Scott Paper Box Co.

In the Matter of L. W. ScoTr, DOING BUSINESS AS SCOTT PAPER Box COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTIiERIIOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE AND PAPER MILL WORKERS, A. F. L. Case No. 15M-C-28.-Decided February 10, 1949 DECISION AND ORDER On July 27, 1948, Trial Examiner Peter F. Ward issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that he cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal of these unproved allegations of the complaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members.* The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied be- cause the record, exceptions and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings 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, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National *Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Gray. a In the last sentence of the next to the last paragraph on page 5 of the Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner erroneously declares that "Blake stated that he did not want to go to work since the employees were organized..... The record shows, and we find, that Westlake made this statement. 81 N. L. R. B., No. 98. 535 536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, L. W. Scott, doing business as Scott Paper Box Company, Little Rock, Arkansas. and his agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, A. F. L., or in any other labor organization of his employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of his employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of their employment; (b) Interrogating his employees concerning their union affiliations, activities, or sympathies, or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing his employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Inter- national Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em- ployment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as guaranteed by Section 7 thereof. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Make whole Floyd Beavers, Roy F. Braden, George W. Burton, Clifton Davis, Houston Durnal, William Eskridge, Leonard Ham- mons, Dewey Lay, Marthell Murphy, Roy Pearson, Euall Qualls, Harry Reddick, J. D. Reddick, Clarence Roberts, Harvey Rogers, Irby Rodgers, Andrew Sims, Henry Sims, Arthur Sowell, Robert L. Stancil, Leroy Titsworth, Harry Westlake, V. O. Ables, Lola Hen- drixson, Odessa McGinty, Kathleen McMillian, Merl Richerson, and Beatrice Wells, for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount he or she would nor- mally have earned as wages during the period from August 16, 1947, the first effective day of the lock-out, to August 26, 1947, the day of their general return to work, less his or her net earnings during said period; (b) Post at his plant in Little Rock, Arkansas, copies of the notice attached to this Order and marked "Appendix A." 2 Copies of said 2 In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted in the notice , before the word "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING." SCOTT PAPER BOX COMPANY 537 notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent or his repre- sentative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by him for sixty (60) consecutive days there- after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in writ- ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Acts, I hereby notify my employees that : I WILL NOT interrogate my employees concerning their union affiliations, activities, or sympathies, or in any other manner inter- fere with, restrain, or coerce my employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations , to join or assist INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE AND PAPER MILL WORKERS, A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member- ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as guaranteed by Section 7 thereof. I WILL MAKE the following employees whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as the result of my discrimination against them : Floyd Beavers William Eskridge Roy F. Braden Leonard Hammons George W. Burton Dewey Lay Clifton Davis Marthell Murphy Houston Durnal Roy Pearson 538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Euall Qualls Harry Reddick J. D. Reddick Clarence Roberts Harvey Rogers Irby Rodgers Andrew Sims Arthur Sowell Henry Sims Robert L. Stancil Leroy Titsworth Harry Westlake V. 0. Ables Lola Hendrixson Odessa McGinty Kathleen McMillian Merl Richerson Beatrice Wells All my employees are free to become or remain members of the above- mentioned union or any other labor organization. I will not discrim- inate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment of any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. L. W. SCOTT, doing business as SCOTT PAPER Box COMPANY, Employer. Dated --------------- By ---------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from date thereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Messrs. Richard C. Keenan, William P. Alexander, Andrew P. Carter, and Victor Hess, Jr., for the General Counsel. Messrs. Henry Donham. and W. J. Smith of Little Rock, Ark., for the Respondent. Mr. Fred E. Floyd, International Organizer, for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed December 22, 1947, by International Brother- hood Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, A. F. of L., herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,' issued a complaint dated March 30, 1948,' against L. W. Scott, doing business as Scott Paper Box Company, 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 (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, prior to amendment, and Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947,' herein called the Act, or the amended Act. Copies of the complaint, with charge attached, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union. I The General Counsel and his representatives at the hearing are referred to herein as General Counsel ; National Labor Relations Board is referred to as the Board. 2 The complaint was amended as to Paragraph VIII , by the General Counsel of the Board on April 2, 1948 8 The National Labor Relations Act as amended by Public Law 101, Chapter 120, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. The National Labor Relations Act prior to amendment is sometimes herein referred to as the Wagner Act. SCOTT PAPER BOX COMPANY 539 With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleges in substance that: (1) on or about August 15, 1947, the Respondent, personally or by his officers and agents interrogated his employees concerning their union affiliation ; denied the employees access to the plant unless they submit to such interrogation and threatened the employees with discharge if they became or remained mem- bers of the Union ; (2) Respondent on August 15, 1947, conditioned future employ- ment of his employees upon their lack of union affiliation, and, until August 26, 1947, denied entrance into the plant and access to their usual working places all those employees who refused to submit themselves to interrogation, and by this action the Respondent discharged some 30 employees;` (3) on or about September 2, 1947, the Respondent discharged Leonard Hammons, Clifford B. Davis, T. E. Smith, Dewey Lay and George Burton, and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate said employees; (4) as a result of the discharge of the five employees named next above, certain employees of the Respondent went on strike on or about September 3, 194T; and on or about September 5, 1947, the employees on strike presented themselves and unconditionally offered to return to work; (5) the Respondent refused to permit the employees to return to work and by his refusal terminated the employment of these employees named referred to in footnote 4, together with the employment of Thomas E. Smith and James Huckabee; (6) on or about October 18, 1947, Respondent discharged M. L. Kin- ney and James Taylor, thereafter refused to reinstate them ; that the Respondent on or about July 30, 1947, laid off Adeline Lockridge and Louise Bradley, and on or about August 29, 1947, and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate them; (7) that the Respondent discharged and refused to reinstate all of the employees hereinbefore named, some of whom were discharged and refused reinstatement more than once, because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, and because they engaged In concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining aond other mutual aid and protection; (8) and that by said acts the Respondent has interfered with, restrained and coerced his employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On or about April 15, 1948, the Respondent filed an answer to the complaint wherein certain allegations of the complaint were admitted but denied that he had engaged in any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on April 19 to 22, 1948, at Little Rock, Arkansas, before Peter F. Ward, the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel and the Union represented by an International Representa- tive. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. During the hearing and at the close of the General Counsel's case he moved to strike the name of John A. Burton and Arthur F. Stancil from the complaint. The motion was granted. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties argued orally on the record. The parties were granted the privilege of filing briefs and/or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within 15 days after the close of the hearing. Counsel for the Respondent duly filed a brief and while the brief contained a number of paragraphs headed "Proposed Findings" none of the paragraphs so headed are numbered or are they in such form that the undersigned may adopt any of them ; all such proposed findings are rejected, except insofar as they are, in part, consistent with the findings and conclusions hereinafter made. 4 See Appendix A. 540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in the case and upon his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, L. W. Scott, a private individual, doing business under the name and style of Scott Paper Box Company, has for some 17 years been continuously engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of paper boxes, and related products. For the 6-months period preceding November 1947, the Respondent purchased raw materials, consisting principally of paper board and covered stock, valued in excess of $100,000, almost all of which was purchased outside the State of Arkansas and shipped in interstate commerce to the plant at Little Rock, Arkansas, where the Respondent maintains his principal office and plant. During the same period Respondent manufactured and sold finished products valued in excess of $200,000, approximately 70 percent of which was sold and shipped to customers outside the State of Arkansas. The Respondent admits and the undersigned finds that he is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, A. F. L., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act and as re-enacted the same section of the amended Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The lockout; interference, restraint and coercion 1. Sequence of events; the lock-out Prior to on or about July 1, there had been no union activity at the Respond- ent's plant.5 At or about that time, Fred E. Floyd, an organizer for the Union started interviewing employees of the Respondent in an effort to induce them to organize. By the early part of August, 1947, a sufficient number of employees had signed application and authorization cards to permit the issuance of a charter by the Union. Under date of August 14, Floyd wrote L. W. Scott, the Respondent, as follows DEAR MR. Scorr: This is to advise that this International Union repre- sents a majority of your employees. Therefore, we claim exclusive rights to bargain collectively for these employees, concerning their wages, hours and working conditions. In view of the above, we respectively ask for a conference immediately for the purpose of consummating a time period agreement embracing wages, hours and working conditions. (Signed by FLOYD.) The original of the above letter was addressed to the Respondent, L. W. Scott, and a copy addressed separately to L. F. Scott,' a brother of the Respondent, and ' The record discloses that during the year 1941 the Board conducted an election among the Respondent's employees for the selection of a representative for the purposes of col- lective bargaining ; and that a majority of the employees voted against such representation. L. W. Scott, the Respondent, is at times referred to in the record as "L. W." and his brother, the superintendent , is at times referred to as "L . F." ; the Scotts on occasion will be referred to by their initials in this report. SCOTT PAPER BOX COMPANY 541 superintendent of the plant. L. W. Scott was not in the plant on August 15, when the letter was received. L. F. Scott called him by telephone and told him of the receipt of the letter from Floyd. At L. W. Scott's direction his brother took the letters to the former's home. After the brothers had discussed the Floyd letter claiming to represent the employees, L. W. Scott directed his brother, the superintendent to close the plant at quitting time on the night of August 15, 1947.' Prior to quitting time on August 15, L. W. Scott caused all of the time cards to be withdrawn from this place at the time clock. He then posted the copy of the letter received from Floyd, on the time clock. After the whistle had blown for quitting time at 5:30 on August 15, L. F. Scott waited until all of the employees were assembled at the time clock. He then addressed the employees as follows : It looks like you fellows want to organize a Union here. If you do, you will have to go somewhere else to do it ; we are not going to have it here. You can get your checks out of the office for this week, and you can come back Monday and get your pay for these last two days. The ones of you who do not want a Union can come to me and talk to me about a job With reference to the events of the evening of August 15, L. F. Scott testified: Q. Tell the Examiner just as near as you can remember the exact words you said to the employees on that occasion. A. All the employees had come to the clock, I told them that we had to lay off Saturday, and figure the short pay roll, then I referred to this copy of the letter on the clock there, and told them It seemed to me there was some dissatisfaction with some of the employees over their jobs, and that they wanted to belong to the Union. I told them we did not have a Union, and to my knowledge and to my brothers knowledge, there were plants in town that were organized, and that if they were dissatisfied with their jobs, we expected probably they could go somewhere else and get a job. That was about the end of the conversation as well as I remember that I stated to the employees. The record indicates that as of August 15, not to exceed seven or eight of the employees had actually joined the Union. Between the closing time on August 15, the morning of August 18 a considerable number of additional employees signed authorization and application for membership cards with the Union. On the morning of August 18, some 16 employees returned to work and pur- suant to L. F. Scott's instructions reported to him through the office ; while some 81 employees returned to the plant on the morning of August 18, but refused to go through the office and submit to interviews by L. F. Scott. As all of the employees who returned to the plant on the morning of the 18 arrived, they were met by Charles F. Blake, shipping clerk, and admittedly a * Unless otherwise Indicated all events referred to herein occurred during the year 1947. This finding is made upon the credited testimony of Roy Braden, as corroborated by other witnesses. In this same connection, Lola Jones, an employee of the Respondent for 12 years, was called as a witness by the Respondent, testified : He, (L. F.) was standing at the clock when we left our department. It is not his habit to be there, and it came out of a clear sky to me. I started to the dressing room. I had an arm full of papers, and he said, "Lola, come back." I came back out, and he said, "It seems the employees here are dissatisfied," and there was this notice on the clock from the Union. I don't know who put it there. He said, "There are plenty of places that have Unions, but we don't have one. If you are satisfied with your fobs, see me Monday morning." 542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD supervisor, who was standing at the gate which lead into the plant and advised them that it was necessary that they go through the office. On the following day, August 19, approximately the same group who refused to go through the office to go to work on the preceding day again went to the plant. On this occasion they met Blake at the door leading into the main production building. Blake came out of the door, pulled it to, and it locked. Harry West- lake, who had not been present on Tuesday, asked, "What is this, a lock-out?" Blake then replied, "Things are just like they were Saturday," and when West- lake stated, "Well, I wasn't here and I don't know what that is"; Blake said, "Well, you'll have to go in the office and talk to Mr. L. F. Scott if you want to go to work." Westlake did go to the office and talked with L. F. Scott alone. Westlake said, "I understand you have some trouble here." L. F. Scott said, "Yes, they want to organize," and informed Westlake, "If you want to go to work and not have a Union, you can go to work." Blake stated that he did not want to go to work since the employees were organized and he belonged to the Union himself, and stated that he would wait until things were settled.' Under date of August 20, a local newspaper, The Arkansas Democrat, pub- lished a story in connection with the "lock-out" at the Respondent's plant ; on August 21, the Respondent L. W. Scott caused a statement to be published in The Arkansas Gazette stating that "no employees were locked-out" at his plant. Under date of August 20, L. W. Scott sent a letter to some 31 named employees 19 as follows : It has come to my attention through the public press that a representative of the International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers is charging that I have discharged certain employees or refused to permit them to continue to work on account of their Union activities. In this con- nection, it is my understanding from Mr. L. F. Scott that in my absence certain demands were made upon the company by a representative of the Union mentioned which he would not accede to and on this account nu- merous employees refused to continue to work, although they were informed that they or any one of them desiring to work might continue in the employ of the company. So that there can be no misunderstanding about this, I am taking this means of informing you that your employment with the Scott Paper Box Company has no [sic] been discontinued by an act on the part of the company that you are welcome to return to your job at any time. However, as explained to the representative of the Union mentioned, the company does not intend to negotiate with said Union relative to a contract for the employees until such time as they had been established by certification of the National Labor Relations Board that the aforesaid Union is the exclusive bargaining agent for the employees. Yours truly, SCOTT PAPER Box COMPANY, (s) L. W. ScorT. 9 The findings in connection with the events of August 19th are based upon the credited and in the main undisputed testimony of Westlake. L. F. Scott gave a different version of the conversation between him and Westlake which indicates that the Union was discussed indirectly at least, since L. F. Scott credits Westlake with saying, "I don't want to be a scab on the job." 70 See Appendix B. SCOTT PAPER BOX COMPANY 543 Under date of August 21, 21 of the employees who had received the August 20 letter wrote identical letters to L. W. Scott as general manager. Such letter states as follows : DEAa MR. SCOTT : This will acknowledge receipt of your letter as of August 20, 1947, wherein you advise that it is your understanding from Mr. L. F. Scott that in your absence demands were made upon your company by a representative of the International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, which he would not accede to, and on this account numerous employees refused to continue to work. Let me advise you that I am not aware of any demands that have been made by any Representative of the International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers as you charged, and the only reason that I have not continued to work for Scott Paper Box Company is because on Tuesday morning, August 19, 1947, when I reported for work at the usual time, I was stopped at the gate by your foreman and shipping clerk, Mr. Blake, who would not let me go to work. Now Mr. Scott, I want to inform you that I am now a member of Little Rock Local Union # 594, International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, A. F. of L., and because of my affiliations with this union, I am being denied employment by you. Upon instructions from our International Representative, Mr. Fred E. Floyd, we reported for work on Tuesday morning, August 19, 1947, at which time we were not permitted entrance to the plant to continue our tenure of employment. With further reference to your letter of August 20, 1947, you state that my employment wtih the Scott Paper Box Company has not been discontinued by act on part of the company, and that I am welcome to return to my job at any time. This statement on your part is contrary to what has actually happened in that your brother, L. F. Scott, sets out as a condition of employment that I must discontinue my union affiliations , and in this connection, Mr. Scott, do I now understand from your letter that if I return to my job, I will be permitted to retain any membership in my local Union without fear of intimidation , discrimination or coercion concerning my tenure of employment? I believe that you well realize the above questions should be made clear in view of the fact L. F. Scott advised us that if we wanted to return to our jobs, that we would first have to see him and assure him that we were not affiliated with and would not affiliate with any union. Such an in- dividual agreement with Mr. L. F. Scott is a violation of Act 101, adopted by the 1947 Legislature. Please give me an immediate reply as I anxious to return to work. Yours truly, (Signature.) On August 23, L. W. Scott wrote the employees in response to the foregoing letter written the 21 employees, as follows : DEAR MR. (name of employee ) : I have your letter dated August 21 acknowledging receipt of my letter of August 20, in which you state that contrary to what I stated in my letter you were discharged by my brother, Mr. L. F. Scott. On the basis of the statements made to me by Mr. L. F. Scott as what he told you and other employees , of course, I can not agree with your contention. 544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD My letter to you of August 20 was intended to make it clear that you were welcome to return to your job without fear of being denied employment or in any way being intimidated or discriminated against because of any Union activities. Yours very truly, ScoTr PAPEa Box COMPANY, (S) L. W. Scary. Following receipt of the last above-mentioned letter all the locked-out employees returned to work on August 26. The issues, contentions ; conclusions The General Counsel contends, in effect, as the complaint alleges, that by shutting down the plant on August 15, and advising all those interested in organ- izing a Union to look elsewhere for a job and by informing those who did not "want" a Union to see him in his office on Monday, August 18, before going to work, L. F. Scbtt, as agent of the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of those employees, who being in favor of the Union, refused to submit to interrogation on Monday, August 18, or on Tuesday, August 19, on both of which occasions, Supervisor Blake refused to permit them to enter the plant, except after an interview or interrogation by L. F. Scott. The Respondent's brief in this connection reads in part, as follows : It is admitted by the respondent that the superintendent (L. F. Scott) for the respondent made certain remarks to the employees as they gathered around the clock at the regular quitting time on August 15, 1947, concerning the desire of some of the employees to form a union and that he referred to a letter which had been received from Fred E. Floyd, a representative of the union, the letter having been posted on the clock by Scott. At that time the employees were advised by the superintendent that the plant would not operate on the following day which was Saturday but that the plant would operate on Monday and that he wanted to talk to all employees before they went to work on Monday. [Emphasis added.] The credible evidence clearly indicates that L. F. Scott told the employees that those who did not want a Union were to talk to him on Monday and that those who did could look for work elsewhere and thereby warned Union adherents that they would have to abandon the Union in order to work for the Respondent. Conclusions From the foregoing and the record the undersigned concludes and finds that by closing the plant on August 16 and by advising those employees who wanted a Union to look elsewhere for a job and advising those who did not want a union to see L. F. Scott before going to work on August 18, the Respondent locked out and discharged all those employees, who desiring to engage in concerted and Union activities, refused to submit to interrogation between August 15 and August 26, and the Respondent did thereby interfere with, restrain, and coerce his employees in the exercise of the right guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The undersigned further concludes and finds that the employees who refused to return to work as a result of L. W. Scott's letter of August 20, were justified in requiring further assurance from the Respondent after L. F. Scott had so clearly indicated on August 15 that only those who did "not want" a union would be permitted to work. It will be recommended below that the Respondent make whole those employees discriminated against from August 15, 1947 to SCOTT PAPER BOX COMPANY 545 August 26, 1947, in the manner more particularly set forth in the Section below entitled "The remedy." B. The alleged discriminatory discharges; and refusals to rehire or reinstate (1) The discharges of September 2 The complaint alleges that the Respondent discharged Leonard Hammons, Clifton B. Davis, T. E. Smith, Dewey Lay and George Burton on or about Sep- tember 2, 1947, and thereafter refused to reinstate them because of their union activities. The Respondent's answer alleges that the five men were discharged for good and sufficient cause. The record discloses that the lock-out on August 15, resulted in the absence of some 30 production employees from the plant from that date until August 26, with the further result that the Respondent had insufficient finished products to fill a rush order for Blevins Popcorn Company of Nashville, Tennessee, the Respondent's most valued customer. On Friday, August 29, L. W. Scott discussed the possibility of getting 2 trucks loaded out for the Nashville customer with L. F. Scott, who informed him of the amount needed to load the 2 trucks and the amount necessary to complete the order. L. W. Scott instructed his brother to make arrangements for the necessary employees to work overtime on the afternoon of the next day (Saturday, August 30) to complete the order. Also on August 29, L. W. Scott instructed Charles F. Blake, his shipping clerk, to contact James Taylor and M. L. Kinney, the Respondent's truck drivers and see if the two were willing to work over the Labor Day holiday and make delivery of the above referred to rush order. The Truck Drivers agreed to make the run, and Blake so reported to L. W. Scott. On Saturday morning L. F. Scott got in touch with Burton, who worked on the press, used in fabricating the boxes, and the rest of the crew employed on press, namely Hammons, Davis, Smith and Lay, and told them of the necessity for the work to be done that afternoon, and instructed them to report for work after lunch" Hammons, Davis, Smith, Lay, and Burton failed to report for work on the Saturday afternoon in question and thus made it possible for the Respondent to load but one truck with popcorn boxes for his Nashville customer, which was done. The second truck was dispatched to another customer at Parsons, Kansas, with a load of boxes which were in stock, on which the Respondent had a standing order that permitted delivery at the will of the Respondent. When the employees returned to work after the Labor Day holiday, on Sep- tember 2, each of five employees who failed to work on Saturday afternoon, August 30, received letters reading as follows : SEPTEMBER 2, 1947. DEAR MR. ( Employees name ) : Since, you were asked to work a few hours overtime Saturday afternoon, which has been customary, and you refused to do so we consider that you have quit your job. Yours very truly, (S) SCOTT PAPER Box COMPANY, L. W. SCOTT. u In addition to the 5 employees named above, employees Harry Reddick, Huston, Durnal, Ezra Shaw, and Robert Branch were also instructed to report for work on Saturday afternoon to perform certain task in connection with the Nashville rush order and pursu- ant to such instructions these 4 employees reported. 546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The letters were delivered to the five employees by L F Scott, without com- ment, and all employees left without comment, except Hammons, who said he had not "quit." The record discloses that the Respondent, L. W. Scott, per- sonally decided to terminate the employment of the five employees upon learning of their failure to work on the afternoon of August 30, and that he personally composed the letters. The issues; contentions; conclusions (a) The General Counsel contends in effect, (1) that overtime work on Satur- day afternoons was on a voluntary basis only ; and (2) that inasmuch as the Respondent had been informed by letters from a majority of the discharged group that they had joined the Union; and since no employee had, prior to September 2, 1947, ever been discharged for refusing to work overtime on Satur- day afternoons, it necessarily followed that these five employees were discharged for Union and/or concerted activities. As to the first contention, the record discloses that it was customary for the employees to work overtime on Saturday afternoons," when the occasion re- quired it. Harry A. Reddick, called as a witness by the General Counsel, testi- fied in substance, that when he worked overtime on Saturday afternoons, he was always asked if he wanted to work ; that he was asked to work on Saturday afternoon on August 30; and did so. He testified : Q. . . . but you did consider it your duty to come back to work? A. I thought he needed the boxes run in order to get his order out. Q. So you came back? A. Yes, sir. I did. Q. (By Mr. Keenan.) Mr. Reddick, did you have anything you wanted to do that afternoon? A. Yes, sir, I did, I felt it was my duty to cooperate with him if he wanted to get an order out. Huston Durnal, called as a witness by the General Counsel, worked on the afternoon in question. He testified : Q. Were you asked to work overtime that day? A. Well, now, Mr. L. F. Scott came down there where we were working there and he said, "I want you fellows to run so many." I don't remember how many, but anyhow he said, "I want you guys to work." He never called names, but I suppose he meant all of us, and, of course, I was standing there. Harry Westlake, also called as a witness by the General Counsel testified that he had worked a time or two on Saturday afternoons, and had refused to work overtime without giving a reason to this extent, "well, I usually said I did not want to work. If he wanted me to work, to let me know ahead of time. I usually had other plans." Westlake further testified : Q. You would have worked if he asked you ahead of time? A. If I didn't hear something else planned, I would work. ss The employees' normal workweek included Saturday forenoons , for which they received overtime pay. SCOTT PAPER BOX COMPANY 547 Q You would work without advance notice in an emergency, wouldn't you? A. In an emergency, yes. Arthur Sowell, also called as a witness by the General Counsel, testified to the effect that he had worked for the Respondent, off and on for 10 years ; that the custom of working overtime " It is on a voluntary basis as far as I know" ; that he had worked overtime "a lot of times" ; and while he did not always work over- time when asked, he always gave a reason such as sickness, or going to a party, or something like that. Roy Braden, who testified at length on behalf of the General Counsel, stated that if he had been told to come back and work on this particular Saturday he would have done so. He testified : Q. I don't mean ask you. If he had told you to come back and go to work? A. Yes. Q. You would have been there on the ball, wouldn't you? A. Yes. Q. And you think that is any other employee's duty, don't you? A. Yes. It is clear from the foregoing that the Respondent's employees were required, and it was customary for them to work overtime when so instructed, unless they advanced a reason for not working that was satisfactory to the Respondent. This contention is without merit. As to the second contention, while the record does not disclose that any em- ployees had, prior to September 2, 1947, been discharged for refusing to work overtime on any Saturday afternoon, neither does it show that as many as 5 employees out of 9 had ever refused to work in an emergency after having been instructed to do so. Nor does the record disclose that the 5 discharged em- ployees were more active in Union or concerted activities than the remaining 25 production employees, thus there was no occasion to single this group out for discharge in order to discourage membership in the Union. The fact that these 5 men were employed in operating a machine that was necessarily used in fabri- cating the very boxes needed to complete the rush order for an old and valued customer leads to the conclusion that they were not ordered to work and there- after discharged after failing to work in the emergency because of their Union or concerted activities. This contention is without merit. Contentions of the discharged employees Hanvmons, contended and testified that L. F. Scott came to him on Saturday, in question, before noon and said, "I want you boys to run 10,000 sheets," and that he told L. F. Scott that he could not work "that evening," as he was going to see a doctor; that Scott said nothing further; and that he (Hammons) did not agree to work. L. F. Scott testified on the other hand that Hammons said he was going to pay on a doctor's bill, whereupon Scott told him that was not a good excuse and asked that he call the doctor's office and put off until the following week, "which he agreed to do." The undersigned credits L. F. Scott's testimony in this connection. Davis, testified that on the Saturday before Labor Day (August 30) L. F. Scott told him to work overtime that afternoon, "Well, he just came by and said for me to work and I did not tell him I would or would not." Davis did not work; did not inform Scott before the afternoon shift that he was not going to 829595-50-vol. 81-36 548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD work ; and offered no excuse for failing to do such work, when he reported to the plant on September 2. Smith, testified that he was not asked to work overtime on this particular Saturday. The record indicates that Smith was a member of the crew working on the press ; and that L. F. Scott talked to the men in a group, of which Smith was a member, and that he should have heard the instructions. Moreover it would be reasonable to suppose that the group, including Smith, discussed the matter after L. F. Scott had issued the instructions and had left. Assuming, arguendo, that Smith had not, in feet, heard L. F. Scott's orders for the overtime work, and was discharged by L. W. Scott who believed that he refused to work, after being instructed to, his discharge under such circumstances would of itself, be no evidence that he was discharged for Union activities." Lay testified that L. F. Scott asked him to work on the afternoon of August 30, and that he told him that he could not work because he was going to a Union meeting. L. F. Scott in his testimony denied that Lay had told him he was going to a Union meeting and that Lay agreed to report for work. The record contains no credible evidence that a Union meeting was held on the afternoon of August 30, and the undersigned being convinced that none was held, credits L. F. Scott in this connection. Burton testified that L. F. Scott asked if he "wanted to work Saturday after- noon," and that, "I told him I might and I might not. I did not promise." Since it appears that Burton was feeding the press it is most unlikely that L. F. Scott would have accepted such an indefinite commitment from him. On the record the undersigned does not credit Burton's testimony quoted herein, and does credit L. F. Scott's testimony to the effect that Burton indicated that he would work on the particular Saturday afternoon hereinbefore referred to. On the foregoing and the record the undersigned is convinced and finds that Hammons, Davis, Smith, Lay, and Burton were instructed to work overtime on the afternoon of Saturday, August 30, 1947, and that each of them indicated that he would do so. Conclusions The foregoing and the record discloses that it was customary for the Respond- ent's employees upon request, to work overtime on Saturday afternoons, and particularly in the case of an emergency ; that, as is set forth in greater detail above, such an emergency arose on August 30,1947; that Hammons, Davis, Smith, Lay, and Burton after being requested and instructed to work on this occasion, either expressly or tacitly agreed to report for overtime work on this occasion; that notwithstanding such instructions, and their agreements to report for work as aforesaid, these employees failed and refused to report for work on the afternoon of August 30, 1947; and that on September 2, 1947, the Respondent discharged said Hammons, Davis, Smith, Lay, and Burton. It is so found. From the foregoing and the entire record the undersigned concluded and finds that the record will not support a finding that Leonard Hammons, Clifton B. Davis, T. E. Smith, Dewey Lay, and George Burton were discharged by the Respondent on September 2, 1947, by reason of their Union membership or activities ; and that by such discharge the Respondent has not violated Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Wagner Act or Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Amended Act. It will be recommended below that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it so alleges. Is Prior to August 26, Smith had not been employed by the Respondent for some 4 or 5 years ; and had not participated in the events of August 15 to 26. SCOTT PAPER BOX COMPANY 549 (2) The strike; the alleged discriminatory refusal to rehire the strikers The complaint alleges in effect that by the alleged discriminatory discharge on September 2, of Hammons, Davis, Smith, Lay, and Burton, the Respondent caused an unfair labor practice strike of his employees on September 3, and that by refusing to reinstate the employees on September 5, he has discrimi- nated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment. The record discloses that on August 30 the Respondent requested and in- structed a group of 9 employees to work overtime on that afternoon. As is found elsewhere herein 5 of the 9 employees failed to report, and were discharged by the Respondent on September 2. The undersigned finds above that such dis- charges were not discriminatory. On the night of September 2 the Union employees at a meeting determined to demand the reinstatement of the discharged group or that two other em- ployees, namely, Irby Rogers and A. D. Bugh, whom it was claimed had also been instructed to work overtime on the afternoon of August 30, and had not done so, be discharged. A committee composed of Employees Harry Westlake, Roy Braden and Arthur Sowell was appointed to call on L. F. Scott on September 3 and submit such demands. On September 3 the committee of 3 called on L. F. Scott and demanded that he either reinstate the 5 employees who were discharged on September 2, or to dis- charge Rogers and Bugh. L. F. Scott refused to grant either demand, whereupon Sewell pulled the whistle cord, with the result that the Union group quit work, and immediately set up a picket line. On the morning of September 5 those employees who went out on strike on Sep- tember 3, together with 4 of the 5 discharged employees, whose discharge had occasioned the strike, namely, Hammons, Smith, Burton, and Lay, went to the plant in a group to request reinstatement. Westlake, who was spokesman for the group, testified that when the men returned to the plant in a body on Sep- tember 5, they found L. F. Scott "-sitting in a car there, and I told him that we were returning to work and were ready to go to work." Westlake further testified : Q. What did he say? A. He says, "Things are just like they were and I have no further order and you men will have to get out and stay out." Q. Were you spokesman for the entire group? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you attach any conditions to your offer to return to work? A. No, sir. Four of the five discharged men were in the group on this occasion. In connec- tion with the offer of the men to go to work, Smith testified ; Q. What did you go down there that morning for? A. I went down to go to work. Q. Was it your understanding that if the rest of them went to work, you would go to work too? A. That was it. Q. All of you to go to work? A. Yes, Sir. 550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. All or none, wasn't it? A. That is right, I reckon. Burton testified : Q. Were you down there yourself ready to go to work? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you understand that if the rest of them went to work, you were going to work too? A. Yes, Sir. Lay testified that he was in the group that went to the plant on September 5, and Hammons testified that he was present and was ready to go back to work. Employee Huston Durnal, called as a witness by the General Counsel, testified that he went out on strike and "went back at the time we all went back (Sep- tember 5) to put Mr. Hammons and those boys back to work," thus indicating that he understood that the discharged group was included with the strikers as the group who offered to return to work. Following L. F. Scott's statement to the effect that he had no orders and that the assembled employees would have to get out and stay out, the latter returned to the picket line and maintained it until on or about February 1948, during which time none of the striking employees personally applied for reinstatement to their former jobs. The issues ; contentions ; conclusions The General Counsel in effect contends: (1) that the strike of September 3 began and continued as an unfair labor practice strike : (2) that the striking employees made an unconditional offer to return to work on September 5, and that by refusing to reinstate the strikers on September 5, the Respondent dis- criminated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment. As to the first contention, the undersigned has found in Section III B (1) above that by the discharge of Hammons, Davis, Smith, Lay and Burton, the Respondent did not discriminate in regard to their hire and tenure of employ- ment. Under these circumstances, the discharge having been for cause and therefore legal, may not and do not make the strike of September 3 and there- after an unfair labor practice strike. This contention is without merit. As to the second contention, the record discloses that neither the Union or the strikers ever withdrew their demand for the reinstatement of the discharged em- ployees hereinbefore named ; that 4 of the 5 men so discharged were included in the group that sought reinstatement on September 5 testified that they ex- pected to be returned to work if the strikers were reinstated ; and that West- lake in his offer to return the group to work on September 5, did not exclude the discharged men present with and in the group from his offer nor did he limit his offer to strikers only. Under such circumstances Westlake's offer amounted to a demand that both strikers and discharged employees be reinstated, in effect an offer that the strikers would return to work if the discharged employees were reinstated, and thus a conditional rather than an unconditional offer." Since the Respondent's denial of reinstatement was not in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Wagner Act or of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Amended Act," this contention is without merit. 14 Matter of V-C Milling Company, 43 N. L. R. B . 348. See Matter of Wilson & Co. Inc., 77 N. L. R. B. 959. "The only concrete proposal in this connection either written or oral made on behalf of the Union or the strikers, was made by Floyd in a letter dated November 17, 1947, addressed SCOTT PAPER BOX COMPANY Conclusion 551 From the foregoing and entire record the undersigned concludes and finds that by refusing on September 5, 1947, to reinstate the strikers who went on strike on September 3, 1947 and those employed were discharged on September 2, 1947, the Respondent did not discriminate with regard to their hire and tenure of employment as alleged in the complaint. It will be recommended below that the complaint, insofar as it so alleges, be dismissed. (3) The discharge of two truck drivers on October 18 The complaint alleges the discriminatory discharge of truck drivers, James Taylor and M. L. Kinney on October 18. Taylor was hired as a truck driver by L. W. Scott on April 15, 1947. He joined the Union before August 15. He was not required to punch the time clock and was not present at L. F. Scott's time clock speech. He worked during the August 15 to August 26 period at which time Union members and adherents were idle as a result of the lock-out. He also worked during the strike which started on September 3 until his lay off or discharge on October 18, during which time he continuously crossed the picket line 19 set up by the Union. On Saturday, October 18, when Taylor brought his truck to the plant, Blake told him to report back on Monday, October 20. Kinney was employed by the Respondent on June 1, 1946, as a truck driver and worked as such until October 18, 1947. He like Taylor joined the Union; continued at work during the lock-out ; and although he was a member of the Union did not join in the strike. He repeatedly crossed the Union's picket line in the same manner and for the same reasons as did Taylor 1° When Kinney brought his truck to the plant on October 18, there was nobody but the watch- men present. Kinney parked his truck and went home. He returned to the plant Monday, October 20, and asked Blake where he was going that day. Blake said he was not going anywhere, as "Mr. Scott is going to sell the truck." Blake asked both Taylor and Kinney for their "cards" and keys and told them their checks would be in the office for them. Both Taylor and Kinney testified that they had not informed Scott that they had joined the Union. The record indicates that Taylor had been a member of a union at his last place of employment before L. W. Scott hired him; and that the Respondent knew the employees of such Company were organized. The record discloses that the Respondent did not sell the trucks after the dis- charge of Taylor and Kinney. In this connection L. W. Scott testified that he found out that used trucks would not bring the amounts that he had anticipated they would and since he did not wish to take the loss their sale would require, he retained them. L. W. Scott further testified that he discontinued making his own deliverieg in October 1947, because as a result of the strike his production had decreased Leffel Gentry, attorney, who acted for the Respondent herein, only to the extent that he would receive and transmit proposals. Such letter proposed that the Union would with- draw all charges providing the Respondent post a notice in the form usually provided in Board orders where Respondents have been found to have violated the Act. The proposed notice further provided that the Respondent would reinstate all strikers and the five employees discharged September 2, 1947. Thus it will be seen that as late as November 17, 1947, the Union was insisting on the condition that the 5 dischargees be reinstated. 16 Taylor testified that he and Kinney did not join the strike on advice of Organizer Floyd who told them to "go ahead and work." 11 See footnote next above. 552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and it was more advantageous to ship by common carrier railroads and trucks than to maintain full time operations of his own trucks. The undersigned credits L. W. Scott's testimony given in connection with the discharge of Taylor and Kinney. The General Counsel does not contend that there is any evidence in the record to the effect that the Respondent know Taylor and Kinney were "Union men"; but contends that the manner of their discharge indicates "that it could not have but for any other reason than Union activities, and therefore, the Company must have known of their Union activities." This contention is without merit. From the foregoing the undersigned concludes and finds that the record will not support a finding that Taylor and Kinney or either of them, were discharged on October 18, 1947 because of their Union membership or activities ; and that b3* such discharges the Respondent has not violated Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Wagner Act or Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Amended Act. It will be recom- mended below that the Complaint insofar as it so alleges, be dismissed. (4) The refusal to rehire Adeline Lockridge and Louise Bradley The complaint alleges, in substance, that on or about July 30, 1947, the Respond- ent laid off Adeline Lockridge and Louise Bradley and on August 29, 1947, and thereafter refused to reinstate them because of their Union and concerted activities. The record discloses without contradiction that Lockridge and Bradley had been employed by the Respondent on its night shift ; that the night shift was discontinued in July; and those two girls were laid off. Lockridge and Bradley did not testify at the hearing and neither has ever made personal application for reemployment. Insofar as the record discloses, the only word the Respondent has received concerning the desire of either Lockridge or Bradley for reemployment, Is contained in a letter written by Floyd, as follows: Mr. L. W. SCOTT, General Manager, SCOTT PAPER Box COMPANY, 1819-28 East 17th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. DEAR MR SCOTT: It is my understanding that you have hired additional help and possibly plan to hire more help, so I take this means to advise you that Mrs. Adeline Lockridge, who lives beside your plant, and Miss Louise Bradley at 1211 College Street, are members of our Union. It is my understanding that when you discontinued the night shift in your plant and these employees were laid off, that you informed them that when you began rehiring, you would be glad to reemploy them. I am advising you of their membership, hoping that you will reemploy them before hiring any other help. Yours very truly, (s) FRED E. FroYD. L. F. Scott was the only witness that testified concerning Lockridge and Bradley. He testified that they worked on the night shift, . . . but not very long" ; that the night shift was discontinued ; some of the night shift crew were transferred to the day shift ; that these two girls were not needed ; and were laid off. L. F. Scott further testified that he had no recollection of having told the two at the time he laid them off "that if there would be more work needed, he would rehire them:' Since Lockridge and Bradley did not testify, and L. F. Scott's testimony stands uncontradicted, the undersigned cannot upon the record herein, find that the two SCOTT PAPER BOX COMPANY 553 were promised reemployment or that the Respondent had work which either Lockridge or Bradley were capable of performing. The record will not support a finding that the Respondent refused to reemploy Lockridge or Bradley because of their Union or concerted activities. It is so found. It will be recommended below, that the complaint be dismissed , insofar as it so alleges. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- structing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices the undersigned will recommend that he cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative actions designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The undersigned has found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the 29 employees named in Appendix A by dis- charging and locking them out and refusing them employment between August 15 and August 26, 1947, unless and until they submitted to interrogations by Superintendent L. F. Scott, and by such submission said employees were re- quired to tacitly agree that they did "not want a union," and thereby conditioned their future employment upon their lack of union affiliation. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act it will be recommended that the Respondent make each of the employees named in Appendix A whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against them by payment to them and each of them of a sum of money equivalent to that which he normally would have earned as wages from August 15, 1947 to August 26, 1947, less his net earnings during such period. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, A. F. L. is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of those employees listed in "Appendix A," thereby discouraging membership in Interna- tional Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, A. F. L., the Re- spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act prior to amendment, and of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Amended Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing his employees in the exer- cise of the right guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act the Respondent has ena gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Wagner Act, and Section 8 (a) (1) of the Amended Act. 4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The Respondent, by on September 2, 1947, terminating the employment of Leonard Hammons , Clifton B. Davis, T. E. Smith, Dewey Lay, and George Bur- 554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ton ; by on August 29, 1947, refusing to rehire Adeline Lockridge and Louise Bradley ; by on or about October 18, 1947, terminating the employment of James Taylor and M. L. Kinney ; and by on September 5, 1947, refusing to reinstate those employees who went on strike on September 3, 1947, all as is found and set forth hereinbefore, did not discriminate in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of said employees in violation of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Wag- ner Act or Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Amended Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that L W. Scott, doing business as Scott Paper Box Company, the Respondent herein, his officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite, and Paper Mill Workers, A. F. L., by discharging and locking out, and thereafter conditioning future employment of his employees upon their lack of Union affilia- tion or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of their employment. (b) Interrogating his employees concerning their union affiliations, activities, or sympathies, or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights to self organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con- certed activities, for the purposes of collective bargaining or other concerted activities, for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro- tection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act, (a) Make whole those employees listed in "Appendix A" for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent' s discrimination against them in the manner provided in the section entitled "The remedy" ; (b) Post at his plant at Little Rock, Arkansas, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix C." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Fifteenth Region, after being signed by the Respond- ent's representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus- tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith. It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the re- ceipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take action aforesaid. It is further recommended that insofar as the complaint alleges that the Re- spondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Leonard Hammons, Clifton B. Davis, T. E. Smith, Dewey Lay, and George Burton SCOTT PAPER BOX COMPANY 555 by terminating their employment on September 2, 1947; by refusing to rehire Adeline Lockridge and Louise Bradley on August 29, 1947; by terminating the employment of James Taylor and M. L. Kinney on or about October 18, 1947, and by refusing on September 5, 1947, to reinstate those employees who went on strike on September 3, 1947, that it be dismissed. As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 5, effective August 22, 1947, any party may, within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C,, an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Sec- tion 203.46 should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board. In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations and recom- mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions and order, and all objections and exceptions thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Pis F. WARD, Trial Examiner. Dated July 27, 1948. Floyd Beavers Roy F. Braden George W. Burton Clifton Davis Huston Durnal Wm. Eskridge Leonard Hammons Dewey Lay Marthell Murphy Roy Pearson Eual Qualls Harry A. Reddick J. D. Reddick Clarence Roberts Floyd Beavers Roy Fred Braden George Burton Clifton B. Davis APPENDIX A Harvey Rogers Irby Rodgers Andrew Sims Henry Sims Arthur Sewell Arthur F. Stancil Leroy Titsworth Harry Westlake V. O. Ables Lola Hendrixson Odessa McGinty Kathleen McMillian Merl V. Richerson Beatrice Wells APPENDIX B Huston Durnal William George Eskridge Leonard Hammons Dewey Lay 556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Marthel Murphy Roy O. Pearson Eual Q'ualis Harry Reddick J. D. Reddick Clarence Roberts Harvey E. Rogers Irby Rodgers Andrew Sims Henry Sims Arthur Sewell Leroy H. Titsworth Harry Westlake Lola Hendrixson Odessa McGinty Kathleen McMillian Merl V. Richerson Beatrice Wells (John A. Burton and Robert Stancil also received such a letter . Their names were stricken from the complaint on motion of the General Counsel.) APPENDIX C NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE AND PAPER MILL WORKERS, A. F. L. to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. WE WILL make whole those employees listed on Appendix A of the Inter- mediate Report of the Trial Examiner in the manner directed by the Trial Examiner. A copy of said Intermediate Report is on file in our office and may be examined by all interested employees during business hours. All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above- named union or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of mem- bership in or activity on behalf of such labor organization. SCOTT PAPER Box COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------------ By ------------------------------ (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for sixty days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.