John H. Harland Co.

In the Matter of JOHN H. HARLAND COMPANY and PRINTING TRADES CRAFTS Case No. C-2292.-Decided October 27, 19,142 Jurisdiction : printing industry. Unfair Labor Practices Interference, Pestiatnt, and Coercion: charges'of, dismissed where implied sug- gestion that employees abandon union organization was neutralized by assur- ances of employer observance of the Act, and statements of minor supervisors did, not appear to reflect management views. Practice and Procedure : complaint dismissed. Mr. William M. Pate and Mr. Dan ill. Byrd, Jr., for the Board. Jones, Powers, Williams cC Dorsey, by Mr. Ralph Williams and Mr. Paul E. Johnson, of Atlanta, Ga., for the respondent. Mr. John A. 111anry, of Clarkston, Ga., for the Union. Mr. Eugene R. Thorrens, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge duly filed on April 7, 1942, by Printing Trades Crafts, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint dated June 24, 1942, against John H. Harland Company, Atlanta, Georgia,, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)-and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49, Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended 1 prior to the hearing, alleged, in substance, that at various times since September 1, 1941, the respondent discouraged its employees in their union membership and activities (a) by questioning employees con- cerning their union activities; (b) by threatening to close its plant if the employees persisted in their union activities; (c) by circulating 1 The amendment named the officers, agents, and supervisors of the respondent partici- pating in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint _ 45 N L. R. B., No. 16. 76 JOHN- H. HARLAND COMPANY - 77 petitions or other literature derogatory to the Union; (d) by threat- ening to discharge employees if they became or remained members of the Union; (e) by urging its employees to vote against the Union in an election conducted by the Board; and that by these and other acts the. respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On July 9, 1942, the respondent filed its answer, among other things, admitting the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Atlanta, Georgia, on July 23 and 24, 1942, before William E. Spencer, the Trial,Exam- iner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, and the Union were represented 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 counsel for the Board moved to conform the plead- ings to the proof with respect to minor discrepancies. The Trial -Examiner granted `the motion without objection. During the hear- ing the Trial Examiner made rulings on other motions and on ob- jections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The Trial Examiner's rulings are hereby affirmed. Thereafter the- Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, dated August 13, 1942, copies of which were duly served upon all the parties, finding that the respondent had not engaged and was not engaging in the alleged unfair labor practices, and recommend- ing that the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, on September 14, 1942, the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and submitted a brief in support of the exceptions. The respondent also submitted a brief. None of the parties requested oral argument, and none was held. - The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate 'Report and the briefs' submitted by the parties and, save as the exceptions are consistent with the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : t1 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT John H. Harland Company, a Georgia corporation, having its plant and general offices at Atlanta, Georgia, is engaged in the print- 78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing business and in the operation of a retail establishment. This proceeding concerns only the respondent's printing plant, where approximately 32 employees are engaged in production and main- tenance work. All the respondent's raw materials, consisting prin- cipally of paper and ink, and amounting during the year 1941 to more than $125,000 in value, are purchased locally but originate out- side the State of Georgia. During 1941 the respondent shipped approximately 20 percent of its finished product, consisting of com- mercial printing and totaling in excess of $350,000, to States other than the State of Georgia. , The respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it is subject to the jurisdiction of the Board. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Printing Trades Crafts , an association of International Typograph- ical Union of North America , International Brotherhood of Book- binders, and International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America, is _ a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent? III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion The- Union began organizing the respondent's employees in Sep- tember 1941.3 Under date of September 12, 1941, the respondent's president, John H. Harland, sent- to John A. Butler, the respondent's vice president and plant superintendent, a memorandum 4 in which, 2with the exception of International Typographical Union of North America, the con- stituent unions of Printing Trades Crafts are affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. International Typographical Union of North America is an unaffiliated labor organization. - "At that time, and during a substantial period prior thereto, the respondent had on its pay roll lithographers who belonged to Amalgamated Lithographers of America, affiliated with the Ameiican Federation of Labor, and the respondent was aware of such membership. However, that labor organization has never had a contract with the respondent So far as appears, the respondent has never disciplined its employees nor threatened to take disci- plinary measures because of membership in the Amalgamated. 4 In part, the memorandum read as follows : Subject: Hiring of applicants - From all I can learn there is evidently considerable union agitation going on in some of the local plants. . . . Again let me caution you to be doubly careful when talking to applicants for work. This word of caution should be passed on to your foremen. We are not interested in whether said applicant is union or non-union and this applies to all those already on the pay roll. As I recall it a girl you put to work when Mrs . Howell was off on leave of absence several weeks ago told you she was a member of the union and was assured this didn't make a particle of difference as far as the company was concerned . This is the proper procedure to follow in all cases. JOHN H. HARLAND COMPANY ;79 in substance, Harland prescribed a policy of company indifference with.respect to union affiliation of -present and prospective employees and instructed Butler to inform the plant foremen to observe the company policy.5 On September 16, 1941, the Union held its first meeting of the respondent's employees. The union organizational movement caused friction among the em- ployees. Quarreling, which previously had been usual among female employees in the bindery department, became accentuated, adversely affecting production. At the instance of several female employees working in the bindery who were troubled by the union drive for mem- bers, W. B. Williams, a bindery employee, requested Superintendent Butler to call a meeting of bindery employees to restore "harmony in the bindery." 6 A few days after the union meeting referred to above, Butler summoned the approximately 12 to 15 bindery employees to the stockroom in the plant. At the meeting Butler called the employees' attention to the existence of bickering ainong them and its effect upon their efficiency, and invited them to make suggestions as to how the trouble could be remedied. When the employees mentioned the Union in the course of the ensuing discussion, Butler stated, in substance, that the respondent had no objection to union affiliation of its em- ployees and, in the event a majority of the- employees designated a labor organization as bargaining representative, the respondent would bargain collectively. Charles B. Merritt, treasurer of the respondent, who was present at the meeting, interrupted Butler to tell the em- ployees that the respondent could not-discharge them for union mem- bership. There is conflict in the testimony as to whether Butler, in effect, asked the employees to abandon tha Union. According to Board witnesses, credited by the Trial Examiner, during the course of the meeting Butler quoted figures with respect both to the union wage scale and to the earnings of the respondent's bindery employees, and inquired whether the employees desired the Union or a company official to represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining. Butler denied making any statement with respect to the employees' choice of a collective bargaining representative. He did not testify, however, with respect to the alleged quotation of figures concerning the union wage scale and the employees' earnings. He testified that he asked the employees "to trust [him] ... to get the quarrels straightened out." In resolving this conflict, the testimony of Foreman J. R. Brown, li " While there is no' evidence that Butler gave any specific instructions to the foremen relating to the respondent's labor relations policy, the record does not disclose that the foremen questioned any employee or applicant for employment concerning union affiliation or activity. - " Williams testified that in malting the request he did not mention the Union to Butler. Butler testified that; while aware of the union activity among the employees, he called a meeting of the bindery employees, as hereinaftei set forth, because the increase in dis- cussion among the girls, hourly paid employees, had lowered their efficiency. 80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD witness for the respondent, appears significant. He testified that either Butler or Merritt made the statements with respect to wages, and that Butler asked the employees, "Had you rather have the Union or would you rather go on like you have been?" Under the circum- stances, we find that Butler made a comparison of the union wage scale and the earnings of bindery employees and asked the employees whether they desired to maintain the status quo with respect to ma- chinery for the establishment of terms and conditions of employment. On September 29, 1941, union representatives called on Harland, stated that the Union had been designated as 'collective bargaining representative by about 90 percent of the respondent's employees, and presented a proposed contract. Harland stated that he doubted whether the Union represented a majority of the employees and sug- gested that the doubt be resolved by conducting an election. He fur- f.her informed the union representatives that the respondent had no objection if its employees joined the Union and that the respondent would deal with the Union in the event that a majority of the 'em- ployees desired the Union to act as their representative. The Union did not press the matter, and there was no further meeting between the Union and the respondent until March 1942, after the Union had filed a petition under Section 9 (c) of the Act.' On March 25, 1942, the respondent and the Union entered into an agreement for a consent election to determine representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining. A few days later, Butler called to his office Henry Elliott, an employee who had been named in the agree- ment to act as observer for the Union at the election. According to testimony of Elliott, and Butler, which we credit as did the 'Trial Ex- aminer, Butler stated, in substance, that displeased employees might make harsh statements to Elliott because of his selection as union observer, and advised him not to become upset if they made such state- ments. Butler also informed Elliott that the respondent's attitude toward the Union and the election was one of indifference, and showed Elliott the memorandum from Harland, referred to above, as proof of the respondent's policy.8 In the course of the same conversation, ac- cording to Elliott, either Butler or Merritt, who was also present, stated that the earnings of the respondent's employees were larger than those of union employees elsewhere. On the day of the election, April 3, 1942, Harland assembled the employees in the plant and made a speech. In the speech, in substance, Harland urged all the employees a The,petition was filed on March 20, 1942. About this time, according to Elliott's testimony , Foreman Eugene Watson, told Elliott that he was "on the spot," referring to his selection as union observer. Watson denied Elliott's testimony. Butler testified that he was the one who- iihade such statement to Elliott In either event , we do not regard such statement as having any material significance. JOHN H. HARLAND COMPANY 81 to vote, and to vote as they pleased. He also assured the employees that "there will be no hard feelings," regardless of the outcome of the election. During the period from September 1941, to date of the complaint, the respondent's working foremen, who had power to make recommenda- tions with respect to hiring and firing and were eligible to membership in the Union, on many occasions, discussed the Union with employees and in,general terms expressed opposition to union organization. With the exception noted below,' however, they made no express threats and did not purport to speak for the management. Many of such conver- sations were started by ordinary employees. Harland testified that he took no steps to keep the working foremen from exercising influence upon the employees in the matter of union organization because he believed that as employees eligible to union membership they had a right to engage in normal union activity and that it would be unlaw- ful for the 'respondent to have restrained such activity. On several occasions individual einliloyees seeking' advice were told by Harland and Butler that, so far as the respondent was concerned, they were free to join the Union or not, as they saw fit, and that the manage- ment could not advise them whether to join or not. The Union lost the election; le subsequently it withdrew its petition for investigation and certification of representatives and, on April 7, 1942; filed,the charges which gave rise to this proceeding. B. Conclusions We have found above that at the meeting of the bindery employees Superintendent Butler compared the existing union wage scale with the earnings of the bindery- employees 11 and asked them, in effect, whether they wished to designate the Union as their bargaining rep- resentative. Such statements, considered alone, bear the interpreta- tion that Butler was thereby suggesting that the employees abandon the Union. As part of the same discussion, however, Butler and Merritt told the employees, in substance: (1) that the respondent had no objection to union membership on the part of its employees; (2) that the respondent could not discharge an employee for union membership; and (3) that the respondent would bargain collectively with the exclusive representative chosen by the employees. We 0 Employee Fred J Harris testified, and the Trial Examiner found, that Harris was told by Foreman Watson that lie had "plmmsed Harland that as long as he worked there that the union would never come in these." While Watson did not specifically deny such testi- mony, Harland testified that he never discussed the Union with the woi kuig foremen, except to tell them that lie could not advise them when they sought advice as to whether to join the Union We credit Harris's testimony but, under the circumstances disclosed here, attach no material significance to Watson's statement 10 With 32 employees on the eligibility list, the Union received 9 of 31 votes cast 11 Butler did not expressly so state, but the rate paid the employees by the respondent, according to the figures quoted by Butlem, exceeded the union wage scale ' 493508-43-vol 45=0 82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD believe that these additional statements of Butler and Merritt removed any coercive taint otherwise present in Butler's remarks. In our view Butler gave the impression at the meeting of the bindery employees that he was primarily interested in employee efficiency and production, and that he was assuring the employees that, as a means of bolstering employee morale and increasing 'production, the respondent would not oppose the organization of the Union in the event that the employees wanted the Union. We find that, by Butler's statements to the bindery employees, the respondent did not interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On the basis of the evidence hereinabove reviewed, we are of the opinion that the employees did not regard the activities of the working foremen as a reflection of the wishes of management, and that the respondent did not thereby interfere with, restrain, or coerce. its employees in their choice of representatives. We so find. By Har- land's memorandum to Butler which was shown to Elliott, by Har- land's speech to the employees on election day, and by the statements of Butler and Merritt to the bindery employees, as hereinabove set forth, the respondent's officials had demonstrated a neutral attitude toward the Union in its efforts to organize the employees. Further- more, the working foremen were eligible to membership in the Union; the Union sought to bargain for them and permitted them to vote without challenge in the election conducted by the Board. The fore- men did not question any employee concerning his union membership or activity, and there is no evidence that the foremen threatened the employees with disciplinary action for engaging in union activity. For the most part, the discussions between ordinary employees and the foremen with respect to the` Union were initiated by an ordinary employee, and the statements made by the foremen were regarded by the employees, according to their testimony, as part of an exchange-of personal viewpoints. In such a setting we believe that the foremen did not by their activity enlist the prestige of management to oppose the Union. -Accordingly, we shall not hold the respondent respon- sible for their conduct and shall dismiss the complaint. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entiie record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The operation of the business of the respondent constitutes a continuous flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Printing Trades Crafts is a labor organization, within the mean- ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act. JOHN H. HARLAND COMPANY 83 3. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. ORDER - Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant-to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint against John H. Harland Company, Atlanta, Georgia, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.