Federal Carton Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 8, 1938

5 N.L.R.B. 879 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter Of FEDERAL CARTON CORPORATION and NEW YORK
PRINTING PRESSMEN'S UNION No. 51
Case No. C-306.-Decided March 8, 1938
Paper Box Manufacturing Industry-Interference , Restraint , or Coercion:
antiunion statements ; threatening to close plant : requiring employees to
revoke bargaining designation of union as a condition of returning to work ;
requiring employees to sign "yellow dog" contracts as a condition of returning
to work ; discrimination in regard to terms or conditions of employment of
employee refusing to sign "yellow dog" contract ; refusal to bargain collec-
tively-Discrimination : "Yellow dog" contracts ; refusal to grant wage increase
to employee refusing to sign "yellow dog" contract-Unit Appropriate for
Collective Bargaining : production employees ; clerical and supervisory employees
excluded ; dissimilarity of interests-Representatives : proof of choice : applica-
tions for membership in union ; vote of employees-Collective Bargaining : refus-
ing to sign an agreement with the Union even if an understanding were
reached while insisting upon signed individual contracts with its employees
as a condition of reopening its plant ; duty of employer to embody understanding
with representatives of employees in binding agreement for definite term-
"Yellow Dog" Contract : discontinuance ordered.
Mr. Martin H. Selman, for the Board.
Kotzen, Mann d Seigel, by Mr. Philip L. Handsman, of New
York, N. Y., for the respondent.
Mr. Warren L. Sliarfman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 23, 1937, and August 10, 1937, New York Printing Press-
men's Union No. 51, herein called the Union, filed charges with the
Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City) alleging
that Federal Carton Corporation, New York City, herein called the
respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On August 10,
1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by the Regional Director for the Second Region, issued and served
upon the parties a complaint and notice of hearing. The complaint
879
880 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
alleged that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance that the respondent, on or after May 5, 1937, refused to
bargain collectively with the Union, which represented a majority
of the respondent's employees in an appropriate unit; that the respond-
ent warned its employees against becoming or remaining members
of the Union, threatened their discharge for the same cause, kept under
surveillance the meetings and meeting places of the Union, and resorted
to other tactics of interference, restraint, and coercion in an effort to
discourage union activities ; that on July 12, 1937, at the conclusion
of a strike caused by the foregoing acts of the respondent, it required
its employees to sign individual contracts of employment, and condi-
tioned a 15-per cent increase in wages upon compliance therewith; and
that the respondent, on July 14, 1937, refused to give to Arthur McGee
the 15-per cent wage increase given to all other employees because he
would not sign an individual contract of employment, thereby dis-
criminating in regard to the conditions of his employment.
On August 17, 1937, the respondent filed an answer, which, in effect,
constituted a general denial of the allegations of the complaint as to
the unfair labor practices. The answer also set up the affirmative
defenses that the respondent's business was not interstate in character
and that its operations did not obstruct or burden commerce; that the
Board's action in prosecuting the complaint did impede commerce ; and
that the complaint was improperly issued because of defects in the
charges filed by the Union.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held in New York City on
August 17, 18, 19, and 20, 1937, before William Seagle, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the commencement of
the hearing counsel for the respondent renewed the request he had
previously made to the Regional Director for the Second Region by
making a motion to adjourn the hearing until about September 20,
1937, because certain executive officers of the respondent were unavail-
able. The Trial Examiner denied the motion on the ground that
some of its executives were available who had knowledge of the nego-
tiations with the Union. The Board and the respondent were repre-
sented by counsel, and both participated in the hearing. Full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
On November 17, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, as al-
leged in the complaint, within the meaning of -Section 8 (1), (3),
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 881
and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended
that the respondent cease and desist from the commission of the unfair
labor practices, and, affirmatively, that it bargain collectively with
the Union; that it inform the members of the Collective Bargaining
Committee of the Federal Carton Corporation that it would no
longer recognize or deal with them, and that the individual contracts
of employment which they signed were void -and of no effect; and
that it inform all of its employees who signed such contracts that
the respondent would not demand their performance. The Trial
Examiner further found that the respondent had not interfered
with, restrained, or coerced its employees by warning them against
becoming or remaining members of the Union, by threatening them
with discharge for the same cause, or by spying upon their activities.
On December 6, 1937, the respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and to various rulings of the Trial Examiner.
Thereafter , on December 28, 1937, the respondent presented oral argu-
ments before the Board in support of its contentions . At the same
time it submitted a memorandum on its exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on
motions and on objections to the admission of evidence and finds
that no prejudicial errors were committed . The Board has also
considered the exceptions to the findings , conclusions , and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, but, save for those exceptions
which are consistent with the findings , conclusions , and order set
forth below, we find 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
Federal Carton Corporation , a New York corporation organized in
1934, is engaged in the manufacture of folding paper boxes at its
plant in New York City. It employs 50 men and women.
The principal raw materials used by the respondent in its manu-
facturing processes are paper board, ink , glue, wrapping paper, and
twine. During the year ending June 30, 1937, $147,000 worth of the
raw materials purchased by the respondent were shipped to it from
States other than New York. These purchases amounted to approxi-
mately 84 percent of the $173,000 worth of goods bought by the
respondent.
During the same period the respondent sold its finished products for
$339,000. Of this total, $224,000 worth, or approximately 66 per cent,
were sold to customers who required shipments to be made to points
outside of the State of New York.
882 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
New York Printing Pressmen's Union No. 51 is a labor organization
affiliated with the International Printing Pressmen's and Assistants'
Union of North America, which is in turn affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor. Although the Union has been in existence for
some 80 years, it has been organizing the folding-box industry only for
the past year and a half. It admits to membership all production
employees engaged in the industry in the New York metropolitan area.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The chronology of events
Late in April 1937, Andrew Lukan, an employee of the respondent
and a member of the Union, decided that the time was ripe for the
organization of the respondent's employees. He solicited the aid of
the Union in order to attain this objective. As a result of his efforts
the Union distributed a circular. at the respondent's plant on May 11,
1937, calling for a meeting of the employees on May 13. At this meet-
ing a unanimous vote of the 35 employees of the respondent who were
present authorized the Union to represent them for the purposes of
collective bargaining. A committee was also elected to cooperate with
Edwin L. Duck, a Union organizer, in bargaining with the respondent.
At this meeting, and shortly thereafter, about 40 of the respondent's
50 employees applied for membership in the Union.
On May 17, Duck arranged for a conference with the respondent's
executives on May 26. Prior to this conference, on May 24, the re-
spondent's employees had a meeting at which they voted, 32 to 18, in
favor of continuing to negotiate with the respondent through the
Union. On May 26, Duck, Stewart, another Union organizer, and the
committee of employees met with two of the respondent's executives
to negotiate with respect to wages, hours, and other, conditions of em-
ployment. Duck presented the demands of the employees, which were
a 15-per cent increase in wages, a 40-hour week, time and one-third
for overtime, a closed shop, and a signed agreement. At the conclusion
of the discussion the respondent asked Duck to submit a contract,
which it might consider. On May 28, Duck submitted a contract. It
contained a provision for a 20-per cent wage increase, contrary to the
original demand of 15 per cent, and provided for a closed shop, al-
though the respondent had clearly indicated at the meeting on May
26 that it would not accede to such a provision. The respondent's wit-
nesses testified that after the receipt of this agreement they no longer
trusted the Union, and from that time on, they decided that they
would not sign an agreement with the Union.
The respondent did not delay long in communicating its attitude
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 883
with regard to the Union to the employees. On June 4, it called the
employees together and read a statement to them. The statement was
also mailed to each employee and to Duck and Stewart. The follow-
ing language from the statement accurately expresses the respondent's
attitude throughout the remaining conferences with the Union and
employee representatives :
After your duly elected representatives and we have come to a
mutually satisfactory understanding, we would be glad to put the
agreement into writing. We have no objection to your duly
elected representatives advising you or negotiating for you. After
such negotiations are finished, our agreement must be with our
own employees, and not with the Union.... Experience teaches
us that contracts with unions are not guarantees of uninterrupted
work.... We cannot expect to get any work, which we are
sure we could otherwise get, unless we can positively assure our
customers that any boxes ordered from us will be delivered on
time. Under these conditions, it appears that in a very short
time there will not be any orders on hand to justify continued
operation of the plant. Accordingly, should we be made to close
down for lack of orders or should there be a prolonged interrup-
tion of work, it is almost certain that it will force the directors
of the company to go out of the business of manufacturing folding
boxes. Do not let anyone tell you that we are not serious or sin-
cere in making this statement. We definitely are.
Immediately after this statement was read Duck and the employee
representatives had a further conference with the respondent's offi-
cials. Duck's position at this meeting was that he did not insist
upon the demands made in the contract submitted on May 28. No
agreement was reached, however, because of the position taken by
the respondent in the statement issued earlier that day.
When the parties conferred again on June 11 the respondent refused
to recede from the position it had previously adopted. Duck, on
the other hand; offered several alternatives. He was willing to aban-
don the closed-shop demand, to allow the employees to countersign
any agreement between the respondent and the Union, or to leave
all of the questions to arbitration. As the respondent was adamant,
the employees took a vote and decided to go on strike. On June 11,
work ceased and on June 14, picketing started. The strike continued
until July 12.
After the Union filed charges on June 23, there were several con-
ferences between the parties at the regional offices of the Board in
New York City. The first of these conferences, on June 30, was
concluded before it was well under way because some of the respond-
ent's executives were not present. The second conference, on July 2,
884 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
broke down almost immediately when an attorney for the respondent,
at the start of the meeting, stated that irrespective of other matters,
the respondent would not sign any agreement with the Union. It
appears that later on in this conference one of the Board's examiners,
in answer to a question from one of the respondent's executives, Meyer
Stein, stated that a simple refusal to sign a contract with the Union
did not constitute a refusal to bargain collectively, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
By July 8, Andrew Lukan, the chairman of the committee of
employees, decided that he was through with the strike. After an-
other unsuccessful meeting between the parties on July 9, Lukan
wrote to all of the employees, and called a meeting for the purpose
of taking a vote on the question of whether or not they should return
to work. On July 12, the employees voted 23 to 13 to return
to work. A volunteer committee then went to the respondent to take
up the matter, manner, and conditions of returning to work. The
respondent refused to bargain with this committee until the em-
ployees authorized the committee, in writing, to bargain for them.
A paper authorizing the Collective Bargaining Committee of the
Federal Carton Corporation, herein called the Bargaining Com-
mittee, to bargain for them was then signed by 34 employees. On
the afternoon of July 12 the respondent and the Bargaining Com-
mittee started their negotiations. The Bargaining Committee first
attempted to get a verbal agreement with the respondent in order
that union members would not have to sign contracts. The respond-
ent took the position that in return for the 15-per cent wage increase
it was willing to give, it would require the men to sign individual
contracts of employment, and that it would not open its plant until
a majority had signed such contracts and the remainder gave verbal
assurance that they would cause no trouble. The discussions then
turned to the form of the contract to be adopted. The model was
an individual contract of employment used by the Grand City Con-
tainer Corporation, which was an associated company, managed, in
large measure, by the same executives, and located in the same build-
ing as the respondent. A number of changes were made in this con-
tract at the suggestion of the Bargaining Committee. When the
negotiations resumed again on the morning of July 13, the respond-
ent required the employees to sign a new authorization to the Bar-
gaining Committee, expressly revoking the prior authorizations to
the Union. Forty-two employees signed such a paper. The con-
tract was soon in a final form, and about 45 out of 4G employees
signed these individual contracts of employment, which were coun-
tersigned by the Bargaining Committee. In their final form, the
contracts granted a 15-per cent wage increase, a 40-hour week, and
certain premiums for overtime work. They also provided that any
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 885
employee had the right to join 'or not to join a union, but that the
employees did not have the right to demand a signed contract between
the respondent and any union.
Arthur McGee refused to sign such a contract because it might
jeopardize his standing with the Union. Because of his refusal, the
respondent withheld from McGee the 15-per cent increase granted
to all other eiiiployees. On August 13, however, the respondent gave
McGee a 15-per cent increase retroactive to July 14 when he returned
to work.
B. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate unit
The Union admits to membership all production employees work-
ing for the respondent without regard to the particular operation
which they perform. Similarly, the Bargaining Committee has
undertaken to represent all of the respondent's employees. The
respondent has never suggested that it should deal with its employees
on any other basis.
. In accordance with our usual practice, where no labor organization
desires to represent the clerical and supervisory employees, we shall
exclude them from the bargaining unit because of the dissimilarity
between their interests and those of the production employees.
We find that the production employees, exclusive of clerical and
supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining, and that such a unit insures to the employees
the full benefit of their right to collective bargaining and otherwise
effectuates the policies of the Act.
2. Representation by the Union of the majority in the appropriate
unit
At the hearing the respondent's pay roll for the week ending June
16 was introduced into evidence. This pay roll lists the names of
52 employees, 38 of whom worked during the week. However, this
was a short week due to the strike on June 11, and the testimony
of the various witnesses clearly indicates that the respondent nor-
mally employs about 50 persons.
At the Union meeting of May 13, 35 of the respondent's employees
voted to authorize the Union to represent them for the purpose of
collective bargaining with the respondent. Within the next few
days about 40 of the respondent's employees had signed applications
for membership in the Union. Forty-four of such applications were
introduced into evidence. Finally, at a meeting on May 24, the
respondent's employees voted, 32 to 18, to continue to negotiate
through the Union.
886 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It- is true that on July 13, 42 employees revoked their authoriza-
tion to the Union to represent them for the purposes of collective
bargaining with the respondent. However, we find that this revoca-
tion is of no effect because it resulted from the unfair labor practices
of the respondent, described below.
We find that on May 24, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the
Union was the duly designated representative of the majority of the
employees in an appropriate unit, and, pursuant to Section 9 (a)
of the Act, was the exclusive representative of all the employees in
such unit for, the 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 officials of the respondent have never refused to meet with the
Union and employee representatives. As was noted above, the par-
ties conferred on May 26, June 4, 11, and 30, and July 2 and 9.
However, on June 4, the respondent, in a written statement to its
employees, said, "We have no objection to your duly elected repre-
sentatives advising you or negotiating for you. But after such
negotiations are finished, our agreements must be with our own
employees." This decision was arrived at after the Union submitted
a contract on May 28 which differed in several respects from the
sense of the conference of May 26, and reflected a feeling of distrust
in the Union. However, the alteration of proposed terms by a union
during the course of incomplete negotiations, does not alone relieve
an employer from his duty to bargain collectively. Once the strike
was started it became evident that the respondent would not enter
into any agreement with the Union, because it took the position that
it would not reopen its plant until individual contracts had been
signed by a majority of its employees. Thus, by insisting on written
contracts, and by refusing at the same time to sign a contract with
the Union, it was effectively refusing to enter into any agreement
with the Union. As a result the negotiations at the conferences from
June 4 through July 9 were always halted on the question of a signed
agreement with the Union. Even the compromise proposals of the
Union were rejected without serious consideration or the presenta-
tion of counter offers. Furthermore, the arrangement of terms and
conditions of employment, other than the signed agreement, could
have been readily agreed upon, as is evidenced by the individual
contracts of employment which the respondent subsequently entered
into with its employees, and by Duck's willingness to abandon the
demand for a closed shop.
The respondent contends that it has never refused to bargain col-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 887
lectively with the Union because it has always met with the Union
representatives and been willing to discuss all matters relating to
the working conditions of its employees . However, the Act imposes
upon employers the duty not only to meet with the duly designated
representatives of their employees , and to bargain in good faith
with them in a genuine attempt to achieve an understanding on the
proposals and counter proposals advanced , but, also, if an under-
standing is reached, to embody that understanding in a binding
agreement for a definite term., The position adopted by the re-
spondent in its 'statement of June 4, and subsequently adhered to,
that it would not enter into an agreement with the Union even after
it had arrived at a "mutually satisfactory understanding " with the
Union representatives , constituted an evasion of the duties of an
employer under the collective bargaining provisions of the Act. By
taking this position the respondent prevented any bona fide con-
sideration of the various terms and conditions of employment which
the Union representatives proposed to it.
We find that on June 4, 1937 , and thereafter , the respondent re-
fused to bargain collectively with the duly designated representatives
of a majority of its employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment , and other - conditions of employment.
C. Discrimination by the respondent in order to discourage member-
ship in the Union
1. The individual contracts of employment
When it became evident that the strike would not succeed because
of the respondent's refusal to bargain collectively, Andrew Lukan
called the men together to vote whether or not they should return to
work. A majority voted to return to work, and designated the
Bargaining Committee to arrange the terms upon which they would
resume employment. The respondent rejected the Bargaining Com-
mittee's proposal for a verbal agreement as to these terms, and in-
sisted upon a majority of the employees signing individual con-
tracts of employment and the remainder giving verbal assurance
that they would cause no trouble . The respondent also required its
employees to revoke, in writing, their authorization to the Union to
represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining. After
negotiations , each of the employees , except Arthur McGee, signed
an individual contract of employment with the respondent which
was countersigned by the Bargaining Committee.
'Matter of St Joseph Stock Yards Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, Local Union No. 159, 2 N. L R. B 39.
30535-35-57
888 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The individual contract deprived each employee who signed it of
the right to strike until August 1, 1940, of the right to demand a
closed shop, and of the right to demand a signed agreement by the
employer with any union. While the contract states that the em-
ployer "agrees that no employee will be discharged because of legiti-
mate union activities or affiliation with any union," it also states that
"the employer has an absolute and unqualified right to hire or dis-
charge any employee or employees for any reason, and regardless
of his or their affiliation or non-affiliation with any union." Although
an employee may question the reasonableness of his discharge, the
decision of the employer is final and "the question of the propriety
of any employee's discharge is in no event to be one for arbitration
or mediation."
Despite the lip-service rendered by the terms of the contract to
the right of an employee to join any union of his own choosing,
the agreement deprives each employee subscriber of the funda-
mental rights inherent in union affiliation and activity. The dep-
rivation of the right to a signed agreement takes from the em-
ployees their right to bargain collectively as the respondent has
clearly indicated that it will only operate its plant if it has signed
agreements with its individual employees. Other provisions deprive
the employees of the right to protest against the respondent's exer-
cise of its most powerful antiunion weapon, discharge for union
affiliation or activity.
Meyer Stein, one of the respondent's executives, testified that the
model for this contract was obtained from L. L. Balleisen, an indus-
trial relations adviser for the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce. He
also testified that, as an attorney, he was familiar with the decisions
of the Board. In a case decided March 4, 1936,2 the Board found
that a contract emanating from Balleisen, to which the contract
under consideration is almost identical, was a "yellow dog" contract
discouraging to membership in a union. The present contract has
been altered to deprive the employees of "the right to demand a
closed shop or signed agreement by the employer with any union,"
whereas the contract previously condemned deprived the employees
of "the right to demand a closed shop or recognition by the em-
ployer of any union." In view of Meyer Stein's knowledge of the
Board's decisions, and the policy of the respondent not to operate
without signed agreements from a majority of its employees, it
seems evident that the respondent has altered the contracts in order
to evade the clearly established principle of the decision previously
2Matter of Atlas Bag and Burlap Company, Inc, and Milton Rosenberg, Organizer,
Burlap & Cotton Bag Workers Local Untion No. 2469, Affiliated With United Textile Work-
c) s Union, 1 N L R B 292
DECISION'S AND ORDERS 889
referred to, and yet at the same time to render the Union power-
less to carry on its vital functions.
We find that the contracts used by the respondent for individual
agreements with its employees are antiunion or "yellow dog" con-
tracts, discriminatory in regard to terms or conditions of employ-
ment, and discouraging to membership in the Union."
2. Discrimination against Arthur McGee
Of all the employees who returned to work on July 14, only Arthur
McGee refused to sign an individual contract of employment.
Because of this refusal the respondent did not give , him the 15-per
cent wage increase that it gave to the other employees . However,
on August 13, the respondent gave McGee a 15-per cent increase retro-
active to July 14 when he returned to work.
We find that the respondent has discriminated against Arthur Mc-
Gee in regard to the terms or conditions of his employment , thereby
discouraging membership in the Union.
D. Conclusion as to unfair labor practices
We find that the respondent, by calling together its employees on
June 4 and making the statement referred to above, by compelling
its employees to revoke their authorization to the Union and to
enter into the individual antiunion or "yellow clog" contracts referred
to above, by discriminating in regard to the terms or conditions of
employment of Arthur McGee, and by refusing to bargain collectively
with the duly authorized representatives of a majority of its em-
ployees, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
We find that the respondent has not interfered with, restrained,
or coerced its employees by spying upon their activities. We will
order that the complaint be dismissed in so far as it alleges that
the respondent has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, oc-
curring in connection with the operations of the respondent described
in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and have led and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
8 See Matter of Hop mood Retinnanp Company , Inc. and Monarch Retinning Company,
Inc and Metal Polishers, Bnfe3s, Platers and Jlelpeis Intonational Umon No 8,
and Teani.sters Union , Local No 53/, 4 N L It. B 922
890 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent has refused , since June 4, to
bargain collectively with the Union , in that, while requiring signed
contracts from its employees , it refused to sign an agreement with the
Union, and thus prevented any bona fide consideration of the terms
or conditions of employment proposed by the Union . In order to
effectuate the policies of the Act , we shall order the respondent, upon
request, to meet with the duly designated representatives of the Union,
to bargain in good faith with them in respect to rates of pay , wages,
hours of employment , and other conditions of employment , and, if
an understanding is reached on any of such matters, to embody said
understanding in an agreement for a definite term, to be agreed upon,
if requested to do so by the Union.
We have also found that the individual contracts of employment
signed by the employees and countersigned by the Bargaining Com-
mittee are antiunion or "yellow dog " contracts , discouraging to mem-
bership in the Union . In order to restore the status quo as it existed
prior to the execution of these illegal contracts , and to enable the proc-
esses of collective bargaining to function , we shall order the respond-
ent to inform , in writing , the members of the Bargaining Committee
and each employee who has signed such a contract that the contracts
were entered into pursuant to unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of the Act, and will be treated by the respondent as void and of
no effect; and that the respondent is therefore obliged to discontinue
such contract as a term or condition of employment , and that the
employees are released from its obligations and the respondent will no
longer demand its performance.
While we have found that the respondent discriminated against
Arthur McGee in the terms or conditions of his employment, it has
already remedied its discriminatory action, and, therefore, no affirma-
tive order need be made in this connection.
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. New York Printing Pressmen 's Union No . 51 is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The production employees, exclusive of clerical and supervisory
employees , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining , within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. New York Printing Pressmen's Union No. 51 was on May 24,
1937, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative
of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 891
4. The respondent, by refusing to bargain collectively with the
representatives of its employees on June 4, 1937, and thereafter, has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the.
meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
5. The respondent, by discriminating against Arthur McGee in
regard to the terms or conditions of his employment, thereby discour-
aging membership in the Union, has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
6. The respondent, by soliciting and entering into individual anti-
union contracts of employment with its employees, has discriminated
in regard to terms and conditions of employment to discourage mem-
bership in the Union, and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
7. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in 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.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and
(7) 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
respondent, Federal Carton Corporation, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with New York Printing
Pressmen's Union No. 51, as the exclusive representative of all its
production employees, except clerical and supervisory employees ;
(b) Discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment through in any manner offer-
ing, soliciting, entering into, continuing or enforcing or attempting
to enforce the individual antiunion contracts of employment with
its employees in order to discourage membership in New York
Printing Pressmen's Union No. 51 or any other labor organization;
(c) Discriminating against Arthur McGee, or any other em-
ployee, in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment in order to discourage membership in New
York Printing Pressmen's Union No. 51 or any other labor
organization ;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
892 NATIONAL LABOR RELA'I']ONS BOARD
through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in con-
certed activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with New York Printing
Pressmen's Union No. 51, as the exclusive representative of its em-
ployees, except clerical and supervisory employees, in respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of em-
ployment, and, if an understanding is reached on any of such mat-
ters, embody said understanding in an agreement for a definite term,
to be agreed upon, if requested to do so by said Union ;
(b) Personally inform in writing the members of the Bargaining
Committee of the Federal Carton Corporation and every employee
who has signed an individual contract of employment, that such con-
tract constitutes a violation of the National Labor Relations Act and
that the respondent is obliged therefore to discontinue such contract
as a term or condition of employment; and that the employees are
released from its obligations and the respondent will no longer de-
mand its performance ;
(c) Post immediately notices in conspicuous places in its plant
stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner afore-
said ; that the contracts referred to above between the respondent
and the Collective Bargaining Committee of the Federal Carton Cor-
poration and each of its employees individually is void and of no
effect; and that the respondent will bargain collectively with New
York Printing Pressmen's Union No. 51 as directed in paragraph
2 (a) of this order; and maintain said notices for a period of thirty
(30) consecutive days from the date of posting;
(d) 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 has taken to comply herewith.
And it is further ordered that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) of the Act, by spying upon the activities of its
employees.