Calcasieu Paper Co., Inc.

794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Moser, Henry Murphy, Edward Newkirk, Donald Novajsky, John Ostrander, William Perlotto, Gene Quinn, Michael Relva, Joseph Richards, Paul, Sr. Richards, Paul, Jr. Ammirato, Joseph Bakunis, Vincent Basile, Andrew Bernard, Lorenzo Bianchi, Joseph Britton, George Coolbeth, Gordon Crawford, William Di Giovanni, Daniel Di Giovanni, Donato Douglas, Leroy Folio, Joseph Gallagher, Thomas Gilson, Thomas Hanecek, Joseph Kelley, Gerald Scheidel, Leo Siddell, Charles Strattman, Harold Strattman, Irving Volpe, Edward Whalen, Joseph Zavatky, Bodie Zimmerman, William Zeller, Paul Appendix B Killiany, John Klinck, George Lessard, Edward Macchi, Peter Pagarullo, Joseph Peck, Clifford Richards, William Rulli, Samuel Russo, John Sabolcik, Alfred Sarog, Alexander Schaer, Andrew Vanotti, Joseph Vasko, Alexander Williams, Claudius Williamson, David CALCASIEU PAPER CO., INC., SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES COMPANY and IN- TERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAPER MAKERS , AFL and INTERNA- TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE AND PAPER MILL WORKERS, AFL, JOINTLY. Case No. 15-CA-350. June 18, 1952 Decision and Order On November 30, 1951, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, then consoli- dated with Cases Nos. 15-RC-400 and 401, finding that the Respond- ents had engaged in conduct which had prevented the holding of a free and uncoerced representation election among their employees conducted by the Board on January 23, 1951, and recommended that 99 NLRB No. 122. CALCASIEU PAPER Co., INC. 795 the results of the election be set aside. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Ex- aminer also dismissed certain allegations in the complaint. There- after the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. The General Counsel also excepted to the Trial Examiner's failure to find certain conduct by the Respondents violative of the Act and filed a brief. By motion dated January 28, 1952, the charging Unions in this proceeding, who were the petitioning labor organizations in Cases Nos. 15-RC-400 and 401, requested permission from the Board to withdraw the objections to the election filed in these cases without waiving their rights under the charges of statutory violations based on such conduct filed in the instant case. By order dated March 4, 1952, the Board severed Cases Nos. 15-RC-400 and 401 from the in- stant case, granted the aforesaid motion to withdraw the objections to the election, and certified that the petitioning labor organizations in the representation cases had lost the election. In view of this order and certification of results of election, it is unnecessary to consider the Trial Examiner's findings and recommendations with respect to the objections to election and the Respondents' exceptions thereto. 1. The Respondents except to the Trial Examiner's commerce find- ings, essentially on the ground that these findings are not supported by evidence in the record. Contrary to this contention, however, we find that the Trial Examiner's findings accurately reflect the precise commerce facts stipulated into the record by the Respondents and the General Counsel. We therefore find the foregoing exceptions to be wholly without merit. 2. The Respondents except to the Trial Examiner's conclusion that they constitute a single employer of the employees at their Elizabeth, Louisiana, plants. The Respondents contend, in effect, that they are separate entities in law and fact, that no findings of violations against Respondent Southern Industries Company, herein called Southern, were permissible because the evidence of allegedly unlawful conduct in the case related solely to acts committed by officials and supervisors of Respondent Calcasieu Paper Company, Inc., herein called Calca- sieu, directly involving only its employees, and that the Respondents were prejudiced by the failure of the Trial Examiner 1 originally designated to act in this case to grant their prehearing motion for severance and separate hearing for each. We affirm the denial of the 'Charles L Ferguson. 796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR tiELATIONS BOARD motion to sever. The joinder of the Respondents was clearly neces- sitated by the allegations of the complaint which attributed the un- fair labor practices to both of them, and no showing of prejudice re- sulting from such joinder has been shown. We are satisfied that although the Respondents are separate legal entities, the facts in this case justify the Trial Examiner' s conclusion that for the purposes of this proceeding they are a single employer of all the employees at their respective plants. In addition to the evi- dence detailed by the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report, indicating the common control and integration of the Respondents' operations and labor relations, we rely on the following record facts, not mentioned by the Trial Examiner. The Respondents have held joint meetings of supervisors at both their plants, and held such a meeting about 2 weeks before the hearing. Calcasieu handles Southern freight invoices and lends its labor gang to Southern on a reimbursable basis. Major repair jobs which cannot be accomplished in the South- ern machine shop are performed in the Calcasieu shop. Employees of both Respondents use the same parking lot. Employees of both Respondents may borrow money from them, and for this purpose go to Cavanaugh, the Calcasieu personnel director. In this connection it should be noted that while Ahrens, the general manager and assist- ant general manager of Calcasieu and Southern, respectively, testified that Cavanaugh is not officially the personnel director for Southern, he conceded that he did function in this capacity as recently as the time of the Board election in January 1951, that he presently inter- views applicants seeking employment with Southern, and that "in a way" he is Southern's personnel director. In 1947, when the CIO was attempting to organize the Respondents' plants, the Respondents took the position that all their employees should be bargained for in a single unit. In the representation proceedings 2 which resulted in the above- mentioned Board election, the Respondents again took the same posi- tion. C. G. McGehee, Calcasieu's president and Southern's general manager, testified this was because he "wouldn't want to have to deal with one union at Calcasieu and another union at Southern Indus- tries." During the period preceding the representation election in January 1951, the Respondents disseminated a letter among their employees urging them to vote against the Unions. The tenor of this letter manifests a singleness of purpose between the Respondents and all their employees which, in our opinion, convincingly shows that the Respondents acted towards their employees as a single employer. We conclude from the foregoing circumstances and the entire record in the case that, for the purposes of this Act, Calcasieu and Southern together constitute a single employer of the employees at their Eliza- 2 92 NLRB 998 CALCASIEU PAPER CO., INC. 797 beth, Louisiana, plants, and that they are jointly responsible for the unfair labor practices committed in their plants irrespective of whether such conduct was committed exclusively by the supervisors or officials at only one of their plants and directly involved only the employees at that plant.3 3. The Respondents also except to the Trial Examiner' s findings that'-'certain Calcasieu officials and supervisors engaged in conduct violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act before and after the January 23, 1951, representation election by interrogating employees as to their union views, threatening them with reprisals if the Unions were to win the election, and making promises of benefit if they rejected the Unions. In part, these exceptions attack the credibility findings of the Trial Examiner. As the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence on the record considered as a whole does not convince us that the Trial Examiner's resolution of conflicts in the testimony of nesses was incorrect, we hereby adopt his credibility findings 4 We do not, however, adopt all of the 8 (a) (1) findings made by the Trial Examiner. In concluding that the Respondents, by the conduct of their officials and supervisors, violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, we rely only on the following circumstances: 5 (a) Personnel Director Cavanaugh's interrogation of employees John Parks, J. E. Perkins, Earnest West, Archer Turner, and Everett Yeley as to their union views and sympathies which we find to be per se violative of the Act. (b) The following remark by Cavanaugh to employee Parks in con- nection with the foregoing interrogation which we construe As a threat of reprisal if the Unions were to win the election : "I didn't think you were for the Union . . . not as nice as we treat you fellows, and you get a vacation and a bonus, and then you get a union in here, and that will be cut out." (c ) Cavanaugh's threat to employee Albert Willis that "the way a man votes in this election could make it hard or easy on him." (d) Foreman Sermon's remark to employee Archer Turner that Mr. McGehee was going to make it hard on the employees signing up for the Union and holding offices. (e) Supervisor Reeves Thomp- son's admonition to employee Johnnie Martin ("Don't vote for that Union. If it don't go in, you will get your money. If I didn't know. I wouldn't be telling you."), which in the context in which it was uttered constituted a promise of benefit to Martin if the Union were rejected. (f) Supervisor Crawford's threat to employee Ottis Strothers and a group of about six other employees, "If you boys vote , N. L R. B. v Pennsylvania Greyhound Lenes, The, 303 U S . 261; N. L R. B. v Condenser Corp ., 128 P 2d 67 (C A 3). 4 Standard Dry wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544. enf. 188 F. 2d 362 (C A 3) ; N. L. R. B. v. Supreme Bedding Mfg. Co., 30 LRRM 2097 ( C. A. 5). 5In view of the numerous 8 (a) (1) findings In this case. we deem It unnecessary to pass on the General Counsel 's exception to the Trial Examiner's failure to find certain othwr 8 ( a) (1) violations by the Respondents. 798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Union in, you will not be able to sit on the bench." We construe this as a threat of denial of a privilege enjoyed by employees if the Unions won the election. The Remedy We believe that the numerous unlawful acts found herein to have been committed by the Respondents 6 disclose a hostile intent on their part to defeat the attempts by their employees at self-organization. We find that the unfair labor practices committed by the Respond- ents are potentially related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and that the danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the Respondents' past conduct. The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is coextensive with the threat. Accordingly, in order to make effective the inter- dependent guarantees of Section 7 and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall issue a broad cease and desist order. Order Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, Calcasieu Paper Co., Inc., and Southern Industries Company, Elizabeth, Louisiana, their of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Interrogating their employees concerning their union mem- bership, 'sympathies, and activities; interrogating their employees concerning their voting intentions in representation elections con- ducted by the Board; promising benefits to their employees if they vote against the Unions or reject the Unions; and threatening their employees with reprisals if they vote for the Unions or do not give up the Unions. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization or to form, join, or assist International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, AFL, or International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any and all such activ- ities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree- 6 The record indicates that the Respondents' S (a) (1) conduct was even more wide- spread among its employees than would appear from our specific findings of violations of the Act. Thus, Personnel Director Cavanaugh testified that he could not remember how many employees he had interrogated as to their union views , whether it was 20, or 30, or 40. CALCASIEU 'PAPER CO., INC. 799 ment. requiring membership in a -labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at their plants at Elizabeth, Louisiana, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall, after being signed by the Respondents' representatives, be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by them for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, ,in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re- spondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in writ- ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply therewith. CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the con- sideration 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, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union membership, sympathies, and activities; interrogate' our employees concerning their voting intentions in representation elections conducted by the Board ; promise benefits to our employees if they vote against INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAPER MAKERS, AFL, and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE AND PAPER MILL WORKERS, AFL, or reject these unions; threaten our employees with reprisals if they vote for these unions or do not give them up. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-oganiza- tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named unions or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activ- ' In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order." 800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named unions, or any other labor organization, or to refrain from such activities except to the extent that such right may be af- fected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as required in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. CALCASIEU PAPER COMPANY, INC., SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES COMPANY, Employers. Dated ------------- By --------------------------- -------- (Representatives ) (Titles) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Intermediate Report STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge duly filed by International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, AFL, and International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL, -herein jointly called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela- tions Board, respectively called herein the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana), issued :a complaint dated July 9, 1951, against Calcasieu Paper Company, Inc., and Southern Industries Company, herein called the Respondents or at times Cal- casieu and Southern, respectively, alleging that the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges that the Re- spondents, by certain of their agents, employees, foremen, and representatives, interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. After the holding of a consolidated hearing in Cases Nos 15-RC-400 and 15-RC-401, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election, dated De- cember 27, 1950. An election was conducted by the Board among the Respondents' employees on January 23, 1951. The Union lost the election by a vote of 296 to 298. On January 29, 1951, the Union filed objections to the election. In his 'report on objections, dated April 23, 1951, the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region recommended that a hearing be held on the Union's objections. By an order dated May 9, 1951, the Board directed that a hearing be held on the issues raised by the objections, and that ". . . the Hearing Officer designated for the purpose of conducting the hearing shall prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a Report containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of said objec- tions." On July 10, 1951, the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region issued CALCASIEU PAPER CO., INC. 801 a combined notice of hearing and order consolidating the complaint and repre- sentation cases. On about July 20, 1951, the Respondents filed an answer in which they denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Thereafter the Respondents filed motions with the Regional Director for severance, for amendment of the answer, for a bill of particulars, and for a change of the designated place of hearing Trial Examiner Charles L. Ferguson, to whom the motions had been referred for ruling, granted the motions for a change of place of hearing and for amend- ment of the answer, but denied the motions for severance and for a bill of par- ticulars. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Elizabeth, Louisiana, on September 5 to 7, 1951, inclusive, before the undersigned Trial Examiner. All parties were represented by counsel Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence hearing on the issues, was afforded all parties. The Respondents renewed their motions for severance and for a bill of particulars. The motions for severance were denied.' The motion for a bill of particulars was granted in part and denied in part. The General Counsel moved to amend the complaint. The motion was granted over the Respondents' objection. After the General Counsel had rested his case, the Respondents moved to strike the name of Stewart Willis from the complaint. The motion was granted without objection. The Respondents also moved to strike the- names of Theo Hamilton, C. G. McGehee, and Edward K. Ahrens.' Ruling on, the motion was reserved. The motion to strike is disposed of as hereinafter indicated Althought afforded an opportunity to do so, none of the parties argued orally on the record at the conclusion of the hearing. The General Counsel and the Respondents have submitted briefs to the Trial Examiner. Both from the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACE I. THE BUSINESSES OF THE RESPONDENTS Calcasieu Paper Company, Inc., is a Louisiana corporation which is engaged in the manufacture of pulp and paper at its plant in Elizabeth, Louisiana. Southern Industries Company is a Florida partnership with its principal cffice in Jacksonville, Florida ; and it is engaged in the manufacture of paper bags at its plant in Elizabeth, Louisiana. Less than 200 feet separate the plants of Calcasieu and Southern, and there is no fence or barrier between the two. Elizabeth is a "company town" which is leased by Calcasieu from Industrial Lumber Corporation. However, Southern owns its plant and the land upon which it is located. Employees of both Re- spondents lease houses from Calcasieu. Calcasieu has approximately 530 pro- duction and maintenance employees, and Southern has approximately 130. Most of Southern's raw materials are purchased from Calcasieu. Calcasieu's. office force prepares Southern's payroll. Calcasieu also furnishes Southern with 3 The Respondents moved to sever the complaint case from the representation cases, and to sever the parties respondent. The Board in its decision of December 27, 1950, found that "The Employers and the Petitioner agree that all production and maintenance employees of both Companies in%olved in this proceeding appropriately belong in a single unit," and that a single unit was appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 2 McGehee and Ahrens are named in the bill of particulars, but not in the complaint. 802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD power and major maintenance work. Southern pays Calcasieu for these services. C. G. McGehee is president and chairman of the board of directors of Cal- casieu. He also is the general manager of Southern. McGehee's three sons and his two brothers are members of Calcasieu's board of directors ; and there are only two directors who are not members of the McGehee family. Jacksonville Paper Company owns a controlling interest in Calcasieu. The McGehee family owns a controlling interest in Jacksonville Paper Company ; and only members of the family are on its board of directors. There are eight partners in Southern. Six are children of C. G. McGehee. His brother and another brother's widow's estate are the other partners. Edward K. Ahrens is vice president and general manager of Calcasieu. He also is assistant general manager of Southern. A. A. Cavanaugh is personnel manager of Calcasieu. Although he is not paid by Southern, he interviews its applicants for employment. In view of the findings of the Board in its decision of December 27, 1950, and upon the facts found above, I find that the Respondents constitute a single em- ployer for the purposes of the Act. During the period of 12 months preceding September 1951, Calcasieu, in the course and conduct of its business, purchased and caused to be shipped to its Elizabeth plant from points located outside the State of Louisiana various raw materials having a value of $100,000. During the same period, Southern, in the course and conduct of its business, purchased and caused to be shipped to its Elizabeth plant from points located outside the State of Louisiana various raw materials having a value of $10,000. During the same period, Calcasieu processed, sold, and distributed various finished products, of which an amount in excess of $100,000 was shipped to points outside the State of Louisiana; and Southern processed, sold, and dis- tributed various finished products, of which an amount in excess of $25,000 was shipped to points outside the State of Louisiana. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, AFL, and International Broth- erhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL, are labor organizations which admit to membership employees of the Respondents. III. THE OBJECTIONS TO ELECTION AND THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The events on and before January 23, 1951 Cases Nos. 15-RC-400 and i5-RC-401 were consolidated by order of the Board dated August 22, 1950. As related above, an election was conducted by the Board among Respondents' employees on January 23, 1951. R. Lee Maricle was in the employ of Southern from about September 6, 1950. On about October 27, 1950, he went to the home of Paul Cooper, supervisor of Southern's shipping, finishing, and receiving department, in order to inquire about a job for his wife. Maricle testified that Cooper told him, "I know you were against us before . . . The Unions are coming back and I want you to stand by us this time, and I will give your wife the first opening" Cooper admitted that Maricle spoke to him about a job for his wife, but denied the statements attributed to him by Maricle. Cooper testified, in substance, that he did not have the authority to hire ; that women were not employed in his department; that Laurence Parisey, superintendent of Southern, often consulted CALCASIEU PAPER CO., INC. 803 With him before hiring a man for his department ; that he received applications for employment when Parisey was not present ; that he recommends employment of applicants when they "look good" ; and that on the day in question he told Maricle to see Parisey. Parisey lived across the street from Cooper ; and it is undisputed that Maricle went to see him immediately after his conversation with Cooper. Maricle did not impress me as a reliable or credible witness. If Cooper had in fact promised Maricle to give his wife the first job opening, then it is difficult to understand why Maricle went to see Parisey. Further, it is undisputed that women were not employed in Cooper's department. Accordingly, I credit Cooper's denial and his version of the conversation. Maricle also testified concerning three conversations that he had with A. A. Cavanaugh, Calcasieu's personnel director, during December 1950, and on Janu- ary 3 and ]8, 1951. Cavanaugh denied the remarks attributed to him by Maricle, except that he admitted that during the December conversation he asked Maricle what he thought about the Union. Since Maricle has been heretofore discredited, his testimony is not credited in this connection. Cavanaugh also admitted that he questioned a number of employees concerning their sympathies toward the Unions.' It is found that such interrogation constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion. J E. Perkins was employed by Calcasieu in the "washroom" under Supervisor Lawrence Crawford. About 2 weeks before the election, Perkins and about three other employees had a conversation with Crawford about the Union. Concerning this conversation, Perkins testified credibly that Crawford stated to the em- ployees that they "could vote [the Union] in or vote it out," but if they voted it in, he would "make it awful hard" on them. Crawford denied the statement attributed to him by Perkins. His denial is not credited.4 It is found that his statement constitutes interference since it contains a threat of reprisal. About 2 weeks before the election, John Parks, an employee of Calcasieu, had a conversation with Cavanaugh. Concerning this conversation Parks testified credibly as follows : ' . . . he (Cavanaugh) said, "Did I hear you are for the Union?" Then I asked him, "Who told you that? . . . And he said, "I didn't think you were for a Union. ... . Not as nice as we treat you fellows, and you get a vacation and a bonus, and then you get a union in here, and that will be cut out." It is found that the above remarks of Cavanaugh constitute interference, re- straint, and coercion. The Respondents had a rule which prohibited union activity on company time and property. The rule was posted in the plants. On about December 1, 1950, J. W. Willis, an employee of Calcasieu, was called to Cavanaugh's office. Con- 8 Employees J. E. Perkins, John Parks, Earnest West, and Archer Turner testified cred- ibly that Cavanaugh interrogated them concerning their union sympathies and activities ' Employee James Perkins was called as a witness by the Respondents. He testified that he was present during the above conversation and that he did not hear Crawford make the remarks attributed to him by J E. Perkins James Perkins did not impress the under- signed as a reliable or credible witness Accordingly, his testimony is not credited in this connection ° Cavanaugh admitted questioning Parks about the Union, and testified : There was no conversation about vacations or bonuses I can't answer those ques- tions I don't know, it depends on the individual, the vacation part of it. 804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cerning his conversation with Cavanaugh , Willis testified credibly and without contradiction as follows : ° Mr. Cavanaugh told me, "I just hear you are organizing on the job, it has been three or four different men told me." And he asked me had I been talking, and I told him "yes," and he said that we like to warn a man before we fire him. If I hear you talking union any more on the job, I am going to fire you. And I said, "If you are going to fire me, you may give me my time now." And he said, "No, but we like to warn a man," and I said, "Fire me now, and it will save you coming on the job and getting me." And he said they wanted to warn a man and give him a chance, and I asked him, I asked Mr. Cavanaugh if a man would walk up to me, I would talk to them. And he never answered my question. And I said I was going to talk to any man that wanted to talk to me, and he said, "About the union?" And I said, "Yes, if he wanted to." About 1 week before the election, Albert Willis, an employee of Calcasieu, had a conversation with Cavanaugh. Concerning this conversation, Willis was questioned and testified credibly as follows : ' Q. Will you tell me, as best you remember, what you said and what Air. Cavanaugh said? A. Yes. Q. Could you tell us now? A. "How do you think the election is going," and I said, "I don 't know." And he said, "We have it whipped." And he said, "If we get a union or if we don't, I am still the boss, and I will still do the hiring and firing." Q. Do you remember anything else he said? A. He said, "The way a man votes in this election could make it hard or easy on him." It is found that the above remarks of Cavanaugh constitute interference since they contain a threat of reprisal. About 3 weeks before the election, Cavanaugh asked Everett Yeley, an em- ployee of Calcasieu, how he was going to vote in the election.' It is found that such interrogation constitutes interference. Johnnie Martin was employed by Calcasieu as a cutter operator. Upon some three or four occasions he asked Jerry Collins, superintendent of the finishing room, and Cavanaugh for a raise. About 2 weeks before the election , he-bad a conversation with Collins. Concerning his conversation with Collins, Martin testified credibly and without contradiction as follows : He came by the cutter one day and I had it running, and he asked me if I was busy, and I said no; and he said, "How about going with me to the bag plant and help count rolls," so I said O. K. We went over there and some fellows were over there, but I didn't count any rolls ; I don't remember whether he did or not, but as we were coming back between the bag plant and the paper mill and the finishing room, he told me, "I want to talk to you about the union," and he said, "I think I can make you see where we don't Employee Wesley Willis testified credibly that about 11 days before the election he was warned against "interfering with the men" and "talking" during working hours by Cava- naugh and Edward Ahrens, general manager of Calcasieu and assistant general manager of Southern. ' Cavanaugh admitted questioning Willis about the election, but denied the other remarks attributed to him by Willis. His denial is not credited. 8 Yeley testified credibly to the above. Cavanaugh testified that he asked Yeley what he thought about the Union, but that he did not ask him how he was going to vote. Cava- naugh's testimony is not credited in this connection. CALCASIEU PAPER CO., INC. 805. need any union , and I am not promising you, anything ; I have had three or- four chances to fire you, but I didn't because I, like you and like your work,. and like to work with you, but I want to talk to you again." About 1 hour after his conversation with Collins, Reeves Thompson, a supervisor in the finishing room, came to Martin and told him, Don't vote for that Union. If it don't go in, you ... will get your money. If I didn't know, I wouldn't be telling you.' It is found that Thompson's statement constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion. About 2 or 3 days before the election, Ottis Strothers, who was employed by-Calcasieu as a carpenter, and about six other employees were sitting on a bench in the digester room. While they were discussing the Union, Supervisor- Crawford told them, "If you boys vote the Union in, you will not be able to sit on the bench." '0 It is found that Crawford's remark constitutes interference- since it contains a threat of reprisal. On January 23, 1951, the day of the Board's election, employees Enos Thomp- son and Elzy Johnson were riding with Supervisor Reeves Thompson in his car. They stopped to help push the car of employee Melvin Johnson, a brother of Elzy Johnson. Reeves Thompson asked Melvin Johnson how he was going to. vote in the election. They also stopped when they saw employee Earnest West, and Reeves Thompson asked West the same question" It is found that the above interrogation by Reeves Thompson constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion. On January 22, 1951, the Respondents distributed to their employees, while at work in the plants or at their homes, the following letter : JANUARY 22, 1950. To All Employees Calcasieu Paper Company, Inc., Southern Industries Company. My FELLOW WORBERS : It seems that ever so often some outside people come into our peaceful community and try to tell us that they know more about our common problems than we do. Because of recent undated and unsigned letters that have been delivered, to you, I believe it necessary that I again tell you about what I believe to be our problems and the way we will endeavor to solve them. (1) I think we have gotten along very well as a large operating group during the past four years. We have had a lot of things come up, and I am sure you will agree with me that they have been solved in a way that is satisfactory to all of us. That being true, it seems only natural that we will all get along better in the future if we continue our policy of coopera- tion, and when I say cooperation I mean the relationship between our employees and the management that will allow any employee to bring his O Martin testified credibly that Thompson made the above remarks. Thompson denied the statements attributed to him by Martin His denial is not credited. 10 Strothers testified credibly to the above incident . The record shows that a bench was provided for employees in order to rest and smoke between disgester blowing. Crawford denied that he made the above remark , and testified that one of the employees said, "It will be bad when the Union comes in; we will have to throw the bench out" and that he (Crawford) remarked, Will it be bad to throw the bench out?" Crawford's testimony is not credited in this connection. 11 Melvin Johnson and West testified credibly that Reeves Thompson questioned them as above. Thompson denied that he asked them how they were going to vote Enos Thomp- son testified that he questioned West concerning his vote , and Elzy Johnson testified that be questioned his brother . Both testified that Reeves Thompson did not question the employees Their testimony in this connection is not credited. 215233-53-52 806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD problems either directly to the management or through his immediate supervisor. Is this a better plan, or could anyone possibly think that some man living in another town could come in and solve something that he knows very little if anything about? Good employee-employer relations exist because of the direct contact one with another, not through some stooge that has been set up by an organization whose purpose is to get so much of your salary each month. I know you, many of the members of your fam- ilies, and I am sympathetic to your many daily problems. None of us know who might attempt to represent a union today, tomorrow, or next year, and we surely couldn't develop as satisfactory relation through an unknown individual as we can by dealing directly and trusting each other. (2) In one of the unsigned letters, which incidentally would indicate that these were form letters gotten up and probably used in some other organ- ization case after which they were just mimeographed and sent to you, I note the party who is unknown to you and us states that by joining a union you will gain seniority rights and security. I am sure you will all agree that the matter of seniority has been observed by this organization as evidenced by the way the new mill was set up. As far as possible men were promoted from the old small mill into better positions in the new mill, and men who held lower positions in the old small mill were promoted to better positions in the old small mill. I haven't heard of one single com- plaint on the part of a single employee about the manner in which these promotions took place. That seems to be pretty good evidence that the company is appreciative of the fair handling of its employees. Further, this company will continue to practice just that policy. Whenever an opening occurs where a better opportunity is offered for an employee, the next man in line will be given that position if he is qualified. We will continue just such seniority as we have shown in the development of the new mill. (3) On this job security, I don't think you can find a manufacturing plant of any type whether it be paper or otherwise which offers more job security for its employees than does Calcasieu and Southern Industries. Neither of these plants have closed in the last 41, years except for Chris- mas holidays, or maybe a few hours because of a breakdown. One of the principal reasons for our ability to continue to operate full time is because of the cooperation of each and everyone of you. By cooperating one with another we have made a good product and good products can always be sold. When a product of a plant is sold there is a demand for regular operation of that plant. By continuing to work one with another, for- getting the interference of outside folks, we will be able to run these plants full time, and the very best type of job security anyone can think of will be offered to our employees. (4) This matter of whether you shall have a union or not have a union is one that you will have to, decide for yourself. You should ask yourself, not someone else, (1) What will I gain by being a member of a union in plants such as Calcasieu and Southern Industries? (2) Will my wife and children or those who are dependent upon me gain or lose by union mem- bership? (3) Will I have a happier job where outside people are trying to handle my affairs, or will I be happier in dealing with the people with whom I work? (4) Will I get any more money per day or per week by joining a union after having to pay dues to that union or not? (Answer #1) It will not make any difference whether you are a member of a union or not a member of a union insofar as your job is concerned in our plants. The employee who is not a member of a union will get exactly the CALCASIEU PAPER CO., INC. 807 same consideration as one who is a member of the union. Union member- ship will have no bearing whatever upon seniority rights, nor will any employee of this company ever have to be a member of a union to WORK FOR this company. You did not have to join a union to get your job here-you do not have to join a union to hold your job now-and you will not ever have to join a union in the future. This company will not be a party to a contract forcing you to join any union against your will. The fact that you may have signed a union card does not mean you will have to vote for a union. You can vote for a union or against a union even though you may have already signed a union card. (Answer #2) I believe the employees of these companies are as happy a group of people as I have ever known. I believe the standards of living among the people who are employed by these companies are as high as any I have ever known. By this I mean that the people who work for these com- panies live as well as a whole as any people in the United States. All of you do not live in the town of Elizabeth, but whether you do or do not, your employment by these companies affords conveniences, both the town and countryside, that are not found at such reasonable costs in any other section of the United States or anywhere else in the world. All of this means that your surroundings are good and your family life should certainly be an enjoyable one. (Answer #3) I can't help but believe that any employee wants the privi- lege of talking to the man under whom he works about his conditions and the many problems that he bumps into every day. Surely an outside man who attempts to represent you could not have a detailed knowledge of your particular problems and be able to present them to us. (Answer #4) This is the only appeal the union has. All of the other things they have mentioned in these unsigned letters are just put there to fill up space. First I want to say that the paper mills in the South have either the second or third highest wage scale of any type of manufacturing plants in the country. For instance, the paper scale is about 11/2 times some other manufacturing plants I might mention in the South. The paper scale has been worked out on a basis of the size of the plant. As an illustration, the scale of wages for a large mill is a little higher than the scale for a mill the size of ours. It has been our policy in the past, and will continue to be our policy in the future, to maintain a scale, all things considered, equal to other plants the size of ours in this section of the South. I must apologize for the length of this letter, but feel it necessary to give you the details. Now I want to urge that each and everyone of you VOTE in the election to be held on Tuesday (tomorrow). After you have thor- oughly read this letter, make up your mind and vote for what you believe to be best for you, your wife and your babies, and remember your decision will determine your dealings with your company for a long long time. I want to emphasize the fact that I have dated, and am signing my name to this letter, and you may be sure that the statements made herein will be lived tip to. Sincerely yours, (s) C. G. McGEHEE, President, CALCASIEU PAPER COMPANY, INC., Gen'l Mgr.. SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES COMPANY. Attached to the above letter was a sample ballot of the Board with a red "X" in the space provided for a vote against the Union. 808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. The events after January 23, 1951 During about March 1951, Theo' Hamilton, Respondents' attorney, questioned and took statements from a number of employees in preparation of the Respond- ents' case. The employees were called to the company office and were questioned in the presence of McGehee, Cavanaugh, and Ahrens. They were later ques- tioned by Hamilton at the company pavilion and a reporter made a transcript of their statements. McGehee, Cavanaugh, and Ahrens also were present at this meeting. The General Counsel contends that the questioning of the employees under- such circumstances constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion. This con- tention is rejected. There is no evidence that Hamilton unnecessarily ques- tioned the employees concerning their union activities. It appears that his ques- tions were only concerned with the incidents related above and that the state- ments taken were necessary for the preparation of the Respondents' case. I do not believe or find that the presence of high management during the inter- views per se constituted a violation of the Act. Archer Turner was employed by Calcasieu as an electrician under Foreman Dennis Sermons. On about August 29, 1951, Sermons told Turner, "Mr. Mc- Gehee was going to make it hard" on the employees who "have been signing up for the Union." " It is found that Sermons' remark to Turner constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion. C. Conclusions The various incidents of interference, restraint, and coercion which occurred' before and on the day of the election have been related above. Further, although the Respondents did not permit the Union to organize or campaign for the elec- tion in the plants during working hours, McGehee's letter was distributed to em- ployees on the job the day before the election. This conduct amounts to a dis- criminatory application of Respondents' rule against union activity during working hours. Standing alone and without taking into consideration the numer- ous acts of interference, restraint, and coercion on and before January 23, 1951,. it is my opinion that such conduct presents a serious doubt as to whether or not the employees were afforded a free choice at the election. Accordingly, it will be recommended that the results of the election be set aside. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondents 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 burden- ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Since it has been found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor- practices, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondents cease and de- sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It also will be recommended that the Board set aside the election conducted among the employees of Respondents on January 23, 1951. u Turner testified credibly to the above. Sermons denied the remark attributed to him, by Turner His denial is not credited. CENTRAL JUNCOS 809 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. International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, AFL, and International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL, are labor organiza- tions within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents have en- gaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.] EASTERN SUGAR ASSOCIATES (A TRUST) D/B/A CENTRAL JUNCOS and UNION AMALGAMADA. DE TRABAJADORES..INDUSTRIALES DE JUNCOS (ILA-AFL), PETITIONER. Case No. 24-RC-291. July 18, 1952 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Philip Licari, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju- dici al error- and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.' 2. The labor organizations, involved claim to represent employees of the Employer.2 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all production, main- tenance, and repair employees at the Employer's tractor and mechanics shop.3 The Employer contends that the petition should be dismissed Eastern Sugar A88oeiate8, 80 NLRB 73 2 The Union de Trabajadores Industriales de Central Juncos (Ind.) was permitted to intervene on the basis of a contract interest . The Sindicato de Trabajadores de la In- dustria Azucarera de P. R . (CGT-CIO), also possessing a contract interest, although duly notified of the hearing did not appear. The Employer has only one such shop servicing its several sugar plantations. 99 NLRB No. 121.