Columbia Box Board Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1941

35 N.L.R.B. 1050 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of COLUMBIA Box BOARD MILLS, INC., AND F. S. GEORGE
& SON, INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 294
Case No. C-1791.Decided September 29, 1941
Jurisdiction : paper products manufacturing and motor transportation industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: statements in substance anti-union.
Discrimination: discharge ; charges of, dismissed as to seven employees.
Remedial Orders : employer ordered to cease and desist anti-union activities.
Mr. Millard L. Midonick, for the Board.
Mr. Harold V. A. Drum en, of Chatham, N. Y., for the respondent
Columbia.
Mr. John J. Scully, of Albany, N. Y., for the respondent George.
Mr. Harry Pozefsky, of Gloversville, N. Y., for the Union.
Mr. Frederic B. Parkes, 2nd, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges 1 duly filed by International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, Local 294,2 herein called the Union, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director
for the Second Region (New York City) issued its complaint, dated
October 11, 1940, against Columbia Box Board Mills, Inc., Chatham,
New York, and F. S. George and Son, Inc., Stottville, New York,
herein respectively called the respondent Columbia and the respond-
ent George, sometimes collectively called the respondents, alleging
that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair
1 The original charge was filed on April 25, 1940 ; amended charge on June 26, 1940 ;
and second amended charge on October 11, 1940.
s It was established in the record that at the time of the hearing the true name of
'the charging union was International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen
and Helpers of America, Local 294, but that the name of the International was ordered
changed to read as stated in the caption at a convention thereof, said change to be
effective December 1, 1940. The name of the charging union is set forth in all pleadings
as it appears in the caption.
35 N. L. R. B., No. 194.
1050
COLUMBIA BOX BOARD MILLS ET AL. 1051
labor practices affecting commerce, within the 'meaning of Section
8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the com-
plaint and notices of hearing were duly served upon the respondents
and upon the Union.
The complaint alleged, in substance, that (a) the respondent Colum-
bia has (1) urged its employees to refrain from adhering to, remain-
ing members of, or aiding the Union; (2) threatened its employees
with discharge or lock-out if they should adhere to the Union or insist
on representation for purposes of collective bargaining by the Union;
(3) discriminatorily discharged and refused to reinstate Henry
Warm, Fred Callender, Clifton Pitcher, Tyler Gleason, Frank
Wheeler, Harry Pulver, and Eugene Blanchard; (4) after ceasing
operation of trucks in which union employees were engaged by it
and dispensing with said employees' services, offered to resume opera-
tions with said employees if they would sever their affiliations with
the Union; (b) the respondent George has (1) as agent of the respond-
ent Columbia, engaged in the conduct and activities above alleged with
respect to the respondent Columbia; (2) refused to reinstate the
above-named employees because they joined and assisted the Union;
and (c) the respondents by the foregoing acts interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act. On October 22 and 23, 1940, respectively,
the respondents filed separate answers, each denying that it had
engaged in or was engaging in the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice duly served on the parties, a hearing was held on
October 23, 24, and 25, 1940, at Chatham, New York, and on October
26, 1940, at Hudson, New York, before Thomas H. Kennedy, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board,
the respondents, and the Union were represented by counsel and par-
ticipated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence hearing on
the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing
the respondents each made several motions to dismiss the complaint.
The Trial Examiner reserved rulings on the several motions. During
the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made various rulings
on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence.
After the hearing, the respondent George filed with the Trial Exam-
iner a written motion to dismiss the complaint. In his Intermediate
Report, the Trial Examiner recommended that the motion be denied.
On November 22, 1940, and February 14, 1941, respectively, the re-
spondent Columbia and the respondent George filed with the Board
1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
motions to dismiss the complaint. The motions are hereby denied
except as noted below. The Board has reviewed the Trial Exami-
ner's rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On January 22, 1941, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, in which
he found that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in
unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommended that the
respondents cease and desist from such unfair labor practices, and that
they take affirmative action remedial of the unfair labor practices.
On February 3 and 7, 1941, respectively, the respondent George
filed exceptions and amended exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
"On February 5, 1941, the respondent Columbia filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report. On February 14 and 28, 1941, respectively, the
respondent George and the respondent Columbia filed briefs. Pur-
suant to notice duly served on all parties, a hearing for the purpose of
oral argument was had before the Board at Washington, D.,C., on
August 5, 1941. The respondents and the Union were represented by
counsel and participated in the argument.
The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and the briefs submitted by the parties, and save as the exceptions are
consistent with the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order set
forth below, 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 RESPONDENTS
A. The respondent Colwnzbia
The respondent Columbia, a New York corporation with its prin-
cipal office and place of business at Chatham, New York, is engaged
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of paper, boxboard, and
related products at its two plants, located at Chatham and Mellenville,
New York. The respondent Columbia normally purchases for use at
its two plants materials amounting to approximately 21,279 tons an-
nually, approximately 31 per cent of which is shipped * to its plants
from points outside the State of New York. The respondent Columbia
normally sells paper boxboard and related products amounting to
approximately $767,399.94 in value annually, approximately, 85 per
cent of which are sold and shipped by it from its plants to points out-
side the State of New York.
COLUMBIA BOX BOARD MILLS ET AL. 1053
B. The respondent George
The respondent George, a New York corporation with its principal
office and place of business at Stottville, New York, is engaged in the
operation of automobile trucks and trailers in hauling and trans-
porting freight for hire between points in the States of Connecticut,
Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. From Janu-
ary 1, 1939, to September 1, 1940, the respondent George hauled and
transported for hire, approximately 48,256 tons of freight, approxi-
mately 80 per cent of which was transported from one State to or
through other States.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America, Local 294, is a labor organization affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership
truck drivers employed by the respondents.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The Union commenced its organization activities in February 1940,
although discussions in regard to joining the Union were held among
the drivers in December 1939 and January 1940. The seven em-
ployees named in the complaint designated the Union as their collective
bargaining representative on March 2, 1910.
Roger Knabbe, a mechanic employed by the respondent Columbia,
testified that in late December 1939, Stone, traffic manager for the
respondent Columbia, asked him if he had heard of the drivers' in-
tention to organize, requested him to report anything he might learn
concerning the union activities of the drivers, and stated that "before
Mr. Gray (the respondent Columbia's president) would have anything
to do with the union he would take the trucks and tie them up on the
hill, and leave them stay there."
Henry Warm, one of the respondent Columbia's drivers named in
the complaint, testified that in February 1940 Stone stated that "Mr.
Gray would sooner spend $10,000 to keep the union out of the plant
than he would to spend $2,000 in extra wages and that if the union
did come in we might as well head south." Fred Collander, another
of the respondent Columbia's drivers, corroborated Warm's testimony.
Frank Wheeler, one of the drivers named in the complaint, testified
that between February 24 and March 9, 1940, Stone discussed with him
the wage scale requested by the Union and stated that "the union will
never get in here because Mr. Gray will never pay it."
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-Knabbe testified also that on March 4, 1940, Stone informed him
that the drivers had had a meeting, which was attended by the seven
drivers named in the complaint, and again requested Knabbe to report
any information that he might obtain concerning the Union's activities.
On March 12, 1940, the respondent Columbia ceased its trucking
operations and discharged the drivers. According to Knabbe, Stone
told him on March 12, 1940, that, the trucks were being laid up because
of the union activity of the drivers.
Tyler Gleason, one of the drivers named in the complaint, testified
that on March 16, 1940, Stone asked him to assemble the drivers and
to visit Gray and assure Gray that they would forget the Union if the
men were put back to work.
Clifton Pitcher, one of the respondent Columbia's drivers named
in the complaint, testified that about 3 weeks after his discharge, in
reply to his request for reinstatement, Stone informed him that "it was
our own fault that we were out of work, for negotiating with the
union . . . if we had not tried to be union, we would still be working."
Knabbe further testified that in early April 1940, Gray, the re-
spondent Columbia's president, informed him that the trucking opera-
tions had been profitable and "that he thought the world of those
drivers . . . if they were to have come to him first, they would have
had everything ironed out and everybody would be working :. .
He said, 'If the mill wants to join the union let them go ahead and
join the Union . . . I will close the mill, I will close up both places
I have got enough money to eat steaks for the rest of my life."'
Stone and Gray denied -that,any of the above conversations occurred,
but the Trial Examiner, how had an opportunity to observe the de-
meanor of the witnesses, credited the testimony of the Board witnesses
and found that the statements attributed by them to Stone and Gray
were in fact made. Upon the entire record, we find that Stone and
Gray made statements which were in substance anti-union to Knabbe,
Warm, Collander, Wheeler, Gleason, and Pitcher, and that by such
statements the respondent Columbia interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
B. The discharges
Until about January 1, 1939, the respondent Columbia contracted
with the respondent George and other trucking companies for the
haulage of raw materials to its plants and finished products from its
plants to its customers. About January 1, 1939, the respondent Co-
lumbia purchased five trucks and trailers for the purpose of trans-
pbrting most of such raw materials and finished products. Shortly
COLUMBIA BOX BOARD MILLS ET AL. - 1055
thereafter, the respondent Columbia employed the seven persons
named in the complaint and Robert Betts to operate the trucks.
On March 12, 1940,3 the respondent Columbia ceased its trucking
operations and discharged its truck drivers. On April 19, 1940, the
respondent Columbia sold the trucks to the respondent George 4 The
complaint alleges that the employees were discriminatorily discharged
because of union membership and activity. The respondents contend
that the respondent Columbia's action was impelled by the complaints
of the respondent Columbia's customers, inefficiency of the drivers,
and declining profits'from the trucking operations.
As early as September 9, 1939,,the respondent Columbia received
complaints from its-customers because of the failure of the respondent
Columbia's truck drivers to deliver its products at the appointed time
and to pick up waste materials which the respondent Columbia pur-
chased from its customers and because of damage caused the cus-
tomers' plants by the inefficiency of the drivers. Howarth, sales
manager and secretary for respondent Columbia, testified that the
respondent Columbia lost several customers because of the inefficiency
of the respondent Columbia's drivers. Complaints were received
from September 1939 through March 1940. Stone attempted to
remedy the situation by talking with the drivers and warned them
that continued inefficiency would result in dismissal. Furthermore,
the record discloses that the drivers falsified charts attached to the
trucks to show the time spent in making trips, made unauthorized
stops, and failed properly to care for the tires. During the period
the respondent Columbia operated the trucks, a weekly statement of
profit and loss was computed on the trucking operations. The profit
8 Roger Knabbe testified that in the latter part of December 1939 he overheard a
conversation between Milford H. George, general manager for the respondent George, and
Stone in the latter 's office. According to Knabbe , George Informed Stone that the re-
spondent Columbia 's drivers planned to hold a meeting the following Sunday. Knabbe
further testified that he overheard a second conversation between George and Stone in the
latter's office on January 2, 1940, during which George Informed Stone that he had kept
watch at the planned meeting place of the drivers and that no one had appeared. Stone
denied that the conversations had occurred and George stated that he never had seen
Knabbe in Stone's office . The Trial Examiner credited Knabbe's testimony and we concur
therein.
4 The details of the transaction are as follows : On April 19 , 1940, the respondent
Columbia executed a bill of sale by which it sold the trucks to the respondent George
On the same day, the respondent Columbia executed an instrument purporting to be a
lease of the trucks to the respondent George, the sole purpose of which was to permit the
latter to use the license plates then on the trucks. On April 26, 1940 , the respondent
George executed a promissory note payable on demand to the State Bank of Albany in
the amount of $26,000, secured by a chattel mortgage on the five trucks and trailers,
and endorsed and guaranteed by the respondent Columbia. Thereafter, Gray, the presi-
dent of the respondent Columbia, personally guaranteed the note. On April 26, 1940, the
respondent George executed an assignment of 15 per cent of all moneys due or to become
due to it from the respondent Columbia in favor of the bank. On April 27, 1940, the Bank
sent,the respondent Columbia a cashier's check for $26,000
1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on such operations dropped from between 56 and 75 cents per ton to
between 2 and 3 cents per ton after the first 6 months. Gray testified
that by September or October 1939 he was dissatisfied with the truck-
ing operations because of excessive complaints from customers and
that during the week-end of March 8-12, 1940, he decided to end the
trucking operations in order to preserve his main business.
On March 19, 1940, the respondent Columbia refused the request
made by representatives of the Union that the discharged drivers be
immediately reinstated, on the ground that the respondent Columbia
was no longer operating trucks. Shortly thereafter, two other con-
ferences were held between the representatives of the Union, the
respondent Columbia, and the respondent George. The Union de-
manded that the respondent reinstate the drivers immediately. The
respondent Columbia maintained its original position that it had
ceased its trucking operations and could not reinstate the drivers.
The respondent George offered to place the drivers on its employment
list below the drivers then in its employ and to give the former driv-
ers of the respondent Columbia employment to the extent that the
demands of the respondent George's business permitted. The Union
refused the proposal. On April 22, 1940, and May 12, 1940, respec-
tively, Warm and Pitcher became drivers for the respondent George.
On June 29, 1940, and September 16, 1940, respectively, Pitcher and
Warm voluntarily left the employment of the respondent George.
While we entertain doubt concerning the respondents' bona fides
with respect to the transfer of the trucks, upon the entire record
we are not of the opinion that the respondent Columbia ceased
its trucking operations, or that the respondent George purchased
the trucks, for other than legitimate business reasons, or that the
respondent George was acting as agent or in the interest of the
respondent Columbia to deprive the respondent Columbia's employees
of rights guaranteed in the Act. We find that the respondents
have not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Henry Warm, Fred Callender, Clifton Pitcher, Tyler Glea-
son, Frank Wheeler, Harry Pulver, and Eugene Blanchard.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent Columbia set forth
in Section III A, above, occurring in connection with the operations
of the respondent Columbia described in Section I A, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relations to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes
-burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
COLUMBIA BOX BOARD MILLS ET AL.
V. THE REMEDY
1057
Having found that the respondent Columbia has engaged in un-
fair labor practices, we shall order that it cease and desist there-
from and take affirmative action to effectuate the purposes of the
Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONci usIONs OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs' Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America, Local 294, affiliated with the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor, is a labor organization, within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent Columbia has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (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.
4. The respondents have not discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of Henry Warm, Fred Callender, Clifton
Pitcher, Tyler Gleason, Frank Wheeler, Harry Pulver, and Eugene
Blanchard, within the meaning of Section 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 Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the respondent, Columbia Box Board Mills, Inc., Chatham, New York,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing 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) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout
its plant and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty
1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(60) consecutive days, stating that the respondent Columbia will
not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and
desist in Paragraph 1 of the Order ;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writ-
ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent Columbia has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, in so far as it
alleges that the respondent Columbia engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, and 'in so far
as it alleges that the respondent George engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act,
be, and it hereby is, dismissed. -