Morris Paper Mills

In the Matter of LINDLEY,Box & PAPER COMPANY, DivIsioN OF MORRIS PAPER MILLS and UNITED PAPER WORKERS OF AMERIC_c, C. I. O. In the Mattel' of LINDIJEY Box & PAPER COMPANY, DIVISION OF MORRIS PAPER MILLS and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP SIILPHrrE AND PAPER MILT, WORKERS, A. F. or L. In the Matter of LINDIIEY Box & PAPER COMPANY, DIVISION OF MORRIS PAPER MILLs and UNITED PAPER WORKERS OF A3IERICA, C. I. O. Cases Nos. 11-RD69d, 11-C-1310, and 11-C-1323, respectively.-De- cided April 25, 1947 11r. Clifford L. Hardy, for the Board. Messrs. Pell'anzd Pell, by Mr. Wilbur F. Pell, of Shelbyville, Ind., for .the respondent. Messrs. Nicholas C. Vrataric and- George McGrew, of Indianapolis, Ind., for the CIO. 11r. Keith Wentz, of Hartford City, Ind., and Mr. S. A. Stephens, of Toledo, Ohio, for the AFL. Mr. Wm. C. Baisinger, Jr., of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER On October 16, 1946, Trial Examiner W. P. Webb issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled ,proceeding, finding that the re- spondent, Lindley Box S. Paper Company, Division of Morris Paper `Mills, Marion, Indiana, had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take, certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. In the Intermediate Re- port, the Trial Examiner further found that the respondent had inter- fered with an election conducted by the Board on June 6, 1946, among the respondent's employees to determine their representative for the purpose of collective bargaining, and lie recommended that the election be set-aside. - Thereafter, -the respondent filed exceptions to the In- termediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error waS. committed. 73 N. L. R B., No. 110. 553 554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In- termediate Report, the exceptions and brief filed by the respondent, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Exami- ner's findings,' conclusions, and recommendations, except as noted be- low: 1. The Trial Examiner found that, soon after the advent of the CIO' and AFL in its plant, the respondent embarked upon, n intensive anti- union campaign designed to discourage membership in both of these labor,organizations, in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act. -WWWe agree with the Trial Examiner, but we deem it unnecessary to pass upon whether or not President Powell's preel6ction speech of June 5, 1946, was violative of the Act either per se or as an integral part of the re- spondent's unlawful course of conduct,' for we are convinced and find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent engaged in other con- duct, both before and after the election of June 6, 1946, which inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them under the Act. Thus, as found by the Trial Examiner and detailed in the Intermediate Report, the respondent violated Section, 8 (1) of the Act-by : (1) giving effect to a no-solicita- tion rule which prohibited union activity on company property during the employees' non-working time; (2) enforcing its no-solicitation rule against union adherents under penalty of discharge or other disci- plinary action, and at the same time permitting anti-anion activity in the plant during working hours in direct violation of the rule; . (3) General Manager Linclley's anti-union remarks to employees Edwards and Burnsworth; (4) Superintendent Collier's efforts to have em- ployees Stanley and Sipe split the vote in the June 6 election, in order to insure the defeat of both competing organizations; (5) permitting its employees to hold a meeting in the plant during working hours for the avowed purpose, known to the respondent, of soliciting employees to abandon the unions; and (6) assisting in the preparation, circula- tion, and execution of an employee petition requesting the Board to., dismiss the pending representation proceeding.' 2. We also find that the conduct of the respondent antedating the election, fully set forth in the Intermediate Report, precluded the election of June 6, 1946, from reflecting the untrammeled will of the 3 -In Section III of the Intermediate Report; the date July 25, 1946, appearing in the first paragraph under the heading "The Anti=uion petition" and referring to the date the peti- tion was prepared, is hereby corrected to read June 25, 1946. 2 Nor, for the reasons appearing in Chairman Herzog's separate opinion in Matter of Fisher Governor Companij, 71 N L. R B 1291, do-we pass upon or adopt the Trial Exam- iner's finding that the-respondent violated,the Act by requiring its employees to attend the June 5, 1946, meeting at which President Powell delivered-his speech 8 Unlike the Trial Examiner, however, we do not include as part of our unfair labor practice findings the anti-union statements attributed by employee Creede to Superintendent Collier, because of Creede's uncertainty as to when the statements were made. Creede,• after testifying that the incident occurred before the election, further stated that during the convei sation in question Collier showed her an anti-union petition of the employees ; the record shows that this petition was prepared and signed after the election , LINDLEY BOX & PAPER COMPANY 555 employees. We therefore sustain the AFL's objections to the election and overrule the respondent's exceptions to the Regional Director's Report on Objections, and we shall set aside' the election of June 6, 1946, as recommended by the Trial Examiner. When the Regional Director advises us that the time is appropriate, we shall direct that a new election be held among the respondent's employees., ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor -Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Lindley Box & Paper Com- pany, Division of Morris Paper Mills, Marion, Indiana, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns'shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Prohibiting union activity on company property during the .employees' non-working time; aiding and abetting its employees in the preparation, circulation, or execution, of anti-union petitions; enforcing its shop rules in a discriminatory manner; or directing or requesting its employees to vote for or against any labor organization; (b) - In any: other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Paper Workers of America, C. I. 0., International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization, to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) -Rescind -immediately its rule prohibiting union activity on company property, insofar is it applies to the employees' non-working time ; (b) Post at its plant at Marion, Indiana, copies of-the notice at- tached hereto marked "Appendix. A." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director, for the Eleventh Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to'employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken' by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced', or covered by any other material; 4 In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted , before the words "A Decision and Order," the words : "A'Decree of The United States Circuit Court' of Appeals Enforcing." - 556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region in writ- ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith. IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on June 6, 1946, among employees of the respondent at its plant in Marion, Indiana, be, and it hereby is, vacated and set aside. MR: JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration-of the above Decision and Order. APPENDIX 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 Act, we hereby notify our employees that:- WE WILL NOT aid and abet our employees in the preparation, circulation, or execution of anti-union petitions; enforce our shop rifles in a discriminatory manner, or direct or request our em- ployees to vote for or against any labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self- organi-zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Paper Workers of America, C. I. 0., International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain mem- bers of these unions,, or aiiyother labor organization. WE HEREBY RESCIND our rule prohibiting union activity on company property, insofar as it applies to employees' nonwork- ing time. Our employees may engage in union activity on com- pany property on their own time. LINDLEY Box R PAPER COMPANY, DIVISION OF MORRIS PAPER MILLS, Employeir. Dated ------------- By --------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This nofice must remain posted for" 60' days from the ditte•.hereof; must not be altered, defaced, or covered,by any other material: INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. Clifford L. Hardy, for the Board. Messrs. Pell and Pell, by Mr. Wilbur F Pell, of Shelbyville , Ind, for ,the Respondent. LINDLEY BOX & PAPER COMPANY 557 Jfessi s. T icliolas C i7rataric and George McGrew, of Indianapolis, Ind., for CIO. Mr. Keith"lVentz, of Hartford City, Md, and Mr S. A Stephens, of Toledo, Ohio, for AFL. STATEMENT OF THE CASES On March 14, 1946, United Paper Workers of America, C. I. 0, herein called ('IO, filed with the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region (Indianapolis, Indiana), of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, a petition for'Certification'of,Re presentati es' pursuant to Section- 9 (c) of 'the ,r Natilhal Labor Relations Act; `49 Stat 449,,herein called the Act, alleging that a question concerning representation affecting commerce, within the meaning of the Act, had arisen -in respect to the employees of Lindley Box & Paper Company, Division of Morris Paper Mills, herein called the Respondent, at its plant in Marion, Indiana. (Case No. 11-R-962) Pursuant to notice, a hearing was duly held at Marion, Indiana, on April 9. At that hearing, International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, A. F. of L., herein called AFL, was permitted to intervene. Thereafter, on May 8, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election, ordering that an election by secret ballot be conducted among the production and maintenance employees of the Re- spondent at its Marion, Indiana, plant to determine whether the employees C.esired to be represented by CIO or by AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neitlier. The election was duly field on- June 6, and neither CIOIno'r AFL - received,,a majority-of the valid-votes counted.' On June 11, AFL filed objections to conduct affecting the result of the election. On June 25, <^FL filed charges against the Respondent alleging the violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act (Case No 11-C-1310) On July 12, the Regional Director issued his report,on objections to the election, in which he found that the objections raised substantial and material issues with respect to the election, and reconi- inended that the Board order a hearing on the objections. - On July 15, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report on objections. On July 23, the Board issued in order directing a hearing on the aforesaid objections, also consolidating Cases Nos. 11-R-962 and 11-C-1310 On July 24, CIO filed charges against the Respondent alleging the violation of Section 8 (1) of thle Act. (Case No. 11-C-1323) On July 30 the Board issued an order con- solidating all thiee,of these'casesi - Pursuant to the aforesaid charges, the Board, by the Regional Director for the Eleveiitli Region (Indianapolis, Indiana), issued its complaint, dated August 21, 1946, against 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 Act (Cases Nos 11-C-1310 and 11-0-1323) Copies of the complaint and the charges accom- panied by notice of hearing thereon, were duly served' upon the Respondent, CIO and AFL. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance: that on,or about,Marcb,10, 1946, and.at all times thereafter,, the Respondent has interfered with,t restrained, and, coerced its, employees in the exercise of' the The results were as follows : Approximate number of eligible voters____________________________________ 173 Void ballots ------------------------------------------------------------ 0 Votes cast for CIO------------------ --------------------------------- 66 Votes cast for AFL---------------------------------------------------- 33 Votes cast against participating unions__ ________________________________ 67 Valid votes counted--------------------------------------------------- Challenged i otes not sufficient in number to affect the result 166 558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; by interrogating them concerning their membership in and activities in behalf of AFL or CIO ; advising, urging, threatening, and warning them to refrain from becoming or remaining members of AFL or CIO; advising and urging them to vote "neither" in a representation election ; fostering, encouraging, and aiding an employee committee to circulate a petition on the Respondent's property during working hours to get rid of AFL and CIO; and' by approving the anti-union activities of the committees ,forbidding and prohibiting its employees from; 'engaging in solicitation of em- ployees for membershp in AFL and CIO on the Respondent' s premises during the eini lovees' non-working time, and warning them that such solicitation might result in disciplinary action by the Respondent ; -compelling them to attend and listen to an anti-union speech made in the plant during working hours by an officer of the' Respondent; and making disparaging and derogatory remarks-to them concerning AFL and CIO and,otherwise indicating to them its disapproval of and opposition to their self-organization. On August 26, the Respondent filed its answer, in which it admitted certain allegations of the complaint in respect to the nature and operation of,its business, but denied that it had engaged in or was engaging in any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Marion, Indiana, oil September 4, 5, and 6, 1946, before the undersigned, W. P. Webb, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner The Board and the Respondent were represented by counsel and the pinions by their representatives, all of whom participated in the healinc Fnll oppoi tunity to be heard, to examine and cioss- examine witnesses and tR introduce evidence 1 eaiiiig oil the issues was afforded all parties. At the conclusion of the hearing, a motion made by counsel for the Board to conform the pleadings to the proof in respect to formal matters was granted without objection. The parties waived the privilege of arguing orally before the Trial Examiner A brief has been received from counsel for the Respondent. Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses the undersigned makes the following: - .FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF 1HE RFSPONDENT The Respondent, Lindley Box & Paper Company, Division-of Morris Paper Mills, Marion, 'Inlliana, is an Illinois corporation, haviiig its principal office and place of business in Marion, Indiana, ,where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of paper folding'boxes. The principal raw materials used at the plant are paper board, glue, staples, printing ink and tape During the calendar year 1945, the Respondent purchased raw materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which more than 50 percent was received from points outside 'Indiana. During the same period the Respondent sold finished 'products from the plant valued in excess of $50,000, of which more than 50 percent was'shipped to.points outside Indiana The 'Respondent concedes'thsit it is engaged m com- merce within the meaning of the Act, aiid the undersigned so finds. II. TIIE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Paper Workers of America, C. 'I 0 , - and International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, A. F. of L., are 'labor, organizations admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. LINDLEY BOX & PAPER COMPANY III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Interference, restraint, and coercion 559 ' Nicholas C Vrataric, national representative of CIO, began an organizational campaign among the Respondent's employees about March 1, 1946. He was assisted by an oiganizing committee selected from these employees. As related above; on Maich;.13 CIO-filed a'petition for certification of representatives and, on the same day--requested recognition by the Respondent, which was refused at a conference between the Respondent, CIO, AFL, and a field examiner of the Board. A few da> s later, AFL began distributing union circulars at the plant in an effort to organize these employees. Employee Olive Henderson testified that in the latter part of March 1946 she was called into Superintendent William Collier's office and, in the presence of Foreman Guy Hileman and office clerk, Ed Heck, Collier showed her a large book of'c'ompany-rules and had her-read a,^paragraph which stated that there would be no 'soliciting of any kind-on company premises- ate any. time,- except for the Federal Credit Union? Collier alsotold Henderson that he,would not have any more soliciting in, the plant. Superintendent Collier did not deny Henderson's testimony. . His testimony in regard to'this incident reads as follows: - i let her read the' rule on soliciting and I believe I asked her if she had been doing it . -She said she had gathered some names and addresses for car'd's So 1 cautioned her against doing it in the future. According to, eniployee Hersheye Creed, who has worked in the plant about six years, about the middle of April 1946 she attended a CIO meeting and, a few days later, she solicited an employee to sign a CIO authorization -card during the rest period.' This employee was a relative of Superintendent Collier. A few days after that occurrence, her foreman, Major Martin, asked her if she had solicited any one to sign a union card, and when she replied in the affirmative, he told her that she was "in an awful spot," and that Superintendent Collier knew she had solicited employees to sign 'union cards' Martin further told her that be had gotten her out of this "spot" but he did not want to get her out of any more. This was not denied by Martin. He testified that he heard Creed was soliciting union membership and that he told her to stop it. Creed further=testified that about three or four weeks after the above conversa- tion with Foreman Martin, she.-was instructed by Superintendent Collier to meet him in the stock room at 4: 00 p. in.; that she met him -as directed and he asked her how AFL "was going" and, when she replied that she did not know, be asked her to find out and let him 'know ; that Collier further said to her on that occasion, "Those fellows out there in the printing department have started all this. They don't know what they are doing. They don't know what they want They don't know what they are getting into. . . We want to give them a raise but we can't because the union is-trying to come in" . . . We would like to have the A. F. L. in here; the C. I. O. is no good, but we would rather not 2 A copy of the Respondent's "Shop 'Operating Rules," dated February 18, 1941, was received in evidence. The paragraph of these rules relating to solicitation reads as follows : Outside-Business : There shall be no soliciting of memberships, pledges, subscriptions, collecting-of mone"y,'circulating petitions, or conducting other than Company business on Company property at any-time However, we will permit employees who are mem- bers of the Federal Credit Union, to conduct such business as is peculiar to their loans, etc , during the noon hour on Company property. ' The employees were given 2 five-minute rest periods during the day shift, one in the morning, and one in the afternoon. 739926 -4 7-vol 73-37 I `560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have no union at all " : Superintendent Collier denied this entire testimony of Creed. The undersigned was not favorably impressed with Collier as a witness and finds that his testimony cannot be relied upon. On the other hand, Creed impressed the undersigned as a credible and forthright witness, and the under- signed finds' that Collier made the statements substantially as testified to-by Creed. ' - According' to the credited testimony of employee Kenneth C. Stanley, on or ,about May.21, 1946, Superintendent Collier came up to where lie was working and they had a conversation about the unions Stanley's testimony as to what was said, reads as follows: The first I noticed Mr. Collier was when he came up to me and he says "Stanley„', he says, "hasn't,the Company treated you all right?" And he says, "What is the, matter with you?" . I says,, "Well, I don't think so." Then he - asked me what I was going to do about it. I told him that,;I,was going . on` tjirough. with the A. F. of L. union Then the-next question he asked me, he says, "Stanley ," lie says, "why can't you help us out and , tell the A. F of L . that . you' are going to vote C. . I O " . . . he wanted me to take the people that I talked to and 'instruct them to vote C -I 0 . . . Then .I asked him why he wanted me to do that He says if we can get this busted up, split, for C I. 0., no union , it will go, no union in the finals . . Well, he mentioned something in the time we was talking about a raise , but'he couldn't do it then on account of the unions coming in thereat the time, but lie said there would'be a raise sometime in the near fiitiire. Superintendent Collier fiatl' denied haring' had the conversation with Sfan- ley as'iel'ated above. `Fur the rezison already stated, the undersigned does not credit Collier's'denial,lsaid find's. that he made the statements substantially as testified to by Stanley = ' • According to^the 'credited testimony of Marianna Si je,, a former employee of` the` Respondent; in the latter part of Map 1:)46 'slie, had `a con'vers:ition with Superintendent Collier about tinions. ' 'Her' testimony in this respect reads is 'follows : ' - - ' ' ' He, [Collier]-spoke, of the A -F. L union and,said that he was for that, and I said I was,for.the A:, F. L of course', and we talked on; and he said that he;,would rather, have the, A. F' L than the C. I O: union, but „he • ,said, "Do you know_,how this election will go-" these.figuies I am giving you are approximate-he ,sail, "The A. F. L. will, receive about 24 votes and.the C. I O., about 50 and the others will be no union " And he asked";me ,, ,, to ,use my influence to have the A. F. L people vote no union whatever in influence to throw_the election to the no-unions so they-would have the majority," Because, he says„ "If,the C. ,I. 0 gets •m here it won't last but about thirty days,", ... And he said, "If we don't receive our majority on the first vote we will have to have this, election over." Then he proceeded, to go and I said, "We11f11 am for,an,A.,F,. L. union,", and he said, "Well, see what you can do." Collier categorically denied this, entire testimony, of Sipe., The undersigned does not credit his denial,, and finds that he made the, statements substantially ,as testified to by Sipe. • Stanley further testified that 4 or 5 days prior to the election, which occurred on June '6, 1946, he was working overtime, and that about 7: 25 p' m.; during the minute rest period,' he, together with employees Diltz and Collins, went out to LINDLEY BOX & PAPER COMPANY 561 the plant gate at the truck entrance, to take a smoke.` When they arrived at the gate they found that it was locked and there were two A. F. L. organizers on the outside.' About the time that they arrived at the gate, Superintendent Col- lier came up on the outside of the gate, unlocked it and entered. Stanley's testi- mony as to what occurred, reads as follows : He [Collier] came back to the factory in his machine. He came and unlocked the gate and walked in and he asked me, he says, "What are you doing?" I said, "Out here talking to these gentlemen, out here in front." He says, "You come on in here, I want to talk to you." We left Mr. Collins and Mr. Diltz there at the fence, proceeded on into the factory, got into the ship- ping room and he said to me, he says, "Stanley," he says "You are on the spot, in a hot spot." He says, "I can can you, anything I want to do." He says, "I'm getting tired of it," he says, "I'm getting tired of this here talking union business." He says, "You go on back to your machine." "Well," I says to Mr. Collier, I says, "Mr. Collier, I have a five minute rest period, we, took a five minute rest period, went out there and went back in, but" I says, "you stopped us." I says, "Why can't we talk then?" He says, "From now on, if I catch you after. you enter that gate, talking to anybody or in any company or crowd or anything," he says, "You are canned." Stanley further testified that about 10 minutes to nine o'clock that night, he returned to Collier's office and asked him if he was going to be discharged and Collier replied that he was getting tired of Stanley's union activities. Stanley's testimony in this respect reads as follows : He [Collier] says, "Stanley," he says, "you have got me and yourself in a very hot spot." He says, "I'm getting tired." He emphasized it again, that he was getting tired of my trying to organize the union . . . Yes, he said that. He emphasized it. He was getting tired of my trying to organize a union and I told him I wanted to know whether he was going to let me come back, that is what I kept arguing about, and finally he said, "Let's forget about it, you come back to work in the morning." "Now," he says, "I am going to tell you again, I want you to take the ones that you talked to to instruct them to vote no union, or C. I. 0." Then he had a little piece of paper, a piece .of paper on his desk . . . I judge about ten by twelve or something like that there . . . and he had it figured out on there and he showed me the outfits that would vote C. I. 0., A. F. of L., no union. He said if I can get, them to split up to vote C. I. O. and no union, it will go C. I. O. and no union, then in the finals it will go no union. Superintendent Collier testified that when he arrived at the plant gate, he found Stanley, Diltz, and. Collins on the plant premises inside of the gate and they were talking to two men who were standing outside the gate, off the plant premises ; that he recognized one. of the men, outside the gate, as Mr. Share, an AFL organizer ; that he asked the employees why they were there and Stanley replied that he was there to meet the Ah'L representatives, and that he had permission from General Manager Lindley to do so; that he then told the AFL representatives that they should know better than to come out there and engage these employees in conversation; that he told Stanley to go back to work ; and Foreman Martin testified that it was customary for the employees to go outside of the shop to smoke during rest periods. 6 According to Stanley, he bad arranged to meet the A. F. L. organizers at the gate at 9: 00 p. m., that night. 562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that later that night, Stanley acknowledged that Lindley had not given him permission to meet the AFL representatives. Collier denied all of the foregoing testimony of Stanley in respect to Stanley's union activity and splitting up the AFL vote He admitted, however, that when-Stanley came into his office, he had a drawing of the plant on his desk, but he denied that he said anything to Stanley about the election As stated above, the undersigned did not find Collier to be a credible witness and therefore does not credit his denials. The undersigned finds that Collier made the statements-substantially as testified to,by Stanley. Employee John Edwards testified, without contradiction, that just prior to the election which was held on June 6, 1946, he and employee Burnsworth had a conversation with General Manager Lindley in the latter's office in regard to unions. Edwards' testimony in regard to this conversation, reads as follows: Well, he [Lindley] was wondering why we would want a union, that we couldn't bargain with him, and stated his office was open any time to any of the employees, and if they don't know that his office is open to any em- ployees at any time, and that he thought it was kind of odd that we would be C I. O. when there was an A F of L. here in town, and also such a nice club room, which that has got nothing to do with the unions . . . Well, he said he wondered how come we wanted to represent the C. I. O. when this A. F. of L. had such a nice club room and so forth and so on, like that. According to further credited and undenied testimony, of Edwards, about 2 weeks after the election in the plant, he and several other employees met with Lindley in the latter's office and, immediately after . the meeting, with the knowledge and, consent, of Lindley, all of the production and, maintenance em- ployees were called together in the wrapping room, during working hour's. There were approximately 150 employees present. It was understood between Lindley and Edwards, at the meeting in Lindley's office, that Edwards would take this means of finding out whether the employees wanted a union in the plant or not. Edwards took a vote of the employees on this question and found that about 30 of them did not want any union at all. They signed a statement to this-effect. This statement was subsequently destroyed by Edwards. Marianna Sipe testi- fied, without contradiction, that on the day of this meeting of the employees, her foreman, Guy Hileman, said to her "There is, to be a talk in the wrapping room . . . stop your work and go." Employee Hersheye Creed testified that she was informed of this meeting by her foreman Major Martin and that Martin said to-her "Stop your work, go in the wrapping room, there is a meeting " The undersigned finds '-that by- the acts and statements of General Manager Lindley, Superintendent Collier, and Foremen Martin and Hileman, as herein- 'above set forth, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced- its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The Speech of President Verne Powell On June, 5, 1946, on the eve of the, Board election, the Respondent issued' the following notice to its employees : • , - At four o'clock all operations within the plant will stop for a few minutes and you are invited to come to the wrapping room and.hear a short. address by Mr. Verne Powell. - - - ' Verne has a m6ssage°th.it I think is very timely and I am sure will be of interest ,to each of you. After the address, you will return to your respective duties. ., •i All employees will be paid for time lost. H. H. Lindley LINDLEY BOX & PAPER COMPANY 563'. 'According to the testimony of Production Clerk Heck, this notice'was dis- tributed among the employees prior to the speech, by himself and Superintendent Collier. Forelady Nellie Way, with about 20 years' service in the plant, testified that there were approximately 35 employees in her department ; that she did not receive a copy of the written notice of the speech, and that none was distributed in her'department; and that Superintendent Collier came to her department and told her that the speech would be made. Foreman Virgil Runyan, with 17 years of service as foreman in the plant, testified that there were 20 employees in his department and that he told them to go and hear Powell's speech. The record shows that -Powell made his, speech in the wrapping and shipping depart- ment, therefore it was not necessary to notify the employees in that department. The record shows and the undersigned finds that approximately all of the employees in the plant were present and heard Powell's speech. • At the appointed time, 4: 00 p m, June 5, President Powell delivered the following speech to the employees assembled in the wrapping and shipping department of the plant. This is the first time in all of oui years of close relationships together that I have ever talked to you from notes, but I am reading this letter to avoid being misquoted, and a copy of the letter will be given each one of you, so that you may take it home, read it carefully and talk it over with your family. Tomorrow afternoon, in the enclosed part of our Shipping Platform will be held a very important-election-an election conducted similar to our State and National elections, where you will vote secretly in a booth, according to your own conscience, so that no one will ever know how you voted. You will not be persuaded or coerced in any way by anyone - It is a time when you must decide for yourself what is best for you individually. The election will be under the supervision of the National Labor Relations Board, which is an agency of the United States Government, and the ballots will be counted by a representative of that Board. The attendants in the election room will be provided with the list of those who are eligible to vote and as you give your name to them, a ballot will be handed you by the representative of the National Labor Relations Board for your secret fill in. On this ballot will be three places for you to "X" your preference-one for the "A. F. of L.," one for the, "C I O" and one for "Neither." If you want to vote for the A F, of .L Union, you will put an "X" in the square for the A F of L Union If you want to vote for the C 10 Union, you will put an "X" in the square for the C I 0 Union. If you do not want either Union in the plant you will put an ."X" in the square marked "Neither Union". As to how you vote, no one will ever know, any more than they do in the regular state or national elections. You alone have that decision to make, and that decision,is one which you should think about very carefully ahead of time. That decision is .your choice as to whether you continue to-have faith in your Company to at all times do what is right and fair with you, or whether you surrender your individual rights, and place sole and exclusive rights of handling your grievances and bargainings to a Committee and some outside representative whom you do not even know, and who knows.nothing about you or,your work and problems „A good ,percentage of our, employees, have been with us ten, twelve, or fifteen years, and if, few, started with us back in the Gas City days, -and in the beginning of our plant operations here in Marion. , Through all those years you have never found. a closed door to you, by the Management. I .hope you have never found any of the Management of the type setup on a pedestal, which you felt hesitant, to. contact and talk j o. J, hope rather 564 DECISIONS ,, OF' ,NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ,you-have considered the Management as co -workers with you, approach- able at all times, with any grievances , you might have. Can you have that same feeling toward an outside organizer who does not even know you? Remember , any Union Committee elected works with the outside organizer. , In our , long years of association together , we have gone through good times and bad times. We have always done , everything we, possibly could to give you full employment, under the best possible working conditions, )"rand have tried to keep-our rates comparable with other concerns in our .community. We are operating today under the most unusual conditions we have ever, had, in that our products , have ceiling prices fixed by, the' O. P. A., which compel us to figure our labor ,prices on the rates that we paid you in 1941, yet all of you are making over 34% more than you, did January 1, 1941. ' D,id a Union have anything to do with that' In addition to that restriction in figuring our labor costs, we also have, to absorb the increases in our board material prices during the last few years, and on some grades of board that now amounts to as much as $500 per ton. Regardless of this, we have not restricted our sales only to the extent of materials available , and we have been fortunate in receiving enough materials to give most of you , many hours of overtime wore: for a long, long time ' In making your ' vote decision , ask yourself the question ,' "Can I con- tinue to entrust my firm to do the very best by me as they always have done?" A few years ago, we inaugurated a one weeks vacation with pay to all employees who had been with the Company one year or more . Did a Union have anything to do with that? Later we enlarged that privilege, giving one week's vacation with pay to all those who had been with the Company one year or more, and two week's vacation'with pay to all who had been with the Compa ny, five years or more. Did a Union have anything to do with that? Formerly , Rest' Periods were on your own time This was changed so you would receive pay for those rests-Did a Union have anything to do with that? We originally started out our Group Life Insurance plan, dividing the expense bet^veen I the employee and'the Company Later we added) to that plan, without 'any additional cost to the Employee ; sick ' benefits ` Did a Union have anything to do with that? Later, again we increased the benefits to Hospitalization without any 'additional expense to the enipioyee: 'Did a Union have anything to do with that? Finally, we gave you notice that hereafter all the Group Insurance, Life, Sick; and Hospitalization Insurance would be 'paid wholly by the Com- pany without any expense whatever to-the' Employee .' ` Did- h Union have, anything to do with that? • ' ' - ` The' Group Insurance ' plan which I have • stated ; • is now wholly paid by "the Company, takes ' care of you during sickness ' and provides, insurance in case of death. As a further protection to^our ' empl'oyees, the Company at a very considerable cost ,' inaugurated 'January '1; 1945, a pension . plan ap- plicable ' to all-employees between the `ages of 30 and 65, ' who have been in " our employ five years or more.- This 'Pension Plan ` provides dmply for' you at normal 'retirement age'' Today we' have 66 ' people in our-employ'who r'areiiinder !this pension 'plan;>' and on ' December 31st of each year,"Diore'will be added • as they` become eligible . Ordinarily' the' cost 'of'•a'pension or LINDLEY BOX & PAPER COMPANY 565 retirement fuiid is divided between employei and employee . In the case of the Lindley Box and , Paper Company Pension Plan , -the Company pays the entire expense, with no cost to you -whatsoever Did a - Union have anything to do with that,' 1 We were in the midst of revising our wage rates , hoping - to establish satisfactory incentive plans when we were notified March 15, that applica- tion had been made by a Union to 'represent you. Fiom that date on, we were not permitted to discuss wages or rates, or,toput in effect new rates, until after your vote , decision tomorrow. . Permit me to summarize the things we' have given you without any of them having been requested by you:- Vacations with pay Life,Insurance 5 Sick Benefits Hospitalization Pension, ,Rest Periods Increases in pay , These are the things that Union usually'demnand. Have we been negligent in our relations with you? Does it not seem insofar as it is possible to do so , that we are ahead of the Union in looking after the welfare of our employees? Tliere is- no law'that,it is compulsory for anyone to belong to a umori to be employed Certainly it is not compulsory for anyone to join a Union to continue working for the Lindley Box and Paper Company . The policy of the Lindley Box and Paper Company will continue to be the same as it has been in the past': Any employee can work here whether lie belongs to the Union or does not belong to the Union In your case we want to state 'emphatically to you'tliat you have a right to vote for or join a Union if you want to, or the right to vote against a Union if you wish, and have the same security of your job. The matter is for you to decide for yourselves. Do you really think a 'Union actually cares more than your employer about your, family,.your financial condition , your happiness, your relations with your employer? Or is the Union 's main interest that you surrender your rights of contact with your employer and pay Union dues? Weigh carefullyy.your decision as to whether you want to continue your trust in the management that has built this busuiess and has given steady employment for a third ot,a century, or do Sou prefer, a Union with an organizer who is not an employee of,the Company, who knows: nothing about you or your job, and who, with a committee, will act for you. We want you to vote for what you' think is your own best interest. You knave the right"to vote, for either of the' Unions or against both Unions, according to your onvn' free choice You have the right to vote for.or against the Unions, regardless of whether you have signed a Union Membership Card or not,' and no one will know 'how you vote. It will be a secret, ballot and the notices posted around the plant state that it" is a ' secret ballot: - 5 . " . ' . - ' 1'e'sincerely request that all who are eligible to vote 'do so, either for or against, -but he sure to vote. The'outcome of,the election will be 'd'etermined' by a majority of those voting, so,'regaidless of whether you vote for or against, you must cast your ballot , in. order to have your vote, count. A failure tQ,,vote is, about the same as voting for the choice .you do not want: 566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL` LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD In closing, let me say that you are faced with a very important decision tomorrow and we say again that you will decide at that time whether you want to be represented by a Union or whether you want to handle your own affairs The choice is yours - Thank you. VERNE POWELL, President. The speech began at 4. 00 p m and lasted about 20 minutes, then the employees left the plant. As they went out, copies of the=speech were given to them by'.the foremen. While the notice of the speech stated that the employees were "invited" to be present, it also stated that all operations in the plant would cease, and after the speech, the employees were ordered to return to their jobs. It also stated that they would be paid for the time lost in attending the speech. The under- signed is of the opinion and finds that this notice was more than a mere invita- tion. It amounted to a polite order. The speech occurred during working time and, of course, the Respondent controlled the work time of its employees and could utilize such time in any manner it desired, so long as it paid for it. How- ever, the record discloses and the undersigned finds that the Respondent did not rely solely upon this notice in order to get the employees together. As related above, Foreman Runyan instructed his 20 employees to go and hear the speech. Forelady Way did not receive a copy of the notice, -and-none was distributed among her 35 employees. She was told about the speech by Superintendent Collier. She testified that she did not tell any of her employees that they did not have to attend the speech The record justifies-the conclusion that verbal orders were given by Superintendent Collier and Foreman Runyan to, at least, some of the employees to go and hear the speech, and the undersigned so finds. The Board, in its decision dated August 26, 1946, in the Matter of Clark Bros. Co., Inc., 70 N. L. R. B 802, held that such conduct constituted interference, restraint, and "coercion within the meaning,of the Act. In this connection the Board said : We are also of the opinion, and find, that the conduct of the Respondent in compelling its employees to listen to a speech on self organization under the circumstances hereinabove outlined and as more fully revealed in the Intermediate Report, independently constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of the Act. We conclude, therefore, that the Respondent exercised its superior economic power in coercing its employees to listen to speeches relating to their organizational-activities; and-thereby independently violated Section 8 (1) of the Act. While the speech, if it stood alone, might be regarded as within the bounds of free speech,, the evidence reveals that it was an integral and inseparable part of an unlawful campaign of interference, restraint, and coercion which consisted of acts and statements of President Powell, General Manager Lindley, Superin- tendent Collier and others, as set forth herein. The Board and the Courts have long since established the principle of law under the Act that the constitutional guarantee of free speech does not confer upon an employer the privilege of expression of opinions which amount to pressure exerted vocally,. where, the employer's whole course of conduct, evidenced in part by oral statements, con- stitutes interference, restraint, and coercion.' "In the Matter of Grove Regulator Company, 66 N.'L. R. B 1102 . Wennonah . Cotton Mills Company, Inc., 63 N L. R B 143; Carl L. Norden Inc., 62 N. L. R. B. 828; The General Fire Proofing Company, 59 N. L R B. 375. LINDLEY BOX & PAPER COMPANY ,The anti-uni on petition- 567 According to the credited anti undenied testimony- of employee-William N. Alter, on or about July 25, 1946, the Respondent's employees, members of both AFL and CIO, came to the conclusion that the only way they could get a raise in•wages was to convince the Respondent and the Board that a majority of the employees did not want either AFL or CIO to represent them for the purposes ,of.,collectlve bargaining. .And. in order to do that, a petition, consisting of four separate sheets of paper, was circulated throughout the plant. The caption of the petition which appears on all four sheets, reads,as follows : ,June 25, 1946 National Labor Relations Board : . We, the undersigned employees , of the Lindley Box and Paper Company, Division of'-Morris Paper Mills, hereby withdraw our application for Col- lective Bargaining representation and request the proposed election at this plant be cancelled According to Alter , he was not sure but he was under the impression that the four captions of the petition had been typed in the plant office. He was asked the question , "Your understanding was this caption was typed in the office?"' 'His reply was, "Yes, sir . The reason that was typed in the office the boys had 'a meeting to decide to discontinue that there on June 25th and we took a petition up and that is when they was ty ped up." Tie ' tour petitions were circulated throughout the plant without any inter- ference or objection on, the 'part of any supervisor . The petitions were passed from employee to' employee during working hours as well as during the lunch periods and after working hours By 'July 11, 119 signatures had been secured, which represented approximately 70 percent of the production and maintenance employees in the plant. On July 11, 1946, Alter, Everhart , Miller and Cousins were selected by the employees to take the petition to the Regional Office in Indianapolis , Indiana. Desiring a covering letter to accompany the petition, Alter requested his foreman, Fred Brunk , to prepare it. He told Brunk that the petition consisted of 4 sheets and contained 119 signatures , also that it was for the purpose of repudiating both AFL and CIO Brunk went into the plant office and had the following letter prepared , which lie then gave to Alter, and which Alter and the other three employees signed • B July 11, 1946 NATIONAL LABOR , RELATIONS BOARD, 108 East Washington Building Room 704, Indianapolis , Indiana Attention, Mr. J. B Hicks DEAR SIR : We, the undersigned, representing a majority of the employees of the Lindley Box and Paper Company, Division of the Morris Paper Mills, present you herewith four (4) pages, containing the signatures of 119 em- ployees; requesting 'our application to you for collective bargaining be can- 'As:.related above, the Board's election had been held in the plant on June 6, 1946, and neither AFL nor CIO received a majority of the votes. On June 11, AFL filed objections to the conduct of the election. The above petition was for the purpose of persuading the Regional-Director to vacate the election and set it aside. "These findings are based on the credible and undenied testimony of Alter. Brunk admitted that the covering letter was typed by one of the plant office girls at his request. 568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD celled and the above company be notified at once of the action you will take on our request. Yours truly, (Sgd) Wm ALTER IRA H EVERHART JOHN H MILLER Roy E . COUSINS After receiving the covering letter from Foreman Brunk , Alter told him that he, would be absent from work the rest of the day , as they were going to deliver the petition . The four employees who signed the covering letter worked from 7: 00 a. in. to about 10: 00 a. in. that day and then they went to Indianapolis and delivered the letter and petition to the Regional Director . They used employee Cousins' motor car for the trip. According to both Alter and Cousins, they were not paid on the plant pay roll for that day, July 11, but subsequent -to the trip, they were paid in cash by General Manager Lindley. Although they had worked only three hours that day, they were paid for a full day. Lindley also gave Cousins an additional amount in cash to reimburse him for the gasoline and motor oil consumed on the trip . Lindley was not called as a witness, although he was present during the hearing. Foreman Ewings testified that he was told by an employee that a petition was being circulated in the plant , but he made no effort to stop it. He was foreman of the raw stock room and had nine employees working under . him. Superin- tendent Collier,, five foremen and one forelady denied, all knowledge of the peti- tion Foreman Brunk also denied that he knew anything about it However, he admitted that he prepared the covering letter addressed to the National Labor Relations Board, which contained all the pertinent details of the petition. The undisputed testimony of Alter and Cousins proves conclusively that General Man- ager Lindley knew all about the petition. There is no evidence in the record that the Respondent interfered in any way with the circulation or execution of the petition , although it was contrary to the Respondent's "Shop Operations Rules" to circulate petitions on company premises at any time . On the contrary, the record clearly reveals that the Respondent assisted the employees in getting the petition properly presented to the Regional Director . It is inconceivable that four different sheets of the petition could be freely circulated in the plant over a period of approximately two weeks , mostly during working hours, and 119 sig- natures secured without the knowledge of the foremen in the various depart- ments. The undersigned finds from the entire record in the case that , the Re- spondent was fully aware that the petition was being circulated in the plant and knew of its intent and purpose, and that the Respondent, assisted• •in Ats. execu- tion by refraining from enforcing its rule against circulating petitions during working time , thereby interfering , with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Concluding "findings The record discloses and the undersigned finds •that from the inception of the CIO and AFL organizational 'campaigns in the plant in March 1946, the Respond- ent embarkedupon a'course of conduct designed to discourage membership in both of these labor organizations., The Respondent immediately,-began. to enforce an illegal shop rule prohibiting union activity on company premises during non- working time. It, injected itself into the pending election for the purpose of defeating both CIO and AFL-by endeavoring to, influence its employees to vote in such a manner that neither CIO nor AFL would receive a majority, and by compelling its employees during working time to listen , to an anti-union speech LINDLEY BOX & PAPER COMPANY 569 by the Respondent's President.. Although the election did not result in a ma- jority for either CIO or AFL, the Respondent continued its campaign to rid itself of these unions by assisting its employees in presenting an anti-union petition to the Regional Director for the purpose of preventing a subsequent election. The undersigned concludes and finds that by the activities of the Respondent, as set forth above, and by their totality, the Respondent interfered with, re-, strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section,7,of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF T]3E UNFAIR LAIIOR PiiACTICES 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 Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds willi effectuate the policies of the Act The undersigned has found that the Respondent has engaged in a general course of conduct proscribed by the Act, suchras prohibiting union solicitation on company premises during non-working time ; requesting its employees to vote for or against AFL and CIO ; compelling its employees, during working hours, to listen to a speech relating to self-organization and the selection of a bargaining representative; and assisting its employees in presenting an anti-union petition to the Regional Director. Therefore it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom. Since the undersigned has found that the Respondent has, by the aforesaid unlawful conduct, interfered with the right of its employees to a free choice of a bargaining representative in an uncoerced election, it will be recommended that the Board election which was held in the plant on June 6, 1946, be vacated and set aside. It has long since been established by the Board that as a matter of fundamental law under the Act, the Board is under a statutory obligation to protect the right of employees to a free choice of a bargaining representative in an un- coerced election,,and that the infringement of,this'right by,,an employer,constitutes a clear violation of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Paper Workers of America, C. I. 0 , and International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, A. F. of L, are labor'organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of,the Act, the•Respondent.has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices- within the meaning, of,,Section 3 (1) of the Act. 3."The aforesaid unfair, labor, practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) iand ,(7y of the Act. 570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis' of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions'of law, the undersigned-recommends that the Respondent, Lindley Box & Paper Company, 'Division of Morris Paper kills, Marion, Indiana; and its officers, agents, successors, : nd assigns shall : 1 Cease and desist' from-: (a) Promulgating or enforcing a rule prohibiting union solicitation'ori'company premises during non-working time; (b) Compelling'its employees during working hours to listen, to speeches relating -_to self-organization and the selection, of a bargaining representative; (c) Discriminating against United Paper Workers of America, C. I. 0, or International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, A F of V, ,by aiding and abetting its eniployees_in the prepartion, circulation; or execution of anti-union petitions; • , - - (d) Directing or requesting its employees to vote fur of -against the above-named or any other labor organizations ; - -„-, - „ (e) Interfering with its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza- tion, and to join or assist United Paper Workers of America, -C I. 0., International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill ,V1Torkers,•A: F of L ; or any other '-labor organization. 2. Take the following affirmative action which'the undersigned finds will effec- tuate`- the policies of- the Act : (a) Rescind immediately Shop Operating Rule captioned "Outside Business" insofar as it prohibits union, solicitation on the Respondent's premises during the employees' iron-working time-; - - - , . . , ' (b):.Mail Eo each of its-employees a copy of the notice attached hereto, marked . "Appendix A";' (c) Post at' its plant at-Marion; Indiana, copies of the notice attached' hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional 'Director for the Eleventh Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respond- ent's' representative; 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 custom- arily posted. Reasonable steps shall betaken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not'altered, defaced, or covered by'any other material; -'"(d) Notify the"Regional Director for the Eleventh Region in writing within 'ten2'(10) (lays from the date'of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. ' It is, further recommended that, the 'Board 'election, which was held in,the plant on June 6, 1946, be vacated and set aside. ' - ' It is also recommended that, unless on or before ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies said Regional Director in writing that it will complywith the foregoing recommenda- ions, the National Labor Relations Board issue-an order requiring the Respond- ent to take the action aforesaid.' As provided in Section 203.39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or counsel-for-.tl e Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the' Board, pursuant to Section 203 38 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Wash- ington 25, 15. C., an original and four copies of a statement in 'writing setting forth such exceptions to 'the' Intermediate Report or to any other part of the LINDLEY BOX & PAPER COMPANY 571 record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period, file an original and four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report Immediately upon the filing of such statement,of exceptions and/or briefs, the party or, counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. Proof of service'on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.65. As further provided in said-Sec- tion 203.39, should any party desire permission to argue o „ally before the-Board, request therefor must be made in -writing-.to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of the older transferring the case to the Board. W. P. WEBB; - Ti ial E.rain i it ei. Dated October 16,,1946 APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations, Board, and in older to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: 1 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 UNITED PAPER WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I O , and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE AND PAPER MILLS WORKERS, A. F. of L., or any other labor organiza- tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in,concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain- ing or other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain members of these unions, or any other labor organization. 2 WE HEREBY RESCIND Shop Operating Rule captioned "Outside Busi- ness," insofar as it prohibits union soliciation on our premises during the employees non-working time. 3. WE-WILL NOT compel our employees during working time to listen -toispeeches relating to self-organization and the selection of a bargaining representative. LINDLEY BOX & PAPER COMPANY DIVISION OF MORRIS PAPER- MILLS, Employer. Dated --------------- By -------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other, ,material.