The Gray Envelope Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 18, 1942

45 N.L.R.B. 653 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of THE GRAY ENVELOPE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.
and LOCAL 447, PAPER WORKERS AND DISTRIBUTING TRADES, INTER-
NATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN'S AND ASSISTANTS' UNION, A. F. OF L.
Case No. C-2264.-Decided November 18, 1942
Jurisdiction : envelope manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: charges of, dismissed-anti-union activ-
ities of supervisory and other employees in plant during working hours found
not attributable to employer ; injudicious statement made to union committee
by management representatives at bargaining conference suggesting postpone-
ment of organizational activities because of its precarious financial condition,
found under circumstances not to constitute interference.
Company-Dominated Union: charges of, dismissed-organization formed by non-
supervisory employees without knowledge of employer, and refused recogni-
tion by employer, held not dominated.
Practice and Procedure : complaint dismissed.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On July 17; 1942, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had not
engaged in and was not engaging in the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommending that the complaint herein be dis-
missed, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report annexed
hereto. Thereafter, on August 17, 1942, the Union filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report. The Board has considered the rulings
of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that, no prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of, oral argument
was held before the Board at Washington, D. C., on September 10,
1942. The respondent and the Union were represented by counsel
and participated in the hearing.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the Union's
exceptions, and the'entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations made by the' Trial Exam-
iner, with the additions noted below :
1. The Trial Examiner has found that the respondent did not inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights
45 N. L. R. B., No. 98. 653
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. While the evidence as to the
activities of Robinson, Harris, Larsen, and Smart in connection with
the meeting of employees held in the respondent's plant on February
..211194
,
1, creates some doubt as to the respondent's coxhplete'.neutrality,
the, record shows that the respondent's managing officers,' Burns and
Magee, immediately upon learning of the activities of these employees,
reprimanded Robinson and Harris, instructed them to 'discontinue
such activities, and admonished Larsen-and Smart against engaging in
discussions of unions or of organizational activities among the, em-
ployees. Thereafter, supervisory employees were on .two occasions
given similar instructions not to interfere with union, activities. Sim-
ilarly, while there, is evidence that Burns and Magee, during their
meetings with Bennett and the union committee, referred to the re-
- spondent's precarious financial position and requested that the Union
stop or postpone 'its' organizational activities among the; respond'ent's
employees, the respondent on Mardi 1, 1941, wrote Bennett that it was
entirely willing to bargain collectively,-with any designated represent-
ative of its employees; and in April 1941, during the strike called by
the Union, the respondent distributed among its employees a* state-
ment informing them, in part, that it was the respondent's policy to
permit its employees full freedom of organization for the purposes of
collective bargaining. Furthermore, the respondent settled the strike
by negotiating and entering into a 1-year contract with the Union,
which included a maintenance-of-membership clause covering em-
ployees in the respondent's shipping department. Upon the record as
a whole, wet find, as did,the. Trial, Examiner, that,the respondent did
not interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees -in the exercise of
. the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. The,Trial Examiner has found that the respondent did not inter-
fere with or; ,dominate the formation or• administration of the Asso-
ciation and did,not contribute support to it. Here; again, we agree.-
While ,there is evidence- that employees engaged in furthering the
formation ' of the Association were absent from the plant during-
working hours; at times without deduction from their,rpay, the record
shows, as the Trial Examiner,has found, that ,the respondent had no,
reason to know and in fact did•not know, of tine "activity and absence
of the employees in-question. There is no showing of, aily,direct.con-
•nection between the meeting held in the respondent's plant`on February
21, 1941, and the subsequent formation of the Association, and, no rep-
resentative of management.engaged in any similar conduct following
the issuance of Burns' and Magee's reprimands and instructions after
the meeting. Te agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the re-
spondent is not responsible for the activities of,Howard Zeller in pro-
,r.
THE' GRAY E_.NVELOPE- MANUFACTURING COMPANY, -INC. 655
moting-tlie formation of the 'Association. In addition, as the Trial
Examiner has found, the respondent' on' March 8, 1941,-and' thereafter'
refused to recognize the Association unless it was first certified by the
Board to be the duly designated bargaining representative. We do
not believe that the record :is'a whole sustains the allegations in the
complaint that the respondent interfered with, dominated, and sup-'
ported-the Association.' We find, as did the Trial' Examiner,; that the
-respondent did not donliiiate or interfere' with the formation or • ad-
ministration of the Association and, that it, did not contribute_ support
'to the Association.'
,ORDER
Upon the entire record in the ease, and pursuant to Section 10 (d)
of the National' Labor- Relations Act,-the'National Labor'Relations
Board hereby orders that the complaint issued herein-against the re-
spondent, The Gray EnLVelope' Manufiictui'ing'Conpany,'Ind , Brook-
lvn New`York,-156,'a nd it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. W.1. M. LEISEIISON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and-Order. ' '
INTERMEDIA TE REPORT • - -
Ali George Tai itz for the 13oard
McLanahan , Met ritt , I ngralani , and Ch in,,: y, by _iii Ilene g Clef ton. • Jr , of'New
York, N Y, for the respondent. - -
Frank ficheener ' aud.Robert Bennett , of New York , N, Y., for the Union.
Hovaid Zeller, of Brooklyn , N. Y.; for the , Association.
STATEMENT OF TIIE-CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on March 15, 1941, by Local447, Paper Workers and
Distributing Trades, International Printing Pressmen's and Assistants' Union,
A- F.- of L, herein called the 'Union, the National Labor Relations'Board,' herein
called the Board, by the Regional Director'for the'Second Region `(New York,
New York), issued its complaint, dated Api•il'29, 1942, against The Gray 'Envelope
Manufacturing Company, 'Inc , herein called the' respondent, alleging that the
respondent'had engaged in 'and vas engaging iii' unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the'ineaning of Secticin 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) :ind (7)-
of-the National Label- Relations Act.'49'Stat. 449, herein called the Act.' 'Copies of
the 'complaint, accoiiipanied•by notice of hearing *ere duly served upon-the re-'
spondent, the Union; and the Gray Envelope Employees' Association, herein-called
the-Association.
-'fn respect to the'u nf