Fort Wayne Corrugated Paper Company

In the Matter of FORT WAYNE CORRUGATED PAPER COMPANY and LOCAL No. 182, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE, AND PAPER MILL WORKERS, Case No. C-656.Decided August 1, 1939 Corrugated and Solid Fibre Shipping Containers Manufacturing Industry- Interference, Restraint , and Coercion: questioning of employee about progress of Union ; espionage ; threatening employee with discharge if he would not cease activities on behalf of employees of customer ; demotion of union president- Espionage : involved, ordered to cease and desist from engaging in-Discrimina- tion: lay-off of employee found not to be a discrimination despite failure to apply seniority rule; charges of, dismissed-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all employees of plant exclusive of supervisory employees ; no controversy as to-Representatives : proof of choice : finding of majority in appropriate unit based on Trial Examiner's finding which respondent failed to except to-Collective Bargaining : refusal to embody understandings reached in a written contract ; posting of signed statements of policy held to be insufficient when Union requests written contract ; ordered, to bargain collectively with the Union upon request, and if understandings are reached , to embody such under- standing in a signed agreement if such is requested by the Union-Reinstate- ment Ordered: demoted employee-Back Pay: awarded. Mr. Lester M. Levin, for the Board. Mr. James M. Barrett, Jr., of Fort Wayne, Ind., for the re- spondent. Mr. S. A. Stephens, of Fort Edward, N. Y., for the Union. Mr. S. G. Lippman, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite, and Paper Mill Workers, Local No. 182, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region (Indianapolis, Indiana), issued its complaint dated February 15, 1938, against Fort Wayne Corrugated Paper Co., herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair 14 N. L. R. B., No. 1. 1 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged (1) that the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and (2) that on September 16, 1937, and at all times there- after, the respondent refused to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, although the Union represented a majority of such employees. On March 2, 1938, the respondent filed its answer, admitting that it was engaged in interstate commerce but denying the commission of the unfair labor practices. The respondent also filed a motion with the Regional Director requesting that the charge be made more specific and that the hearing be postponed. Thereafter the Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties a notice of post- ponement of hearing and on February 23, 1938, the Union filed an amended charge setting forth in greater detail the allegations con- tained in the original charge. On April 4, 1938, the respondent filed an additional motion with the Regional Director requesting that the amended charge be made more specific and that the hearing be further postponed. The Regional Director overruled the motion, which ruling is hereby affirmed. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on April 14, 1938, before James L. Fort, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing; the Union did not appear. Full oppor- tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the beginning of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to amend the charge and the complaint to allege that the respondent had dis- charged Eldo Rogers on or about October 24, 1937, and had refused to reinstate him because of his union activities. The respondent objected to the motion on the ground that it had no opportunity to examine the amended charge. Counsel for the Board announced that in order not to prejudice the respondent, he would defer proof on the amendment until the close of the Board's case, and if at that time the respondent were not prepared, he would consent to an adjournment. The Trial Examiner granted the motion, and over- ruled the respondent's objection. At the close of the Board's case, the respondent-.did. not request such adjournment. The Trial Exam- FORT WAYNE CORRUGATED PAPER COMPANY ' 3 iner's ruling is hereby affirmed.,, At the close of the hearing, the Board's attorney moved to conform the pleadings to the proof. The motion was granted. The Trial Examiner made various rulings on other motions and objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed these rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On May 18, 1938, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report in which he found that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of . Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act and accordingly recommended that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and requested an opportunity for oral argument before the Board. Pursuant to notice duly served upon the respondent and the Union, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board on February 15, 1939, at Washington, D. C. The respondent was represented by its counsel, and the Union by its representative and both participated in the hearing. The Board has considered the respondent's exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and save as con- sistent with the findings, conclusions, and order, hereinafter set forth, 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 The respondent, an Indiana corporation , is engaged in the manu- facture of corrugated and solid fibre shipping containers . It has its principal place of business at Fort Wayne, Indiana, and its largest manufacturing plant at Hartford City, Indiana. This proceeding concerns only the Hartford City plant. The respondent , during the course of an ordinary business year, buys raw material valued at about $1 ,350,000, approximately 50 per cent of which is shipped from points outside the State of Indiana. Taking 1937 as a basis , the respondent manufactures 66,910 tons of shipping containers per year, having an approximate value of $4,- 085,000, of which about 77 per cent is sold to customers located out- side the State of Indiana . The respondent admits that it is engaged in interstate commerce. 1 The Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report reversed his ruling made at the hearing, with respect to the amendment of the complaint and the charge, and struck from the record all evidence relative to the discharge of Eldo Rogers. His ruling therein is hereby reversed . As noted below in Section III C , the respondent has not been prejudiced by our rulings. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local No. 182, International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite; and Paper Mill Workers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting into membership employees of the respondent, excluding supervisory employees. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion The Union commenced to organize the respondent's employees in 1933, and there is uncontradicted evidence that during the next 2 years Kastetter, plant manager and foreman, expressed opposition to it, and that he, and Jack Curtin, traffic manager, on several occasions ,urged Markins, an employee, to abandon outside union affiliations in :favor of a local organization. In addition, Kastetter constantly ques- ttioned Archie Lightle, a non-union employee, about the progress of the Union. There is uncontradicted evidence that Kastetter con- tinued this conduct into 1937. From 1934 until April 1937, the respondent employed the Pinker- ton Detective Agency. Treen, the respondent's general manager, testified that the agency served merely as a means of checking on the conduct of its supervisors, on the physical condition of the plant, and on the attitude of employees toward the respondent. However, pay- ments to the agency for services rendered to the. respondent were charged to a traveling expense account and reports which the agency rendered were destroyed. Treen admitted that the agency furnished the respondent with information regarding the progress of the Union. Although Treen testified that it was the express policy of the, respon- dent not to interfere with the employees' union activity the conclusion is inescapable that the respondent employed the Pinkerton Detective Agency for the purpose, among others, of union espionage. Markins was an active union employee who also served as chairman of the district. union council. In the latter capacity Markins repre- sented employees of other local employers, including the employees of the Sneath Glass Company, one of the respondent's customers, in their collective bargaining efforts. On about March 29, 1937, Mar- kins was called to Treen's office and told by him that the Sneath Glass Company had withdrawn its business because of Markin's union ac- tivities on behalf of the employees of the Sneath Glass Company. Treen thereupon warned Markins that he would have to cease such union activity or else leave the respondent's employ. Cyril K. Wentz, president of the Union, was employed by the .respondent in October 1933 as a "catcher," and in March 1936 was FORT WAYNE CORRUGATED PAPER COMPANY assigned to a "double backer" machine which he operated until about the. last week of August 1937. During a bargaining conference in September'-1936, while seniority was being discussed, Wentz asked Koester, vice president of the respondent, whether his position as an operator of the "double backer" machine was permanent or whether he would be "yanked out of it." Wentz testified without contradic- tion that Koester, referring to the "double backer" machine replied, "Well, kid, that is your job." - Throughout July 1937, on at least three separate occasions, Getty the manager of operations, questioned Wentz concerning the charges which the Union had filed against the respondent. Wentz, however, did not reply'. preferring to let the matter take its course. On August 4, 1937, without previous notice, Getty informed Wentz that his posi- tion as an operator of the "double backer" machine had been tem- porary and that the job would have to be allotted in accordance with the seniority rules of the respondent's plant. Getty further informed Wentz that he did not know which of four or five employees would be entitled to the job, and that it might even be Wentz himself. Three weeks later the operation of the "double backer" machine was given to Ralph Robinson on the ground that he had more seniority. Wentz thereupon returned to "catching," which was more difficult work and paid less wages. Wentz admitted that Robinson had more seniority than he and that Robinson was a member of the Union although not active in its affairs. B. Conclusions with respect to interference, restraint, and coercion The respondent admitted that it employed the Pinkerton Detective Agency from 1934 until 1937 and we have concluded that the respond- ent utilized it as a means of obtaining information on the Union's activities. This conclusion is strengthened by evidence, set forth above, indicating the respondent's hostility to the Union. We find that the respondent, by employing the Pinkerton Detective Agency sub- sequent to July 5, 1935,2 and by the anti-union activities of Kastetter subsequent to said dates interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the - rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We have found that the respondent threatened to discharge Markins on March 29, 1937, if he would not cease his activities on behalf of the employees of the Sneath Glass Company. It is plain that the Act 2Matter o f Link Belt Company and Lodge 1604 of Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America through the Steel Workers Organizing Committee, afliated .with the Committee for Industrial Organization, 12 N. L. R. B., 854. 3 The respondent's conduct prior to the passage of the Act cannot form the basis of a finding of unfair labor practices : We have reviewed it solely as a background to the respondent's conduct subsequent to July 5, 1985.' See Jeffery-DeWitt Insulator Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 91 F. (2d) 134 (C. C. A. 4th), cert. denied, 302 U. S. 731.' 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD does not limit its protection to an employee engaged in union activi- ties with respect to his individual employer but gives him the right "to join or assist labor organization ... and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." Markins' activities in behalf of the employees of the Sneath Glass Company were therefore within the protection of the Act. Labor organizations are often dependent on one another for aid and advice, and frequently find that their best interests can be served by functioning through a joint union council composed of representa- tives of various local unions. It is clear that the district union council involved in this case was of such a character. Under these circum- stances, to hold that an employer can discipline an employee for activities conducted in behalf of the employees of another employer would present a simple way to defeat the purposes of the Act. We therefore find that the respondent's treatment of Markins on March 29, 1937, constituted an interference, restraint, and coercion of its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act 4 We have found that Wentz was assigned to the "double backer" machine in March 1936, that the respondent in September 1936 stated to him that the job was to be his permanently, but that despite this assurance he was transferred to "catching" in August 1937. It is the respondent's contention that the transfer of Wentz was impelled by a desire to adhere to its seniority rule under which Robinson was entitled to the job. It appears that Wentz's original transfer to the "double backer" machine was made without regard to his seniority status, and the fact that he was permitted to keep the position for almost a year and a half indicates that the respondent did not adhere strictly to its seniority rules. Furthermore, there is no evidence that either Robinson or any other employee who might have had more seniority than Wentz protested or regarded himself as aggrieved by Wentz's assignment to the "double backer" machine. The respondent, however, on its own initiative, after Wentz had continuously operated the "double backer" machine for about 11/2 years, sought to determine whether Wentz was really entitled to the operation of the machine, and on the basis of this investigation assigned the "double backer" machine to Robinson. There is no evidence that a similar investiga- tion was instituted as to any other employee; the investigation ap- pears to have been confined only to Wentz. While it is true that Robinson was a member of the Union he was not active; nor did he hold any such position of leadership as Wentz.5 4Matter of The Hoover Company and United Electrical and Radio Workers of America, Local No. 709 , 6 N. L. R . B. 688. s Cf. Matter of Willard. Inc. and Hotel and Re•4taurant Employees Alliance, Local 781 et at., 2 N. L. R . B. 1094, affirmed ; National Labor Relations Board v. Willard, Inc., 98 F. (2d ) 244 (C. C. A..App. D. C.). FORT WAYNE CORRUGATED PAPER COMPANY 7 In the light of all the facts we are convinced that the respondent's antagonism to the Union and Wentz's leadership therein motivated it in transferring Wentz from the operation of the "double backer" machine to the position of "catcher." We find that the respondent's transfer of Wentz from the operation of the "double backer" ma- chine to the position of "catcher" constituted an interference, restraint, and coercion of its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act .6 C. The lay-off of Eldo Rogers Eldo Rogers was employed by the respondent in August 1936. He joined the Union in May 1937, attended all the meetings, and solicited employees of the respondent for membership in the Union. Rogers was not, however, an outstanding union member. Rogers had been ill for a few days and when he returned to work about October 24, he was told that the mill had discontinued one shift and that he and a few others had been laid off. An employee named Housman, however, who had less seniority than Rogers, was called back to work for several days despite the fact that ' Rogers requested employment. The respondent admitted that it had given Housman a small amount of employment in violation of. its seniority rule, but stated that this violation was inadvertent' and was not motivated by the desire to rid itself of Rogers because of his union activity. In sup- port of its contention, the respondent showed that the seniority rules were followed closely in this lay-off and that other employees more active in the Union than Rogers were not laid off. Moreover, there was no convincing evidence that the respondent was ever informed of Rogers' grievance.7 We therefore do not find that the respondent knew or was informed of.its infraction of the seniority rule in its lay-off of Rogers. Kirkwood, an employee, testified that on about November 29, 1937, Kastetter told him that Rogers was laid off because he talked too much about the Union. Kastetter did not take the stand; conse- quently Kirkwood's testimony remained undenied. Rogers' lay-off was in the order of seniority in all respects except that the respondent employed Housman, who had less seniority, for a few days. In addition, it is clear that Rogers was not especially active in the Union, and that there were more active union employees 9 Cf. Matter of Indianapolis Glove Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Local No. 1411, 5 N. L. R . B. 231; Matter of Serve?, Inc . and United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local No. 1002, 11 N. L. R. B. 1295. T Although Wentz testified that he brought Rogers' grievance to the respondent 's atten- tion, on his cross -examination it appeared that Wentz had referred to a situation which had arisen with respect to Rogers in June 1937. 190935-40-vol. 14-2 8 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in the paper mill who were not laid off. Despite Kirkwood's uncon- troverted testimony, which is an indication of the respondent's hos- tility to the Union, we are not convinced that the respondent's. failure to give Rogers the few days' employment which it gave to Housman was because of union activities. We find that the respondent, by laying off Rogers, did not discrimi- nate in regard to his hire and tenure of employment to discourage membership in the Union. D. The refusal to bargain collectively 1. The appropriate unit The complaint alleges that all the employees of the respondent's Hartford City plant," exclusive of supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The re- spondent admits in its answer this allegation of the complaint. The Union,takes into membership employees in this unit. We find that all the employees of the respondent's Hartford City plant, exclusive of supervisory employees, constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that such unit insures to employees of the respondent the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effec- tuates the policies of the Act. 2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit The complaint alleges that at all times since September 21, 1935, the Union has represented a majority of the respondent's employees within the appropriate unit. A. list of the Union's members from 1934 to the date of the hearing, taken from its membership book, was introduced into evidence. Although the respondent was given an opportunity to check the list against the membership book, which showed the dates upon which the employees joined and which was present at the hearing, no objection was raised to the authenticity of the membership list. The respondent's pay rolls of the mill for the week ending September 21, 1935, and September 18, 1937, were like- wise introduced into evidence. On the basis of this evidence the Trial Examiner concluded that the Union represented a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit from September 21, 1935, to the date of the hearing. The respondent, although it filed exceptions, did not except to this finding of the Trial Examiner. We find, therefore, that on September 21, 1935, and at all times thereafter, the Union was the duly designated representative of the 8The Hartford City plant consisted of a mill and a box plant . On the date of the hearing, the mill was no longer owned or operated by the respondent. FORT WAYNE CORRUGATED PAPER COMPANY 9 majority of the respondent's employees in the appropriate unit and pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, was on that date .and at all times thereafter, the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. 3. The refusal to bargain The complaint alleges that on September 16, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union. The respondent in its answer denies this allegation. Since 1934 the respondent has dealt with the Union, although it has repeatedly refused the Union's request for a written contract, stating that it was against its policy. Instead, the respondent posted statements of working conditions from time to time which, although usually the result of negotiations with the Union, failed to mention the Union by name. The statement of working conditions in effect on January 1, 1937, which was typical of all the others, was prefaced as follows : Below is a statement of employment and working conditions which will be in effect in the box factory of the Fort Wayne Corrugated Paper Company from November 1, 1935 to Novem- ber 1, 1937. In November 1936, at a bargaining conference between the Union and the respondent, Richards, the Union's international vice presi- dent, made an urgent plea for a signed agreement, pointing out its advantages. Koester, the respondent's vice president, replied that the respondent "still did not want any outside interference," and would not sign any contract. On September 16, 1937, the Union again requested a written contract; Treen, the general manager, requested it to submit a - draft. In October 1937, the Union sub- mitted a proposed contract which representatives of the respondent and the Union discussed clause by clause. However, at the end of the conference Treen and Getty, manager of operations, declared that the respondent's policy was still unchanged and that it would not recognize the Union in an agreement. 'Thereafter, the respond- ent submitted a counterproposal which was similar to its statement of working conditions posted in January 1937.9 The Union rejected the counterproposal,. insisting on a signed agreement. On December,2, 1937, the parties met in the office of the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, for the purpose of negotiating a a. The counterproposal differed in one respect , however. It contained a clause which stated "that the company will meet with the chosen representatives of its employees for the purposes of collective bargaining when requested." 10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD settlement of the controversy. On the same day, as a result of that conference, the respondent posted on its bulletin board a copy of a. letter recognizing the Union as the exclusive bargaining agency for its employees. That same evening, however, the respondent posted alongside the statement of recognition the following letter addressed to its employees : The company's letter dated December 2, 1937, to the National Labor Relations Board might be considered as a change in labor policy. There is no change in the company's policy. In order that there can be no misunderstanding, the company's policy is as follows : You are free to join, or not to join, any labor organization of your own choosing and your membership or non-membership in any labor organization will have no effect of any kind upon the treatment accorded you by the company. The Union protested the posting of this second letter, stating that it indicated that the respondent was not acting in good faith when it executed the written recognition. The management replied, how- ever, that it wished all of the employees to be informed of their rights under the law and that it had acted within its rights in posting this second letter. Thereafter, the Union met with the respondent and discussed working conditions. As a result of this discussion, the respondent sent the Union a signed memorandum of working conditions upon which the parties had agreed. The first clause of this memorandum read as follows : Below is a statement of employment and working conditions, arrived at through collective bargaining with the chosen repre- sentatives. of its employees, which will be in effect in the mill and box plants at the Fort Wayne Corrugated Paper Company at Hartford City, Indiana, from November 1, 1937, to November 1, 1938. (Italics supplied.) At the request of the Union, this memorandum was accompanied by a booklet interpreting the provisions of the memorandum. An- other bargaining conference was held in February 1938 for the pur- pose of discussing the respondent's interpretation of the seniority provision. Up to the date of the hearing, no other conferences were held. We have concluded in language equally applicable here that the duty to bargain collectively is not limited to recognition of the em- ployees' representatives or a meeting and discussion of terms and con- FORT WAYNE CORRUGATED PAPER COMPANY 11 ditions of employment with them,10 but that an essential element of collective bargaining is a willingness to embody the results of nego- tiations in a written agreement if requested to do so by the employees' representatives." Manifestly, a signed statement of policy which the employer is willing to observe as a matter of policy and not as a matter of contractual obligation is not the equivalent of a written contract.12 This is especially true as in the instant case where the statement of policy fails to mention the Union by name or so acknowl- edges that the terms and condition were the results of negotiations with the Union. So far as the written recognition which the re- spondent executed in December 1937 is concerned, it is plain that such statement is not the equivalent of a written contract which makes contractually binding terms and conditions of employment that have been agreed upon. Moreover, the respondent itself recognized that such written recognition is not the equivalent of a written contract when it stated in its second posted letter that the written recogni- tion was not to be construed as a change of its policy. The Union had consistently requested the respondent to reduce to a written contract the terms and conditions of employment upon which the parties had been in agreement. The respondent was clearly not required to agree to the proposals submitted by the Union with respect to terms and conditions of employment. Once having agreed upon them, however, it could not refuse to embody them in a binding contract. 10 Matter of Highland Park Manufacturing Company and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, 12 N. L . R. B. 1238. 11 In Matter of Louisville Refining Company and International Association of Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America, 4 N. L. R. B. 844, affirmed in National Labor Relations Board v, Louisville Refining Company, 102 F. ( 2d) 678, ( C. C. A. 6th), we said : "Final attainment of an understanding in the signing of the contract embodying the fruits of this understanding is a part and a parcel of the process of collective bar- gaining." In Matter of Globe Cotton Mills and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, 6 N. L. R. B. 461, affirmed in Globe Cotton Mills v . National Labor Relations Board, 103 F. (2d) 91 , (C. C. A. 5th), we said : "The term collective bargaining denotes in com- mon usage as well as in legal terminology , negotiations looking toward a collective agree- ment. If the employer adheres to a preconceived determination not to enter into any agreement with the representatives of his employees , as we have found here, then his meeting and discussing the issues with them, however, frequently , does not fulfill his obligations under the Act." See also Matter of St. Joseph Stock Yards Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters 6 Butcher Workmen of North America , Local union No. 159, 2 N. L. R. B. 39; Matter of Inland Steel Company and Steel Workers Organizing Com- mittee and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge Nos. 64, 1010 and 1101, 9 N. L. R. B. 783; .Matter of Western Felt Works, a corpora- tion and Textile Workers Organizing . Committee, Western Felt Local, 10 N. L. R. B. 407, 2Matter of Highland Park Manufacturing Company, supra . Matter of Harnischfeger Corporation and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge 1114, 9 N. L. R. B. 676. See also Matter of Inland Steel Company and Steel Workers Organizing Committee and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, et al., 9 N. L. It. B. 783, in which we stated : "Unions justifiably feel that full recognition of their status as collective bargaining agencies on an equal footing. with , employers , cannot be obtained if, they- are denied the type of contract which characterize ordinary business dealings." 12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD . We find that on September 16, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the respondent by refusing to embody the understandings which it had 'reached with the Union in a signed contract, refused to bargain col- lectively with the Union as the representative of its employees in regard to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con- ditions of employment, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of. the rights guaranteed in 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, A, B, and D above, occurring in connection with the opera- tions of the respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burden- ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Although the respondent has ceased its espionage activi- ties there is no assurance that the practice will not be carried on in the future. We shall therefore specifically order the respondent to cease and desist from engaging in such activities.13 We have also found that the respondent refused to embody its understandings which it reached with the Uriion in a signed agree- ment and that this conduct constituted a refusal to bargain. We shall, therefore, order the respondent to bargain collectively with the Union upon request, and if understandings are reached, to embody such understandings in a signed agreement if such is requested by the Union. We have found that the respondent's transfer of Wentz during the last week of August 1937 from the "double backer" to the position of "catcher" constituted an unfair labor practice. In order to restore the status quo and remedy the effects of this unfair labor practice, we shall order the respondent to reinstate Wentz to his former posi- tion as an operator of the "double backer," or if such position is not available, to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges. We shall also order the respondent to make Wentz whole for any loss of pay he has ' Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. et al. V'. National Labor Relations Board, 305 U. S. 197. FORT WAYNE CORRUGATED PAPER COMPANY 13 suffered by reason of the respondent's unfair labor practice by pay- ment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as an operator of a "double backer" from the date of his transfer to the date on which the respondent offers him reinstatement, less his earnings as "catcher" during said period. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local No. 182, International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite, and Paper Mill_ Workers is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. All the employees of the respondent's Hartford City plant, ex- clusive of supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 3. Local No. 182, International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite, and Paper Mill Workers, was on September 21, 1935, and at all times thereafter has been the exclusive representative of all the employees of the respondent in such unit for the purposes of collective bargain- ing, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 4. By refusing on September 16, 1937, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with Local No. 182, International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite, and Paper. Mill Workers as the exclusive representa- tive of all its employees in such unit, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. 5. By interfering with; restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has. engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 7. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Eldo Rogers, within the meaning of Sec- tion 8 (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 14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respondent, Fort Wayne Corrugated Paper Co., and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local No. 182, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite, and Paper Mill Workers, as the exclusive representative of all its employees in its Hartford City plant, exclusive of supervisory employees; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights 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 or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; (c) Engaging in espionage or surveillance of its employees, or engaging the services of any agency or individual for the purpose of ascertaining and investigating the activities of its employees in connection with any labor organization. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Upon request bargain collectively with Local No. 182, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite, and Paper Mill Workers as the exclusive representative of all its employees in its Hartford City plant, exclusive of supervisory employees, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and, if any understanding is reached on such matters, embody said understanding, upon request, in a signed agreement; (b) Offer to Cyril K. Wentz immediate and full reinstatement to his former position as an operator of the "double backer," or if such position be not available then to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges; and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of his transfer to the position of "catcher" by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as an operator of the "double backer" from the date of his transfer to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his earn- ings as "catcher" during said period; (c) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its plant for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days, stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in para- graphs 1 (a), (b), and (c), and that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date.,of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. FORT WAYNE CORRUGATED PAPER COMPANY 15 AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act by discharging Eldo Rogers be, and they hereby are, dismissed. MR WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.