Brown Paper Mill Company, Inc. Monroe, Louisiana

In the Matter of BROIVN PAPER MILL COMPANY, INC. MONROF, Loui- SIANA and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAPER MAKERS, AF- FILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR In the Matter of BROWN PAPER MILL COMPANY, INC. MONROE, Loul- SIANA and INTERNATIONAL BIioTHERI--I001) OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR Cases Nos. C-486 and C-487, respectively. Deckled April 4, 1939 Paper Mam(foeiur wrj had^cstrv/-Intel f reface, Restraint, and Coercion: state- ments of supervisors against outside union; surveillance of union meetings by supervisors ; threats of discharge unless employees joined inside union- Company-Dom inated U ion : domination of and interference with formation and administration of inside unions ; supervisory cooperation and participation in solicitation of membership in inside union; expressed opposition to outside unions ; dissolution of one inside union and creation of new inside union upon foundations of old ; continued supervisory cooperation in solicitation of mem- bership in new inside union; urging, persuading, and warning employees to join inside union and its successor ; employer ordered to disestablish inside union- Dascrimination : charges of discriminatory discharges for union activities not sustained. Mr. Berdon Al. Bell, for the Board. Pope d Ballard, by Mr. Edward W. Ford, of Chicago, Ill.; Shot- well d Brown, by Mr. Clyde R. Brown, of Monroe, La.; and Mr. L. J. Benekenstein, of Beaumont , Tex., for the respondent. Mr. J. B. Thornhill, of Monroe, La., for the Association. Mr. Patel Fink, of Monroe, La., for the I. B. P. M. Mr. Allan Lind, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE On December 15, 1937, and January 10, 1938, respectively, filter- national Brotherhood of Paper Makers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the I. B. P. M., filed with the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisi- alia), charges and amended charges alleging that Brown Paper Mill Company, Inc., Monroe, Louisiana, herein called the respondent, 12 N. L. R. B., No. 9. 60 BROWN PAPER MTLL COMPANY, INC. 61 had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On January 11, 1938, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the I. B. E. W., filed with the same Regional Director charges alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act. On January 18, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and RegLulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered the above cases consolidated for the purpose of hearing. Upon the charges filed by the I. B. P. M., the Board, by the Regional Director, issued its complaint dated January 27, 1938, and its amended complaint dated January 30, 1938, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the amended complaint, in substance, alleged, (1) that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of Brown Paper Mill Employees Bene- fit Association, a labor organization of its employees, herein called the Benefit Association, and subsequently, through reorganization, given the name of and known as Brown Paper Mill Employees Association, herein called the Association; (2) that the respondent caused to be circulated among its employees statements calculated to discourage their membership in the I. B. P. M. and to encourage their membership in the Benefit Association and thereafter in the Association; and (3) that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of John Fox, C. C. Butler, and A. G. Scharf to discourage membership in the I. B. P. M. Upon the charges filed by the I. B. E. W., the Board, by the Regional Director, issued its complaint dated January 28, 1938, charging the respondent with the commission of unfair labor prac- tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. This complaint alleged in substance that the respondent discriminatorily discharged Charles W. Cox, thereby discouraging membership in the I. B. E. W. and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Copies of the complaints, together with notice of consolidated hearing, were duly served upon the respondent, the I. B. P. M., 11 62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and the I. B. E. W. On February 10, 1938, the respondent filed separate answers to the above-described complaints, in which it denied the material allegations contained therein. On the same date the respondent also filed a separate motion to dismiss the complaints on the ground that it was not engaged in interstate commerce. Pursuant to notice, a hearing on the consolidated cases was held in Monroe, Louisiana, from February 10 to 25, 1938, before L. Rich- ard Insirilo, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board, At the opening of the hearing the Association appeared and filed with the Trial Examiner a motion for leave to intervene in the proceedings. This motion was granted by the Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, the I. B. P. M., and the Association, were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full op- portunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues, was afforded all parties. At the hearing counsel for the respondent moved to dismiss the proceedings upon the ground that the complaints failed to set forth alleged violations of the Act with sufficient particularity to enable the respondent to prepare a defense or, in the alternative, to require the Board to amend its complaint to particularize more fully the allegations contained therein. These motions were denied by the Trial Examiner. During the course of the hearing the Trial Exam- iner made other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. At the conclusion of the hearing the respondent made several motions on which rulings were reserved by the Trial Examiner. Except as hereinafter set forth, these motions are hereby denied. On March 29, 1938, the Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Section 37, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions-Series 1, as amended, ordered the proceeding transferred to and continued before the Board, and on September 12, 1938, the Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Section 38 (d), of said Rules and Regulations, issued an order directing the issuance of proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and a proposed order. The order further provided that the parties should have the right, within 10 days from the receipt of said proposed findings, proposed conclusions of law, and proposed order, to file exceptions, to request oral argument before the Board, and to request permission to file a brief with the Board. BROWN PAPER MILL COMPANY, INC. 63 Pursuant to the order set forth above the Board, on December 27, 1938, issued its Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order. On January 14, on January 20, and on February 13, 1939, the respondent, the Association, and the I. B. 'P. M., respectively, filed exceptions to the Board's Proposed Find- ings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order. The Association and the I. B. P. M. also requested permission to hold oral argument before the Board. Pursuant to notice, oral argument was had before the Board at Washington, D. C., on February 16, 1939. Counsel for the Asso ciation and a representative of the I. B. P. M. appeared and partici- pated in the argument. At the oral argument counsel for the Asso- ciation filed a brief in support of its exceptions. The respondent, while not appearing at the oral argument, filed a written argument in its behalf on February 16, 1939. The Board has considered the exceptions, briefs, and written argument made by the parties and finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Brown Paper Mill Company, Inc., is engaged in the manufacture of paper at its plant located near Monroe, Louisiana. The principal raw materials used by the respondent consist of alum, sizing, color, starch, pulpwood, and various byproducts. Approximately 10 per cent of the pulpwood is obtained from points outside the State of Louisiana. The finished products of the respondent consist chiefly of Kraft wrapping and bag paper and Kraft liner and corrugated materials. The respondent produces on an average of 10,000 to 18,000 tons a month of such finished products, at least 50 per cent of which are shipped to customers located in States other than the State of Louisiana. The respondent employs approximately 1,000 employees and main- tains an average annual pay roll of $1,000,000. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Paper Makers is a labor organiza- tion affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to its membership production employees of the respondent, exclusive of watchmen, clerical, supervisory, and managerial employees. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is a labor organ- ization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to its membership electricians employed by the respondent. 64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Brown Paper Mill Employees Benefit Association was and Brown Paper Mill Employees Association is an unaffiliated labor organiza- tion, admitting to its membership employees of the respondent. The precise limits of the jurisdiction of each of these labor organizations are not disclosed in the record. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Formation of the Benefit Association and the Association On or about July 1, 1937, the I. B. P. M. and the I. B. E. W. began to solicit members among the respondent's employees. In order to acquaint the respondent of their aims, J. L. Condit, Paul L. Phillips, union organizers for the I. B. E. W. and the I. B. P. M., respectively, and E. H. Williams, president of the Louisiana State Federation of Labor, obtained an interview with M. S. McDonald, general manager of the respondent. McDonald informed them that it had been the policy of the respondent, prior to the passage of the Act, not to employ union men. He further advised them of his intention to do everything within his power to prevent the American Federation of Labor from organizing the respondent's employees. He stated, however, that he intended to act within the law. This statement of policy was not denied by McDonald. Two weeks after the I. B. P. M. and the I. B. E. W. began their organizational activities among the respondent's employees the Bene- fit Association was conceived. Herbert Steed, chief paper inspector at the respondent's plant, testified that he obtained the idea of form- ing an independent union from a magazine article on the subject. He discussed the idea with a group of baseball players who were employees of the respondent and sought their approval. These em- ployees approved of Steed's proposal and suggested that he further investigate the possibility of organizing such a union. Steed there- upon sought the advice of Bunn Beasley, general superintendent and secretary of the respondent. Beasley informed him that as far as the respondent was concerned it would have to maintain a "hands off" policy. Beasley advised him, however, to seek legal advice before continuing the formation of an association. Steed, together with several other employees, as a self-appointed committee, then sought legal advice from A. T. Shotwell, the respond- ent's attorney, who informed them that since he was the respondent's attorney it would not be proper for him to represent them. The committee then called upon Carey Thompson, a local attorney, and retained him as legal adviser. On or about August 1, 1937, Thomp- son came out to the plant and advised several groups of interested employees of their right to organize an independent union. At these BROWN PAPER MILL COMPANY, INC. 65 meetings several supervisory employees requested information a6 to their right to participate in such an organization. Thompson advised them that so far as he knew they could participate provided that they acted independently of the management. 0. W. Getchell, superintendent of the paper mill, testified that he interpreted this advice as giving supervisory employees complete freedom to aid in the organization of the Benefit Association. At the request of Steed, Thompson drew up a proposed constitution and drafted bylaws for the Benefit Association. Shortly after the above-mentioned informal meetings, notices of a meeting of the Benefit Association were posted in the tender room of the machine shop. Getchell admitted that he was instrumental in having these notices posted. Two meetings were held in the safety hall at the respondent's plant to accommodate the employees from the various shifts. Approximately 50 to 60 employees attended each meeting at which Getchell and Steed presided. Getchell testified that his only purpose in acting on behalf of the Benefit Association was to explain the Wagner Act to the employees. However, from the testimony of a number of witnesses who attended the meetings, we find that Getchell far exceeded his alleged intention. He informed the employees that the purpose of forming the Benefit Association was to keep out the American Federation of Labor unions. He spoke critically of the latter unions and informed the employees that it was his experience that the American Federation of Labor would not be "worth a damn" to any of the employees of the plant because, among other reasons, the respondent would not recognize any such union. Getchell announced that on the other hand the respondent would grant recognition to an independent union formed among its employees. Following the advice of counsel Getchell was careful to state that he was acting independently of the management. After his introductory speech Getchell turned the meeting over to Steed, who read the proposed constitution and bylaws of the Benefit Association which had been prepared by Thompson. This instru- ment provided for the creation of a bargaining committee composed of employee representatives from the various departments in the mill. The names of the employees who were members of the bargaining committee had already been inserted in the bylaws prior to the meet- ing, apparently by Steed and Thompson. Some of the members of the bargaining committee were informed of their appointment only when their names were announced at the meeting. During the meeting and immediately thereafter petitions for mem- bership in the Benefit Association were circulated among the em- ployees. Tour bosses, foremen, and the superintendents in the various departments of the plant played a prominent part in such 66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD circulation and urged their subordinates to sign the petitions. Hozea Blazier, Earl Wilson, and Luther Branch, tour bosses, are referred to in the record as having engaged in such activity. Blazier and Wilson, witnesses for the respondent, did not deny having so par- ticipated in the formation of the Benefit Association, while Branch was not called upon to testify. Jess Hilton, chief electrician, ad- mitted that he had "a hand" in the Benefit Association. He testified that he was presented with a copy of the bylaws of the Benefit As- sociation and that he "presented them to the boys and asked them to join if they wanted to, or not, and if they didn't, they didn't have to." D. C. Metcalf, superintendent in the pulp mill, also added his influence to the formation of the Benefit Association. He admitted talking to H. C. Breazeale, an employee, and explaining to him a magazine article extolling the advantages of a local company union over a national union. He also admitted calling a group of his employees into his office and, after reading to them the constitution of the Benefit Association, advising them that they could join it or not as they saw fit. Bunn Beasley, the general manager, admitted that he had heard of the meetings in the safety hall and that he knew foremen were soliciting memberships for the Benefit Association. It is clear that, despite his knowledge of the activities of his super- visory employees, Beasley took no steps to prevent such solicitation during working hours. It is apparent that the support of the supervisors had its effect upon the employees. Within, a few days a considerable number of them had signed the petitions declaring their intention to join the Benefit Association. H. C. Breazeale, an employee, testified that he joined only after a number of supervisors had "put the pressure on." We are persuaded by the record that numerous other employees were similarly coerced. After the petitions had been signed, the Benefit Association organ- izers apparently ceased their activities. Several weeks passed in which the Benefit Association remained dormant. In the early part of August, Tom McLeod, an employee of the respondent, informed Steed that the employees were dissatisfied with the Benefit Associa- tion and intended to form a new organization. According to McLeod, the employees believed that there were too many foremen involved and that the Benefit Association had failed to function. He advised Steed that he would organize a new association without the assistance of foremen or anyone who had any connection with the Benefit Association. The new organization, called the Brown Paper Mill Employees Association, was apparently initiated under the leadership of McLeod. During the middle of August he, together with several BROWN PAPER MILL COMPANY, INC. 67 other employees, called several meetings among the respondent's em- ployees in a gymnasium situated on the respondent's property, to dis- cuss the formation of a new organization. The employees agreed that a new organization should be formed and appointed McLeod to act as temporary leader. McLeod, together with Conrad Maus and R. M. Arseneu, employees of the respondent, then consulted J. B. Thornhill, another local attorney, and requested his advice as to the formation of a new association. Thornhill agreed to represent and advise them. On or about September 1, 1937, a meeting called by McLeod, and attended by some 250 employees, was held at the gymnasium. Mc- Leod presided and led the discussion on whether to form a new organization or to continue with the Benefit Association. After some discussion it was agreed that a new organization be formed and Mc- Leod was given authority to continue his organizational activities. McLeod then introduced Thornhill, who advised the employees of their right to form an independent union under the Act. The con- stitution of the Benefit Association was torn up by McLeod and a new constitution was introduced, read, and adopted by the employees present. L. W. Swindall, an employee, testified that he had seen the constitution and bylaws of both the Benefit Association and the Association and that there was no material difference in the two. This testimony remained uncontradicted in the record. Officers for the new organization as well as members of the bargaining com- mittee were nominated at the meeting and during the next 2 weeks elections were conducted at a restaurant across the street from the respondent's plant. Shortly after the above-described meeting, petitions for member- ship in the Association were circulated among the employees through- out the mill during working hours. Despite McLeod's intention to proceed without the assistance of foremen, several of the supervisory officials continued their efforts to insure the success of an "inside" organization and transferred their support from the old Benefit Association to the newly created Association. Several witnesses testi- fied that Eddy Prim, Luther Branch, and Monroe Holmes, tour bosses in the pulp mill, brought the petitions of the Association to their various departments and left them at convenient places where the employees could sign them. The above-named tour bosses were not called upon as witnesses to deny this testimony. Charles Cox testi- fied that Hilton, the chief electrician, brought the petition of the Association to the electrical department with the remark to the em- ployees, "Boys, the other one has been thrown out. We want you to join this one." Hilton admitted having some connection with the Benefit Association, but denied having anything to do with the 169134-39-vol. 12-6 68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Association. In view of the testimony of other witnesses who con- tradict Hilton's denial we are convinced that he was also influential in the promotion of the Association. J. D. Peavy, Wilbert Ashley, Uhlis Chargais, and James Moore, colored employees of the re- spondent, testified that W. R. Honea and Dewey Thrasher, foreman and leader of the clean-up gang, respectively, requested them to join the Benefit Association and later the Association and threatened them with discharge if they did not join. According to Ashley, Honea had informed him that the petition of the Benefit Association was brought out "to keep this other union out of here." Honea later told Ashley that he was going to discharge him if he did not pay his dues to the Association. Peavy testified that Honea told him "some of you niggers just ain't right." Peavy asked him what he meant by that, and Honea replied, "You know what I mean . . . you and Wilbert Ashley had better get together and pay your $1.00 in this here union." Chargais testified that he signed the petition of the Benefit Association as a result of Thrasher's warning that if he did not join he would not be able to work. Moore testified that Thrasher asked him to sign up for the Association and later requested him to pay his $1 dues. Although both Honea and Thrasher denied that they threatened the employees, both admitted that they collected dues for the Association. Honea also admitted that he told certain employees to join the Association. Despite the denials of Thrasher and Honea, in the light of their other activity on behalf of the Asso- ciation, we find the facts as set forth in the testimony of Peavy, Ashley, Chargais, and Moore. On September 18, 1937, the Association, by letter, requested recog- nition from the respondent. At a conference attended by the officers of the company and the Association, the respondent agreed to recog- nize the Association as the exclusive representative of its employees upon a sworn statement of its secretary that it represented a ma- jority of the employees. On September 23, 1937, the respondent in a letter to the Association formally recognized it as the exclusive bar- gaining representative of its employees. On October 14, 1937, the Association presented to the respondent a contract covering wages, hours, and conditions of employment. At the same time a number of individual grievances were also submitted. Up to the time of the hearing the contract had not been accepted nor had any negotiations been carried on between the Association and the respondent with reference thereto. B. Discouragement of membership in, the I. B. P. M. As we have described above, McDonald frankly expressed to union organizers the respondent's antipathy toward the American Feder- BROWN PAPER MILL COMPANY, INC. 69 ation of Labor and its intention to prevent the organization of any affiliated unions. Supervisory employees, while encouraging mem- bership in the Benefit Association and in the Association, also en- gaged in conduct directly calculated to discourage membership in the I. B. P. M. In addition to Getchell's anti-union speech at the safety hall several other supervisory officials also expressed hostility to the I. B. P. M. C. H. Breazeale, an employee, testified that Earl Wilson, a tour boss, informed him that the main purpose of the Asso- ciation was to oust the I. B. P. M. from the plant and stated that, "If we don't put over this union and that union from up town comes in here, the Browns' will just shut this mill down and we will be out of a job." Wilson, though called upon as a witness for the re- spondent, did not deny that he had made the above statements. Metcalf, a superintendent, also told Breazeale that the Benefit Asso- ciation was organized to keep out the American Federation of Labor and "if we don't put this union over, Brown will shut down the mill." Although Metcalf denied having made such a statement, we do not credit his denial. As indicated above, Metcalf admitted his activity on behalf of the Benefit Association, and his statement is entirely consistent with his avowed hostility toward "outside" labor organizations. Several witnesses testified that, on several occasions during the early part of the I. B. P. M.'s organizational campaign, certain super- visory officials stationed themselves across the street from the meet- ing hall of the I. B. P. M. and watched the employees enter. C. H. Breazeale and J. E. Boyd testified that they saw Metcalf, Getchell, Bob Wilson, and Johnny Young, all supervisory employees,' observ- ing the employees who were coining to the meetings. Paul L. Phil- lips, a union organizer, testified that on or about July 7, 1937, he noticed Earl Wilson and Beasley observing the entrance of employees to the union hall in West Monroe. Getchell and Metcalf specifically denied any surveillance of the employees attending the I. B. P. M. meetings. While Young did not testify, Beasley, Earl Wilson, and Bob Wilson, witnesses for the respondent, failed to deny that they had observed these meetings. Despite the denials of Getchell and Met- calf, we are convinced by the testimony of the I. B. P. M. members that all of the above-mentioned supervisors were watching the em- ployees who attended the meetings of the I. B. P. M. with the intent of discouraging such attendance.2 1 Bob Wilson and Johnny Young were foremen in the respondent's mill. 2 See Matter of piny Town Togs, Inc. and International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, 7 N L. R. B 54; Matter of Mansfield Mills , Inc and Tevtile Workers Omganizing Committee, 3 N. L. It B. 901 ; Matter of C A Lund Company and Northland Ski Manu- facturing Company and IVoodenware Workers Union, Local 20481, 6 N. L. It B 423 70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. Conclusions with respect to the respondent's domination and interference It is clear from the foregoing that the respondent, through its supervisory officials, actively aided and assisted in the formation of the Association and the Benefit Association and at the same time directly discouraged membership in the I. B. P. M. The activities of these supervisory officials were so effective that the employees themselves apparently realized that the Benefit Association was not their organization. Steps were thereupon taken to disband the Benefit Association and the new Association was built upon the foundations already laid down by the former. Although some of the supervisory officials discontinued their activity with the advent of the Association, a number retained their interest in the activities of the employees. Hilton, Thrasher, and Honea continued their ef- forts to persuade the employees to join the Association. A number of tour bosses continued to circulate the petitions of the Association among the respondent's employees, and membership in the Associa- tion continued to be solicited among the employees during working hours. Under these circumstances it is apparent that the Association, despite the avowed independence of its initiators, continued to bear the reputation of being dominated and supported by the respondent. Furthermore, the conduct of the respondent's supervisory em- ployees in maintaining surveillance of the I. B. P. M. meetings, and warning the employees of the disastrous effects of their joining this organization, not only assisted the membership campaign of the Benefit Association and the Association, but also interfered with the employees in the exercise of their right to join the I. B. P. M. We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Benefit Association and the Association and has contributed support to these labor organiza- tions. We further find that the respondent, by its domination of and interference with the formation and administration of the Asso- ciation and by the conduct of its supervisory employees in discourag- ing membership in the I. B. P. M., has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guarani eed in Section 7 of the Act. D. The alleged discriminatory discharges The complaints allege that John Fox, C. C. Butler, A. G. Scharf, and Charles W. Cox were discriminatorily discharged by the respond- ent, thereby discouraging membership in the I. B. P. M. and the I. B. E. W. The respondent contended that the discharges were for cause, having no relation to the union affiliation or activity of such BROWN PAPER MILL COMPANY, INC. 71 individuals. In support of its contention, the respondent introduced into evidence its dismissal records which indicate that since July 15, 1937, when the union activities among the respondent's employees commenced, 36 employees in addition to the above 4 employees, were released for various causes. Jo/tn Fox had been employed by the respondent as a machine operator for 7 years prior to his lay-off on September 26, 1937. He was admittedly a good worker. While he was a member of the I. B. P. M., the record does not indicate how active he was in that organization. Testimony on behalf of John Fox was given by his brother, Warren Fox. John was present in the hearing room during the closing days of the hearing but did not take the stand on his own behalf. John Fox was laid off when the respondent discontinued the manu- facture of wrapping paper. This discontinuance necessitated the lay- off of Fox and 23 other employees who had been engaged in such pro- duction work. Fox obtained 9 days of extra work between the date of his lay-off and the latter part of October when he left Monroe, Louisiana, for Texas. Whether or not the 23 other employees who were laid off with Fox were members of the I. B. P. M. is not shown in the record. There is no indication that Fox received any different treatment than these 23 employees. We are of the opinion that the allegations of the complaint regard- ing the discriminatory discharge of John Fox have not been established. C. C. Butler had been employed for 10 years by the respondent prior to his discharge on September 26, 1937. At the time of his dis- missal he was a machine operator in charge of the caustic room in the respondent's plant. He joined the I. B. P. M. on September 1, 1937. Although Butler was not an active member, his union affiliation was known to the respondent from his participation with other members of the I. B. P. M. in a Labor Day parade held in Monroe a week after he became a member. On September 26, 1937, Butler was discharged by Metcalf, superin- tendent of the pulp mill, allegedly for "ditching sludge" without obtaining the tour boss' consent, which was contrary to the written rule of the respondent. "Ditching sludge" is described as the process of discarding an overflow of lime mixture in the lime bin attached to a mixing machine. Butler admitted that he was in charge of the caustic room and ordinarily would have been responsible for the ditching of sludge. He asserted, however, that the sludge had been ditched by Mann, his assistant, without his knowledge, while he, Butler, had been engaged in assisting J. B. McFarland, a welder, patch a hole in a "slacker" in 72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, another part of the caustic room. Although Mann actually ditched the sludge, the evidence is conflicting as to whether he first informed Butler of his action. In the investigation made by the respondent on September 27 Butler denied that he had been told by Mann, while Mann contended that he had informed Butler and that Butler was responsible for the ditching of the sludge. Metcalf, who investigated the incident for the respondent, testified that he believed Butler was prevaricating. While we are convinced that the respondent did not make a complete investigation of all the facts surrounding the inci- dent, we are not satisfied that this failure was animated by a desire to discharge Butler for his union activities. We are of the opinion that Mann ditched the sludge without obtain- ing the consent of Butler or the tour boss. However, we are also of the opinion that Metcalf believed that Mann had informed Butler of the incident and that if Butler had been attending to his duties the sludge need not have been ditched. Although Butler testified that on September 26 he was ordered by his tour boss, E. N. Wilson, to assist McFarland, thus preventing him from carrying out his usual duties, the record does not support his testimony. McFarland denied that Butler had aided him on Septem- ber 26 or any other day. Furthermore, the time card of McFarland, which purported to show where he had been working, substantiates the fact that he was not working in the caustic room on that day. Under the circumstances, a substantial doubt is raised as to Butler's version of his non-attendance to his usual duties. Moreover, the record is clear that Butler had been reprimanded on several previous occasions for not attending to, his job. According to Metcalf, Butler caused the loss of $350 worth of chemicals on Sep- tember 13, 1937, by permitting sludge to accumulate in the "#2 Dore Thickner." Shortly thereafter Hozea Blazier, his tour boss, had occasion to complain to Metcalf concerning Butler's conduct. Accord- ing to Blazier, when Butler had been requested to do some work, the latter told him, "to hell with it, get your damn brother to do it." Metcalf corroborated Blazier's testimony and further testified that he reprimanded Butler at that time and informed him that if he ever failed to obey orders again he would be discharged. Butler did not deny having received this warning, and merely stated that he "did not remember."' From the foregoing evidence we find that Butler was not discharged because of his activity on behalf of the I. B. P. M. We shall, therefore, dismiss the allegations of the complaint with respect to him. A. G. Sehtar f was employed as a beater operator at the respondent's plant at the time of his discharge on January 19, 1938. He had been in the respondent's employ for approximately 14 years prior to his BRO\VN PAPER MILL COMPANY INC. 73 dismissal. He joined the I. B. P. M. on August 25, 1937, and was active in soliciting members for that union. During the early part of September 1937, a loud-speaker system was attached to his car and was used at the entrance of the respondent's plant to announce meetings of the I. B. P. M. Scharf also passed out handbills of the I. B. P. M. among the respondent's employees. On or about September 20, 1937, the I. B. P. M. held a meeting of the wives of the employees at his home for the purpose of enlisting their support in its membership campaign. The respondent contends that Scharf was discharged for ineffi- ciency and failure, to obey orders over a long period of time and that the immediate cause was his unauthorized use of starch while operat- ing his machine at the respondent's plant. During the last year of his employment Scharf's work had not been satisfactory to his tour foreman. Scharf admitted that he had had a few "run ins" with his tour boss, Carter, and that Carter had threatened to discharge him on one occasion because he failed to obey orders. Carter testified that the "run ins" were caused by the fact that Scharf was a poor worker and that he would not obey orders. These latter controversies had no connection with Scharf's union ac- tivities or affiliation. In addition to the above testimony relating to Scharf's work, his superintendent, Getchell, testified that during the last 2 years Scharf seemed to be unable to operate the machines effi- ciently and that the machine tenders and tour foremen were con- stantly complaining about his work. C. E. Green and H. C. Carter, tour bosses, corroborated Getchell's testimony to the effect that the machine tenders had been complaining about Scharf's work. Scharf admitted that he had once been transferred from one shift to another because of tho complaints of the machine tenders. However, he testi- fied that after his discharge on January 19 he asked three of the four machine tenders who received his work whether they had ever com- plained of him, and that they denied having done so. While the above testimony is conflicting, a substantial doubt is raised concerning the character of Scharf's work. On September 23, 1937, he was laid off by the respondent for 10 days for forgetting to tell his relief man to shut off a valve on one of the Jordan machines. This caused the shut-down of a machine for a period of 45 minutes on the following morning. However, he was allowed to return to work after a 6-day lay-off instead of the original 10-day penalty. On January 11, 1938, Scharf changed a "freeness report," ap- parently without authority to do so. This report indicated the texture of the paper and it was important that such report be kept accurate. 74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Scharf admitted changing the report and testified that he had done so to make the report "look better" and after taking a "freeness test" himself. Getchell testified that it was the duty of Scharf's helper to take the "freeness test" and that Scharf should not have taken it upon. himself to change the report. Scharf was reprimanded by Getchell for taking this unwarranted action and was informed that if he ever failed to obey orders again he would be discharged. On January 18, 1938, the day before his discharge, Scharf noticed that the "pop-test," which indicated the strength of the paper, was low. He believed that something should be done to bring the test up and after consulting a machine tender he proceeded to have starch poured into the mixture. The use of starch strengthens the texture of the paper but ordinarily it is not used. The respondent had issued orders that the use of starch should not be undertaken without first obtaining the tour boss' permission. Scharf failed to obtain this necessary permission and continued to use the starch during the entire shift. Scharf explained his action on the ground that he had been reprimanded once before by a supervisor for failing to use starch when the pop test was down. It is apparent, however, that while Scharf was under a duty to observe when the use of starch was necessary, it was also his duty to secure permission before using it. Moreover, on cross-examination he admitted that there were other methods of bringing up the pop test and that ordinarily these methods should have been tried before resorting to the use of starch. Getchell's investigation disclosed the fact that Scharf had taken unwarranted authority in using starch, without first obtaining the consent of his tour boss and also showed that the use of starch was unnecessary. He therefore discharged Scharf for failing to obey orders. While the case is not free from doubt, we are not convinced by the evidence, as set forth above, that it was Scharf's union activities and affiliation that motivated his discharge. We therefore find that the respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of A. G. Scharf, thereby discouraging membership in the I. B. P. M. Charles W. Cox had been employed by the respondent for 11 months as an electrician prior to his discharge on September 16, 1937. When he was hired, he was told that it was on a temporary basis, but that if he proved satisfactory he might be kept permanently. Cox joined the I. B. E. W. on or about June 30, 1937. Although he was not active in the affairs of the I. B. E. W., his membership therein became known when he refused to join the Association at the request of Hilton, his supervisor, sometime in the early part of August 1937. BROWN PAPER MTLL COMPANY, INC. 75 The respondent contends that Cox was not an efficient electrician ; that he was hired for a temporary period pending the completion of some construction work; and that he was discharged when the con- struction work was finished in order to make room for an electrical- refrigeration expert whose services the respondent required. The testimony of Hilton, D. B. Bivens, assistant to Hilton, and A. E. Duncan, a fellow employee, casts some doubt on Cox's qualifica- tions as a journeyman electrician. Hilton testified that Cox's work was not neat; that he was given the work of a helper rather than a journeyman because of his lack of skill; and that he was retained for 11 months only to give him an opportunity to improve. Bivens and Duncan corroborated Hilton's testimony with respect to the character of Cox's work. Sometime during the early part of the summer of 1937, Cox requested that he be assigned to all the electrical-refrigeration work in the plant, claiming that he had some experience in that type of work. Hilton consented to give Cox an opportunity to demonstrate his skill. The record shows, however, that Cox did not have the requisite experience. On one occasion he was directed to investigate the cause of a break-down of a refrigerator cooling unit. Cox pro- ceeded to hacksaw into the gas line leading to the unit with the con- sequence that the sulphur dioxide permeated the entire shop and drove out all the employees. The testimony of a refrigerator expert, J. R. Hightower, establishes that there were more efficient methods of releasing the gas. On another occasion Cox ruined a water-cool- ing unit by cutting into it with a hacksaw. Hilton testified that due to Cox's inefficiency he had to obtain the aid of an outside refrigerator expert on at least three different occasions. He therefore decided to discharge Cox at the conclusion of the construction work for which he had been hired and replace him with an expert who could do both refrigeration and electrical work. Since Cox was replaced by an electrical-refrigerator expert and since the construction work for which he had been hired was com- pleted, we are of the opinion that the record does not support the allegation that Cox was discriminatorily discharged. We find that by discharging Charles W. Cox on September 16, 1937, the respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of his employment, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, nor has the respondent by such act interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond- 76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substan- tial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE RE31EDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist from further engaging in such practices. Moreover, we shall order the respondent to take certain affirmative action which we deem necessary to effectu- ate the policies of the Act. We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Benefit Association and of the Association and contributed support to these labor organizations. Since the Benefit Association has been abandoned, we shall not order its disestablishment.' We shall, however, order the respondent to withdraw all recognition from, and disestablish the Association as the representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Brown Paper Mill Employees Benefit Association, and Brown Paper Mill Employees Association are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The respondent, by dominating and interfering with the forma- tion and administration of the Brown Paper Mill Employees Benefit Association and the Brown Paper Mill Employees Association, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 3. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. See Matter of Inland Lime and Stone Company and Quarry Workers International Union of North Ameniea, Bhanch No. 259, 8 N L R. B 944. BROWN PAPER MILL COMPANY, INC. 77 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The respondent, by laying off John Fox and discharging C. C. Butler, A. G. Scharf, and Charles W. Cox, has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Brown Paper Mill Company, Inc., Monroe, Louisiana, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the administra- tion of Brown Paper Mill Employees Association, or with the forma- tion or administration of any other labor organization of its em- ployees, and from contributing support thereto; (b) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and 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) Withdraw all recognition from Brown Paper Mill Employees Association as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other condi- tions of employment, and completely disestablish Brown Paper Mill Employees Association as such representative; (b) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its plant and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, stating (1) that the respondent will cease and desist as aforesaid, and (2) that the respondent will withdraw all recognition from Brown Paper Mill Employees Association as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and that said organization is completely disestablished as such representative; 78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS ofDERrD that the allegations of the complaint, as amended, in Case No. C-486, that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, by laying off John Fox and by discharging and refusing to reinstate C. C. Butler and A. G. Scharf, be, and they hereby are, dismissed; AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint issued in Case No. C-487 be, and it hereby is, dismissed.