, as well as certain contracts the Petitioner had with
other companies. As a result of these letters, employees went to
Arnold's office voluntarily, or in some instances, allegedly at the re-
quest of management representatives .5 The record indicates that only
a minor portion of the employees went to Arnold's office and the hear-
ing officer found that Arnold's statements to these employees were
limited to reading certain portions of the contracts and the Petitioner's
constitution, and that no side comments were made.
As already mentioned, the Petitioner, in contending that Arnold's
meetings with employees resulted in interference, relies on the General
Shoe case. In that case, the Board found that an employer interfered
with the election by holding regularly scheduled conferences with its
employees individually and in small groups, at which its antiunion
remarks were made. We think that the instant case is clearly distin-
guishable on its facts from the General Shoe case. It is sufficient to
note that the record here does not disclose that there was any planned
or systematic attempt by the Employer to conduct the meetings in
question. Moreover, the number of employees who attended these
meetings was small and, in -many instances, these employees went
voluntarily to Arnold's office to investigate the provisions of the Peti-
s General Shoe Corporation (Marman Bag Plant), 97 NLRB 499.
•National Cylinder Gas Company or Texas, 97 NLRB No. 114. Hemet-Solvay Division,
Allied Chemical & Dye Corporation, 96 NLRB 1374.
3 Several employees , whose testimony was discredited in other respects by the hearing
officer , testified that they were-asked to go to Arnold' s office by management representatives.
Arnold, who was found to be a credible witness by the hearing officer, testified that he did
not know of any such request by management . The hearing officer found that in some
instances employees were Asked to go to Arnold's office, but made no specific finding as to
who made these requests.
1544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tioner's constitution and the contracts. In these circumstances, we
conclude that the Employer's conduct does not warrant setting aside
the election.
As we have overruled the Petitioner's objections, and as the Peti-
tioner failed to win the majority of the votes cast in the election, we
shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in this proceeding, filed by
International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers,
AFL, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
Report of Hearing Officer on Objections to Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Act on November 6, 1950,
by International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL,
herein called the Petitioner, and pursuant to a "Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election," executed December 18, 1950, and an amended "Stipula-
tion for Certification Upon Consent Election," executed January 11, 1951, an
election was conducted in the above-entitled proceeding on January 18, 1951,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth
Region. On that date a tally of ballots was furnished the parties by the Re-
gional Director which showed that there were approximately 379 eligible voters,
and that 367 ballots were cast, of which 145 were for the Petitioner, 209 were
against the Petitioner, and 13 were challenged.
On January 25, 1951, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct of election and
objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. On May 28, 1951,
the Regional Director issued his report on objections to election and thereafter,
on June 4 and June 7, 1951, respectively, the Employer and the Petitioner filed
exceptions thereto. After having duly considered the matter, the Board, on
June 20, 1951, issued its order directing that a hearing be held on the issues
raised by the said objections and the hearing officer designated for the purpose
of conducting the hearing to prepare and cause to be served upon the parties,
a report containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses, findings of fact,
and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of said objections.
The Petitioner's objections alleged in substance that the Employer questioned
its employees as to their union affiliations and voting intentions; the employees
who evidenced a preference for the Petitioner were severely reprimanded,
threatened, and warned of harmful consequences that would befall them if the
Union won ; the Employer engaged in campaign propaganda derogatory to the
Petitioner ; the Employer aided and abetted financially and otherwise the
preparation, circulation, and distribution of campaign propaganda derogatory to
the Union; the Employer discriminated in favor of employees engaged in cam-
paigning against the Union, and discriminated against persons known to favor
the Petitioner ; the Employer threatened its employees with reprisals if the
Petitioner won the election ; the Employer promised benefits to its employees
if the Petitioner lost the election.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Dayton, Ohio, from September 11
through Sepfember 14 and from September 18 through September 21, 1951,
before the undersigned, Bernard Ness, hearing officer. The parties were rep-
THE AMERICAN ENVELOPE CO. 1545
resented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the conclusion of the hearing,
the parties argued orally. The-parties were granted 10 days from the close
of the bearing to file memoranda or briefs with the hearing officer. Memoranda
have been received from the Petitioner and the Employer. Upon the entire
record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned
makes the following findings, conclusions, and recommendations :
FINDINGS OF FACT
The evidence as adduced at the hearing raises two broad issues which are
hereinafter fully discussed. The first is the role played by the Employer in the
initiation and activities of the antiunion committee of employees, and secondly,
whether the Employer is guilty of certain alleged acts of interference, restraint,
and coercion allegedly committed by supervisors or representatives of manage-
ment.
To a large extent, the resolution of these questions hinges upon a determina-
tion of whether Gilbert (Whitey) Starnes was a supervisor or a representative
of management, as contended by the Petitioner and denied by the Employer.
As will hereinafter be further discussed, the undersigned finds that Starnes
was neither a supervisor nor a representative of management, but in the event
the Board reaches a contrary conclusion, the undersigned will set forth his
findings as to Starnes' acts and conduct as well as the other matters alleged by
Petitioner In Its objections.
The Antiunion Committee
Formation and Activities of the Committee
The committee came into existence about 2 weeks prior to the representation
election of January 18, 1951.' At about this time, according to the credited
testimony of Al Strader, an employee in the printing department, a group of
employees opposed to the Union held a meeting in the gum kitchen of the box
shop which is a separate building near the main plant. This meeting was held
during the lunch hour. Strader was the principal spokesman at the meeting.
In substance, the employees discussed getting together and forming their own
organization for the purpose of refuting the claims made by the Petitioner.
The second meeting of this antiunion group was held in the garage within a
week prior to the election, and also during the lunch period. Starnes was present
during part of this meeting. Strader was again the principal speaker.
The discussion was mainly relative to the advantages to be gained by keeping
out the Union. Strader suggested the formation of a committee to speak
to management regarding their "gripes." When someone questioned whether
the Employer would talk to them, Strader gathered together a committee of
employees and that same afternoon, during working hours, met with Carlton
Smith, president of the Company, in his office. Strader testified that he asked
Smith "whether he would bargain with us if we formed a committee to repre-
sent us." Smith's answer was that " . . . at any time his door was open.
He says he'll bargain with us individually, collectively or anyway that we
choose to bargain." President Smith then issued a letter to all employees in-
In most instances the witnesses could only approximate the dates of various incidents.
1546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
forming them of Strader 's visit (Pet. Ex . 10).' A portion of this letter is quotedl
herein :
Yesterday afternoon a group of our employees who said that they rep-
resented the overwhelming majority of all of you from all departments,
came into my office to see me. They told me that they had an important
question that they wanted to put to me.
They asked-
If we form a committee of our own to settle grievances, will the company,
and you in particular, Mr. Smith, meet with our committee whenever nec-
essary in order to settle our "gripes"?
This is what I told them-
Under the law you have a perfect right to choose your own committees=
for that or any other purpose. I will be happy to meet with a committee
of employees chosen by our employees at any time. If that committee
fails to settle grievances with any superior in the factory, I will then be
anxious to meet with them.
It is my policy, and always has been, and always will be to have my office
open to any group of our employees who wish to discuss their problems,
and I want to assure you and each and everyone of our employees that
I will not only listen, but will speedily check into such matters with the-
purpose of attempting to settle those problems.
There is no evidence that the Employer assisted in the formation of the
committee or met again with it or any of its representatives to discuss grievances,
recognition, or any other matter. The Petitioner contends that Smith had
told the employees that he would rather deal with them individually or through
their plant committee. Assuming arguendo- that Petitioner's interpretation
of Smith's statement is correct, it contained no•element of coercion or promise
of benefit. Although Smith may have indicated a preference for dealing directly
with his employees, he is not required to preserve a position of neutrality.
The undersigned is of the opinion that the statement made by Smith was privi-
leged under Section 8 (c) of the Act and did not interfere with the election
or preclude the employees from expressing their free choice in the election.3
Collections were taken up at the.meeting in the box shop and at later times
by antiunion adherents for financing the expense of having handbills printed to
combat the union. Five handbills were reproduced and distributed to em-
ployees in the plant during working hours.
Alleged Company Assistance to the Committee
The Petitioner contends that the Employer was responsible for the authorship,
printing, and financing of the antiunion committee handbills. It further con-
tends that the Employer assisted in the distribution of the literature through its
alleged supervisors, Starnes, Carl Lantis, and Lou Lynds. In addition the
Petitioner alleges that the Employer favored those employees who campaigned
against the Union.
Authorship, Printing; and Financing of the Handbills
The Petitioner introduced in evidence antiunion literature distributed at
Moraine Paper Co., a subsidiary company of the Employer involved herein, and
2 .An account of this meeting was also mentioned in one of the antiunion committee's
handbills. (Pet. Ex. 4).
s Q-F Wholesaler, Inc., 87 NLRB 1085; Gray Drug k'tores, 79 NLRB 1140; L. H.
Butcher, 81 NLRB 1184.
THE AMERICAN ENVELOPE CO. 1547
contends that because of the similarity in the language of the antiunion literature
at both companies and the fact that both printing jobs were done at the same
,printing company, the Employer herein must have been responsible. The under-
signed has considered the evidence in this respect and does not agree with. the
Petitioner's contentions. Upon the entire record as a whole, the undersigned
is unable to make a',finding as to who authored the handbills or caused them
to be reproduced at a private printing establishment. Although Starnes con-
tributed 1 dollar to the committee for financing the handbills, it having been
found that he was not an agent of the Company, such action cannot be attributed
to the Employer. The evidence adduced, including that relating to the circum-
stances surrounding the responsibility for the authorship or payment for the
printing of the antiunion handbills of the antiunion committee, does not establish
that the Employer was in any way responsible and the undersigned so finds.
Distribution of the Handbills
The Petitioner contends that the Employer, through its alleged supervisors,
Starnes, Lynds, and Lantis, assisted in the distribution of the antiunion com-
mittee handbills. The undisputed testimony shows that these handbills were
distributed during working hours in the plant. Starnes admitted his partici-
pation.
With respect to Carl Lantis, foreman in the box shop and admittedly a super-
visor, the Petitioner alleges that he brought a stack of antiunion committee
handbills to the third floor and put them on the table for Gilbert (Whitey)
Starnes.
Monroe Kincer, a witness called by Petitioner, in his testimony stated it was
"a fellow from the box shop named Carl." He further testified on direct exami-
nation, "Well, I saw him walk up. I know his face. He laid them on Whitey's
desk, says, looked around, pointed to Whitey, says, 'there they are', and turned
around and walked out."
On cross-examination, Kincer testified in part as follows :
Q. Did he say "there they are"?
A. I wasn't that close.
Lorena Mills, who testified as to this incident, stated, "I saw Mr. Lantis from
the box shop bring up handbills one day and he said to me, 'Do you know where
Mr. Starnes is'. I said, 'No, I don't. I haven't saw him for some time'. He
said, 'If I leave these on his desk will you watch them for me' and he laid a stack,
six inches, left them on the desk . . . and he left them laying on the desk and
walked off and when Mr. Starnes come up he took them, the whole stack, and
went away with them and he came back later with only a few in his hands and
passed them out to us."
On cross-examination Mills testified in part as follows :
Q. Was Monroe Kincer there when Lantis came up and laid these hand-
bills on Lantis' (sic) desk?
A. I don't think it (sic) was there when he come up but I remember him
walking by the desk before Whitey came back.
11
Q. How did you know it was Carl Lantis that left these pamphlets for
Whitey Starnes?
A. It was explained to me it was Mr. Lantis.
Q. Who -explained it to you? Who explained to you that it was Mr.
Lantis that left them?
A. I don't remember.
1548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Called back the following day by the Petitioner and asked on redirect exami-
nation how she knew it was Lantis, she stated :
Well, yesterday whenever I was trying to remember, I was too tired to
remember. But in a statement as to how I recognized Mr. Lantis, was from
a statement Mr. Starnes made. He asked me who laid the bills there. "Was
it Lantis", he said, and I said, "I don't know". Mr. Kiricer said, "Yes, it was
Carl from the box shop":
Lantis was called by the Employer and specifically denied that he had ever
taken any handbills to Starnes. Starnes testified that Harry Wagner, an em-
ployee, was the only one who brought handbills to him. Kincer, when on the
stand, did not state that "Carl" spoke to Mills or that he himself spoke to Starnes.
In addition, neither Mills nor Kincer could describe the man with any particu-
larity. Yet after Lantis was on the stand, neither one was recalled for purposes
of identification. From his observations of the witnesses and consideration of .
all the facts, the undersigned, credits Lantis' denial and finds that he did not
give any handbills to Starnes.
With respect to Lou Lynds, Elizabeth Sannon, a former machine operator;
testified that she received a handbill from Lynds the night before the election
and saw him give them to other girls on the floor. Mrs. Sannon stated Lynds
is a machine adjuster who worked on her shift every other night taking
turns with another adjuster, Warrick! Aside from her remark that Lynds is
her "boss," nothing further was offered to indicate that his duties and responsi-
bilities are ante different than those of the other adjusters in the folding depart-
ment. Based upon the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that the evidence
is inspfficient to establish that Lynds is a supervisor.
Having found that neither Starnes nor Lynds were supervisors and that
Lantis did not give any handbills to Starnes, the undersigned further finds that
the Employer did not participate in the circulation or distribution of the anti-
union committee handbills.
Disparity of Treatment
The Petitioner contends that the Employer favored the employees who cam-
paigned against the Union. While it is true that the antiunion employees held
two meetings on the Company's premises during the lunch hour and distributed
handbills during working hours, the record is devoid of any evidence that com-
parable privileges of carrying on prounion activities were either sought by or
denied to adherents of the Petitioner. According to the credited testimony of
Strader, no company rule existed regarding solicitations or distribution of
literature:" He stated he had once taken a petition around to employees to obtain
a change in working hours. About 2 or 3 years ago, he took up a collection for
a man whose house had been damaged by fire. Solicitations were made for
punchboards, football tickets, world series pools, and raffling of watches. The
undersigned finds that the Employer did not discriminate in favor of employees
campaigning against the Petitioner.
4 Her husband, Virgil Sannon, was also called as a witness by the Petitioner.
B The regular shift for employees is from 7 a. in. to 4 p. in. About 14 employees in the
folding department on the fourth floor , including Mrs. Sannon , worked from 4 p. in. to
S p. in. Apparently Lynds and Warrick took turns in staying late to adjust machines for
these employees . Snyder and Dechant , assistant superintendents , would come up about
S p. m. to check the envelopes.
° Petitioner 's witnesses , Edith Spencer and Helen ( Stone ) Hildebrand , furnished cor-
roborative testimony.
THE AMERICAN ENVELOPE CO. 1549
The undersigned further finds that the Employer was not responsible for the
formation or activities of the Committee as it has been found that the partici-
pation of Starnes therein is not attributable to the Company.
Other Alleged Acts of Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
In support of its objections in this respect, the contentions made by the Peti-
tioner involve the letters issued by President Smith, meetings of Plant Super-
intendent Arnold in his office with groups of employees and the statements
attributed to him, statements and conduct of Starnes, and an alleged threat by
Foreman Orville Schindler to an employee, Norman Stupp.
The Company Literature
Between January 5 and January 17, 1951, the Employer mailed to the employees
five letters over the signature of Carlton Smith, president of the Company. The
Petitioner contends that these letters were "coercive in nature" and that Smith
"didn't show a neutral attitude" although the Petitioner did not make any
reference to any particular portions of these letters. In substance, the letters
were critical of the promises and statements made by the Petitioner in its own
literature. Smith quoted and discussed provisions of the Petitioner's constitu-
tion to refute the contentions made in Petitioner's handbills and urged the
employees to go to Superintendent Arnold's office to examine the constitution.
He also quoted portions of contracts between AFL unions and envelope com-
panies and told employees they could come in and see them. As mentioned here-
tofore, in his letter of January 17, he discussed his meeting with Strader's group.
It is clear from a reading of the letters that Smith was not in favor of having
the Petitioner represent the employees and may have indicated his preference to
deal with the employees directly, but an employer is privileged to convey such
expressions to his employees as long as they contain no element of coercion or
promise of benefit.7 The letters contained no element of coercion or promise
of benefit. The undersigned finds that they were privileged under Section 8 (c)
of the Act and did not interfere with the election.
Statements by Arnold
The Petitioner contends that at the meetings in his office with groups of
employees, Superintendent Arnold made coercive statements. These meetings
resulted from President Smith's letters.8 Employees came to the office in response
to the letters or in some instances were asked to come down there.
Lorena Mills, called by Petitioner, testified that she was in Arnold's office
about a week before the election with about 12 or more employees. In quoting
what Arnold had stated, she said, "Well, I definitely remember that he stated
that it would be an organization like they have at the Cash, that all married
women would be fired, there would be no married women working there.", On
cross-examination, when asked how Arnold discussed that subject, she said,
"I can't remember the words he used." Later in her testimony she said, "But
I (sic) didn't say the Union wouldn't allow married women working there but
7 Gray Drug Stores, Inc., supra ; Q-F Wholesalers , Inc., supra.
8 Smith discussed the Petitioner 's constitution and bylaws and said that Arnold would be
glad to show them the cited and other provisions (Pet. Ex. 7). In his letter of January
32 (Pet. Ex. 8), he quoted provisions of contracts between the Petitioner and other
companies.
9 She explained that at National Cash Register Co. married women were not permitted to
work.
0
1550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that was what he implied. That is what I understood.! 1° In reply to a question
on direct examination, "Did he say anything about what would happen if you
didn't pay these amounts [dues] ?" she stated, "He said in sixty days we would
be dismissed." 11 She further testified that Arnold said, "if the union would
come in, that they could cut our vacation plan, instead of building it up for
us." On cross-examination, when asked if Arnold said anything about vaca-
tions, she answered, "No, I don't think he did." Mills also stated, "He read
portions out of a book. I had read the letter (Smith's letter of January 10)
the night before, and mostly what he had read had been in the letter."
Virgil Sannon, a former employee in the receiving department, testified on be-
half of the Petitioner that he was called down to Arnold's office with several
other employees. In quoting Arnold, he said, "He didn't condemn the union but
he just read out of that constitution book, the thing that would really hurt the
union. But he didn't condenln it. He didn't say whether to vote or not to
vote. . . . if a union was on a strike somewhere else we'd have to pay for their
strike." He also attributed the following statement to Arnold, "[the Company]
was also paying good wages and he said, `if the union gets in you'll find out it will
be different."' On cross-examination, Sannon did not repeat this last statement
It appeared to the undersigned that Sannon, as an afterthought, on direct exam-
ination mentioned this last statement and in view of Arnold's denial, the under-
signed does not credit Sannon in this respect.
Elizabeth Sannon testified on behalf of the Petitioner that when she walked
into Arnold's office the day before the election, Arnold was already talking to a
group of girls who worked on her shift. She stated that when she walked in she
had a magazine under her arm and Arnold said, "If the union got in, we won't
be allowed to read on the job." 12 He also said, "Now girls, anyone that's worked
here any length of time would know that we don't have any rules."" In this
same discussion, Arnold said, "We weren't to leave our machines, outside, only
when we go on our-you see we get a break every four hours, you get a break
and we weren't to leave our machines only when we got this break." She further
testified that "he had three little books in his hand and he mentioned something
about the constitution but I don't remember what it was."
Arnold in his testimony denied making the statements attributed to him by the
Petitioner's witnesses. He said that he read the articles in the constitution
quoted in Smith's letter of January 10 and read portions of the contracts cited
In Smith's letter of January 12 and made no side comments. None of the three
witnesses called by the Petitioner was present at one and the same meeting.
Each had mentioned they were there together with a group of other employees
and yet no corroborating testimony was offered by any of the attending employ-
ees to support the versions given by any of the witnesses. Mills impressed the
undersigned as zealously attempting to assist the Petitioner through her account
of the meeting with Arnold and actually misinterpreted, deliberately or other-
wise, Arnold's statements. On the other hand, Arnold impressed the undersigned
as an honest and forthright witness. The undersigned credits Arnold's version
10 In Smith's letter of January 12, he cited a provision of a contract-"employment of
-any unmarried -girl terminates when she enters into a marriage contract" and went on to
say, "Remember, this was done by Taylor's own union. Would you want a clause like that.
Would you want me to agree to fire all our married women." -
u In the January 12 letter , Smith stated , "in many contracts the foremost reason' for
firing is the non-payment of dues. Would you want me to agree to discharge you because
-you do not want to pay dues into the union treasury. That I will never do."
10 She admitted that the operators had never been permitted to read on the job prior to
this meeting except at rest periods.
1 She admitted that she knew the Company had rules. - - ' '
0
THE AMERICAN ENVELOPE CO. 1551
of what he said to the employees in his office . The undersigned finds that he
did not make any of the alleged coercive statements attributed to him by Lorena
Wills, Virgil Sannon , and Elizabeth Sannon.
Conduct of Starnes
Several witnesses testified on behalf of the Petitioner as to alleged coercive
statements and interrogations by Starnes. Monroe Kincer testified that about
2 weeks before the election, he happened to be at Lorena Mills' machine with her
when Starnes came over and "asked her how she was going to vote and asked
.me." Starnes also said, "I don't see what the union is going to do for you.
The Company won't stand still for you. .... things will get stricter for you, a
lot of things will be changed." Starnes further stated, "the smoking rule would
probably be changed and you probably would get to smoke once in the morning
and once in the afternoon."" When asked if Starnes had a list of names at the
time of his discussion with Mills, Kincer said , "A list of names, he had each of
those machine operators' names down there, and across from it, had `yes' or `no.' "
He further stated that Starnes had the list of names when he spoke to Alberta
Reynolds, a machine operator, in his presence."
Lorena Mills testified that shortly after January 1, 1951, "Whitey had a small
slip of paper in his hands with the names of the girls of the six and a half line,
and he had `yes' or 'no' written after it and as he asked each one of the girls
how they were going to vote, he would mark their answers. He'd either put a
check after it or a circle around the answers." She said there were probably
about 10 names on the list. Later in her testimony, she said she heard Starnes
speak only to Kincer. Starnes then asked her how she was going to vote and
when she said she hadn't thought too much about it, he replied, "I'll leave your
answer blank and talk to you later." She further testified that Starnes called
Kincer over and asked him "the exact question he asked me." On cross-examina-
tion, she said , "He (Starnes) motioned for Monroe (Kincer) to walk over to the
machine. When he did walk over that way, Starnes said, `We're talking about
the union. Taking a poll to see how this thing is going to go. Are you going to
vote for the union?, " Then Mills testified Starnes said, "The Company is taking
a poll to find out how this is going to go." 17
Alberta Reynolds, a former employee, testified on behalf of the Petitioner that
in early January, Starnes "came back to me and wanted to know if I was for
the union or against the union. Why do you want a union for? They won't do
you any good. The first thing they want to do is go on strike and for more
money." She further testified that Starnes didn't have a piece of paper in his
hand but said, "Well, I'll just put down 'no' for you, because I know you're not
for the union." On the day before the election, according to Reynolds' testi-
mony, Starnes said to Mills and her, "If the union got in there, that the first thing
they would do would be to go on strike and we'd lose weeks of work, and still
you probably wouldn't.get no raise, and things probably would be just like they
are now." Mills did not mention this conversation in her testimony.
. Edith Spencer, a machine operator, testified that within a week prior to
the election, Starnes said to her, "Well, it's none of my business or anything
but how are you going to vote?"
1' Mills said that Starnes called him over while he was talking to her.
15 In her testimony , Mills did not attribute any statement to Starnes relative to changes
in the smoking policies.
19 Reynolds didn 't mention that Kincer was present when Starnes spoke to her . Signifi-
cantly, she said that Starnes did not have a piece of paper in his hand.
17 Kincer did not mention a "company poll."
1552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Starnes admitted talking to employees about the union and asking them if they
were in favor of the Union. He further admitted telling them'why he didn't
like the Union. He said he told employees he "didn' t see where conditions would
be any better, and I thought we had really better conditions than there would
be if they got in ... " He generally denied any coercive statements attributed
to him. He denied that he had a list of names on which he recorded "yes" or
"no" as a prediction of their voting intentions. The undersigned from his obser-
vations of Kincer and Mills, and noting the inconsistencies in their statements,
was not favorably impressed with either. It appeared that they were earnestly
attempting to "inflate" and attribute more to Starnes than he actually had said
or done. While the undersigned finds that Starnes' version of his conversations
is the more accurate, it would nevertheless constitute interrogation, which in
effect would be interference per se were Starnes to be considered a supervisor or
a representative of management as the Petitioner contends. Inasmuch as the
undersigned has found elsewhere in this report that Starnes holds neither posi-
tion, his conduct may not be charged to the Employer.
Conduct of Schindler
Norman Stupp, an employee in the machine shop, testified that one evening
about 2 weeks before the election he had a conversation with Orville Schindler,
foreman of the printing department, at the American Legion hall in Miamisburg.
He said that they were talking about the Union and "we got talking about bonus,
he said, `Well, they (the Company) might try to cut it out."' Stupp further
stated, "it was just talking, just a friendly conversation, just talking. . . . it
was just a casual conversation, I mean it just rose up out of the conversation."
Schindler denied this conversation. The undersigned credits Stupp's testimony
and finds that Schindler did make the statement attributed to him.
The American Legion hall is a consolidated post of Miamisburg and West
Carrolton. Stupp lives in Miamisburg and Schindler in West Carrolton. Schind-
ler is a past commander of the post but the record does not reveal whether Stupp
is a member. At any rate, they saw each other frequently at the hall and would
sit around in a group and talk. Although the record isn't too clear on this
point, it appears that at the time of this conversation, other men were sitting
around with them. Undoubtedly, the atmosphere was a friendly one when this
statement was made. Consideration must also be given to the fact that the
announcement granting the bonus to the employees for the year 1950 had already
been made. The Company subsequently did pay the bonus. In prior years, the
granting of the bonus was a normal practice.
While it may be argued that Schindler's statement was a threat of what may
happen if the Union won, the undersigned feels that under all the circumstances
in which it was made, it was no more than innocuous and it was extremely
unlikely that the employees would have been prevented from exercising their
free choice in the election. The undersigned believes that this statement is
insufficient to constitute interference altecting the results of the election.
Status of Starnes
Both parties presented considerable testimony with respect to the supervisory
status of Starnes, whom the Petitioner alleges is a supervisor. The Petitioner,
in the alternative, contends that Starnes is a representative of management and
therefore the Employer is chargeable with his conduct.
THE AMERICAN ENVELOPE CO. 1553
In making the findings herein relative to Starnes' status, the undersigned has
considered and weighed all the evidence presented on this question. It would
needlessly burden this report to mention all the testimony on disputed points.
Such testimony as is in conflict with the findings herein is not credited.
Gilbert Starnes has been employed by the Company since 1922. His.classifl-
cation is, machine adjuster in the folding, department on the third floor.
There were approximately 75.employees working in the folding department
on the third floor at the time of the election, including 6 adjusters, 9 helpers,
47 machine operators, 8 relief girls, 2 inspectors, and 3 stock chasers. Each of
the adjusters is assigned a "line" of envelope machines. Machines in each of
the lines are of different types and are tended by machine operators.
The adjuster's responsibility is to see that the machines on his line are oper-
ating efficiently and turning out good envelop6.18 Whenever different orders are
to be run requiring a change on the machine or when envelopes are not coming
out properly, the adjuster makes the necessary adjustments on the machine.
In addition to adjusting to which the adjuster devotes most of his time, he
sometimes relieves the operators during their breaks. Since the machine oper-
ators are paid on an incentive system, the adjuster is of necessity relied upon
to make the adjustments expeditiously.
Starnes does not have any helpers assigned to his line.18 There are five oper-
ators on his line and one girl who marks tickets.
Superintendent Arnold is in charge of the entire plant. Under him are two
assistant superintendents, Glenn Snyder and Clarence Dechant. Dechant for-
4m@rly had been in charge of the die room and was not well acquainted with the
machine operations in the folding department. He is concerned mainly with the
production aspects in the plant. Glenn Snyder, on the other hand, is experienced
with the envelope machines and spends considerable time in the folding depart-
ment, including repairing and adjusting of machines. The foreman of the fold-
ing department-is Harold•Bussard.20 Bussard is an hourly rated employee whose
rate is $1.91 an hour. All the adjusters, including Starnes receive $1.81 an hour.
The Company has in effect a group insurance plan. Under this plan, male
employees can carry $2,000 life insurance, female employees may carry $1,000,
while supervisors may carry $4,000. Starnes can carry only $2,000.
It is clear from the record that Plant Superintendent Arnold retains principal
control over all the employees and leaves only minor decisions to the discretion
of the foremen.
Considerable testimony was adduced through the Petitioner's witnesses that
Starnes transferred operators to other machines in his line and to machines in
the lines assigned to other adjusters. It is undisputed that the adjusters have
the authority to move girls from one machine to another within his own line.
Such action would normally take place because of priority orders or breakdown
of a machine. Such transfers are routine in nature and do not require the exer-
cise of independent judgment and discretion.n With respect to transfers of
girls from one line to, another by Starnes, it appears from the record that these
assignments for the most part were temporary in nature. However, irre-
spective of the permanency of these transfers, the undersigned finds that such
transfers made by Starnes were by specific direction of Arnold, Snyder, or
18 Inspectors and stock chasers work throughout the floor and are not assigned to a
particular line.
10 Starnes does hot adjust machines on the lines assigned to other adjusters.
The transcript shows his name also as "Buzzard."
21 Southern Industries Company, 92 NLRB 998.
1554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bussard . Starnes did not possess or exercise authority to effectuate such trans-
fers on his own initiative.22
Several of the witnesses called by the Petitioner testified that Starnes granted
and at times refused time off when requested by them. Starnes stated that when
time off was requested, he transmitted such request to Arnold, Snyder, or Bus-
sard and then reported the decision back to the employee. Arnold corroborated
his testimony. The undersigned credits Starnes' testimony.
Frequently, employees in the folding department work on Saturdays for
which they are paid overtime rate. While the Petitioner contends that Starnes
assigns overtime to employees in his line, the undersigned finds on the basis of
the record as a whole, that when certain machines in Starnes' line are to be
run on Saturday, he is so instructed by Arnold and then he notifies the oper-
ators of those machines that they are to work that Saturday. The undersigned
further finds that Starnes' instructions to the employees on his line are routine
in nature and do not require the use of independent judgment and discretion.
During a 2-week period each year, the plant is shut down and no production
work is performed. At this time, the only work performed is the cleaning of
the machines and the plant in general. According to the credited testimony of
Arnold, in the selection of personnel to work during the vacation period, priority
is given first to those who are not entitled to a vacation with pay and then to those
who are entitled to only 1 week with pay.- His reasoning is that he gives this
priority so that they would not seek jobs elsewhere. Shortly before the vacation
period, if he does not already have sufficieiYt volunteers, he tells the adjusters to
ask the employees in their respective lines if they desire to work during the
vacation period. None of the adjusters have the authority to select employdes
to work during this period. Starnes has worked during such period for the past
several years. The only supervisor present during vacation periods has been
Arnold. Upon the entire record, the undersigned finds that Starnes performed
physical work together with all the other employees and any direction on his
part to other employees was merely of a routine nature. Assuming arguendo,
that Starnes did perform supervisory functions during these 2-week periods,
such functions were temporary and not related to his normal work. Witco
Carbon Company, 92 NLRB No. 178. While several of the Petitioner's wit-
nesses 23 testified that they considered Starnes their "boss," Edith Spencer, also
called by the Petitioner, in speaking of Bussard, stated, "He's the only one I've
ever been told is foreman, yes."
It is significant to note that Starnes appeared on the eligibility list of voters S4
The Petitioner's observer, Norman DeWeese, who was a machine operator in the
folding department and who had worked with Starnes, did not challenge his
ballot. He was permitted to vote without challenge 25
The undersigned concludes that the evidence does not establish either that
Starnes was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act or that he was a rep-
resentative of management. With respect to Starnes' interrogation of em-
ployees and his activities on behalf of the committee, upon the record as a whole,
the undersigned finds that there is no proof that they were authorized or ratified
22 Oliver Machinery Company, 93 NLRB 731.
23 Monroe Kincer, Helen (Stone) Hildebrand , Alberta Reynolds , Lorena Mills , and Fred.
Wheeler.
94 Machine adjusters ' were included In the appropriate unit agreed to by the parties.
25 The undersigned is aware that an individual may be found to be a supervisor even
though he voted in it consent election. Peerless Yeast Co . 86 NLRB 1098 . Nevertheless,
this factor is considered especially with respect to whether the employees considered him
a representative of management.
COLUMBIA SOUTHERN CHEMICAL CORPORATION _ 1555
by the Employer. It accordingly follows that Starnes' conduct and statements
are not attributable to the Employer.26
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Having found that Starnes ' conduct and statements were not' chargeable to
the Employer and that the facts do not establish interference with the conduct of
the election or the exercise of a free choice of representatives by the employees,
it is recommended that the Petitioner 's objections be overruled.
As provided in the Board's Order of June 20, 1951, within ten (10) days of
receipt of this report, any party may file with the Board in Washington, D. C.,
an original and six copies of exceptions thereto. Immediately upon the filing of
such exceptions, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each
of the other parties, and shall file a copy with the Regional Director.
%e Interchemical Corp., 83 NLRB 641.
COLUMBIA SOUTHERN CHEMICAL CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 861, AFL,
PETITIONER. Case No . 15-RC-577. February 5, 1952
Decisiort and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles Kyle,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations 1 involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
_ 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
, The Petitioner seeks to sever from the existing production and
maintenance unit represented by the Intervenor two alleged craft
units consisting of (a) electricians, their apprentices and helpers,
and (b) instrumentmen, their apprentices and helpers. In the al-
ternative, if the Board finds that only a single unit of all these em-
Intervention was granted to International Association of Machinists , Local Lodge No.
131'T ,` herein called the Intervenor.
97 NLRB No. 222.