Fletcher Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 8, 1940

27 N.L.R.B. 1274 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of FLETCHER PAPER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF PAPER - MAKERS (A. F. of L.)
Case No. C-1550.Decided November 8, 1940
Jurisdiction : paper manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements; threatened shut-
down ; assistance in preparing withdrawal petitions.
Discrivmi,nation: discharges for union membership and activity; charges of,. as
to three employees, dismissed.
Remedial Orders : reinstatement and back pay awarded to employees discrimi-
natorily discharged.
Mr. Earl R. Cross, for the Board.
Mr. Carl R. Henry, of Alpena, Mich., for the respondent.
Mr. Archie Hook, of Monroe, Mich., for the Union.
Mrs. Augusta Spaulding, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges filed by International Brother-
hood of Paper Makers, herein called the Union, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by 'the Regional Director
for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan), issued its complaint,
dated January 12, 1940, and its amended complaint, dated January
23, 1940, against Fletcher Paper Company, Alpena, Michigan, herein
called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the
Act. Copies of the complaint and the amended complaint were duly
served upon the parties.
In respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint, as amended,
alleged in substance that the respondent had engaged in interference
with, and restraint and coercion - of, its employees at its Alpena,
Michigan, plant, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
27 N. L. R. B., No. 208.
1274 ,
FLETCHER PAPER COMPANY 1275
7 of the Act by (1) initiating, fostering, and supporting a campaign
among its employees against their organizing'for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining and against their affiliation with the Union; (2)
engendering fear of loss of employment for membership in the Union
and union activity; (3) making repeated verbal expressions to vari-
ous employees of respondent's hostility to labor organizations; (4)
expressing threats of lay-off and discharge of its employees and the
closing down of'its sulphite plant at Alpena, Michigan, if its em-
ployees insisted upon belonging to the Union; (5) soliciting indi-
vidual members of the Union to withdraw ' from such membership,
with the promise that those who withdrew would be retained as
employees; and (6) laying off and demoting members of the Union.
The complaint, as amended, also alleged that the respondent, in vio-
lation of Section 8 (3), discharged or laid off the hereinafter-named
employees on or about the dates indicated and thereafter refused to
employ or reinstate them, because they joined and assisted the Union:
Oliver K. Hemmingson, April 20, 1939; Floyd Splitt, April 20, 1939;
Arthur LaLonde, April 24, 1939; William F. Silver, June 10, 1939;
Alvin J. Januchowski, June 22, 1939; Casimer Splitt, August 19,
1939; George Villeneuve, August 30, 1939.
The respondent filed its answer on January 23, 1939, and its
amended answer on January 29, 1940, admitting its corporate exist-
ence, the interstate character of its business, and the lay-off and
discharge of the employees named, but denying all allegations of
unfair labor practices.,
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Alpena, Michigan, on
January 26, 27, 29, 30, and 31, 1940, before Peter F. Ward, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the re-
spondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing- upon the issues was,afforded all
parties. At the conclusion of the Board's case, counsel for the Board
moved to amend the complaint and amended complaint to conform
with the proof. The Trial Examiner granted this motion. At the
close of the Board's case the respondent moved to dismiss the com-
plaint, as amended, on the, ground that no unfair labor practice on
the part of the respondent had been shown. The Trial Examiner
denied this motion. During the course of the hearing, the Trial
Examiner made rulings on other motions and on objections to the
admission of evidence. During the hearing counsel for the respond-
' Counsel for the Board personally served the amended complaint , the second amended
charge and notice of hearing on the respondent on January 24, 1940. The proceedings were
conducted on issues joined by the complaint and answer until January 29 , 1940 : There-
after , by stipulation of the parties , the proceedings were conducted upon issues joined by
the amended complaint and the amended answer.
1276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD-
ent objected to the admission of certain testimony concerning state-
ments alleged to have been made by Humphrey Reicks and Mrs. Albert
Mausolf . Rulings were reserved on these motions. In his Interme-
diate Report the Trial Examiner denied these motions. The Board
has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner, and finds.that no
prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On April 11, 1940, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re-
port, copies of which were duly served on all the parties, in which
he found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting, commerce, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, but
that it had not engaged in unfair labor practices in discharging
Oliver K. Hemmingson, Floyd Splitt, Arthur LaLonde, Alvin J.
Januchowski, Casimer Splitt, and George \Tilleneuve. The Trial
Examiner recommended that the respondent-cease and desist from
its unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Exceptions to the Intermediate Report were subsequently filed
by the respondent and the Union. ' The respondent filed a brief in
support of its exceptions and requested oral argument. Pursuant
to notice duly served upon all parties a hearing was held before the
Board in Washington, D. C:, on June 4, 1940, for the purpose of oral
argument. The respondent and the Union were represented and
participated in the argument.
The Board has considered the exceptions and brief and, except
in so far as the exceptions are consistent with the findings, conclu-
sions, and order set forth below, finds no merit in them.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board snakes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Fletcher Paper Company, a Michigan corporation, has its office
and place of business at Alpena, Michigan, where it is engaged in
the production, sale, and distribution of paper. The plant consists
of 30 or 40 buildings divided into two main groups, constituting the
pulp or sulphite mill and the paper mill. During 1939, 23,570 tons of
raw materials, having a value of $205,876, chiefly pulpwood, fiber,
clay, alum, rosin, and sulphur, were purchased outside Michigan by
the respondent for its Alpena plant.- During the same period 9,280
tons of finished paper products, having a value of $783,958, were sold
outside that State. The respondent admits that it is engaged in
interstate commerce.
F'LETCHER PAPER COMPANY 1277
H. THE ORGANIZATION IN\OLVED _
International Brotherhood of Paper Makers is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. Alpena Local 393,
a labor organization chartered by the Union on April 20, 1939, ad-
mits to membership production and maintenance employees of the
respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
From 1898 to the beginning of 1940, the respondent , operated its
sulphite and paper mills. In Iiecember 1938 its directors decided
to close the sulphite mill and buy manufactured pulp for paper
making. At that time the respondent had a supply of pulp-making
material on hand and under contract which, it was estimated, would
keep the sulphite mill in operation until March 1940 . In,April 1939
rumors of the contemplated closing were current ' in the plant and it
appears that employees began to discuss the formation of a labor
organization . The record discloses that the respondent interfered
with, ' restrained, and coerced - its employees in respect to self-
organization.
Thus, , on April 1 , Ralph Henning, chief engineer, approached
William Daoust, head fireman, and Ed Gannon , fireman, and asked
what union had started at the plant. Upon receiving no reply,-be-
repeated the question and substantially the following conversation
ensued:
I [Daoust] says, "A. F. of L."
So, he [Henning] didn 't say no more. He just stayed a few
minutes, and then he talked to Ed, my partner , Ed Gannon. He
says to him , again, "What union is it?"
Well, Ed couldn 't answer for a minute, and he' said, "A. F.
of L."
And he says, "What union is it?"
And he says, "A. F. of L."
Well, he says , "Who is the head of this union?"
Well , Ed says, "I don't know ; somebody on the outside, I
guess." -
He says, "Oh , horse shit. " And he says , "What union is it?"
He says, "A. F. of L." He [Henning] just kind of was
worried.
And he stood for a minute and he looked around and he says
[to Gannon ], "What was you doing in the yard," he says, "at
noon hour today or yesterday?" ,
1278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ed says, "Well; I heard I was going to be put in the yard and I
wanted to find out.'.'
Well, he says, "You don't have to go through that trouble."
He says, "You are going in the yard all right, and see what your
union will do for you there."
On April 3, 1939, Gannon was transferred to the yard 'and quit the
respondent's employ for that reason. A yard employee who had for-
merly substituted in the firehole was put in Gannon's place. On April
10, 1939, Henning came to the firehole, and told Daoust that he was
going to put in another man as head fireman for a week, during which
time Daoust could serve as second fireman. On or about May 10, 1939,
Daoust asked to be reinstated as head fireman. He was not reinstated.
He was told there were- no complaints about his work. On June 7,
1939, he again asked Henning for reinstatement, and substantially the
following conversation took place :
[Henning said:] "Ain't you satisfied where you are?" Then he
says, "Is it too hard for you?" and I [Daoust] said, "No, but at
the time, Mr. Henning,"' I said, "I was head fireman." "Oh, yes,"
he says, '"You were head fireman. You were doing other things
too," and he says, "Oh, yes you was." I says, "No, I wasn't."
"Well," he says, "I will tell you," he says, "We will let this ride
until we see how this comes out."
Henning though questioned by Daoust, -refused to explain what he
meant. Henning was not called as a witness: We find that, Henning.
in speaking of "other things" which Daoust was doing referred to
union activity. '
Arthur LaLonde, an employee in the sulphite mill, testified that
sometime in April 1939, before he became a union member, he ap-
proached Michael Fleming,- assistant superintendent, and told him
that he had heard rumors that all those that did not join the Union
would be "out of luck for a job." According to him, Fleming laughed
and said, "You are going to find it just the other way around."
According to Fleming's version of the incident,
Mr. LaLonde came over to me and asked for some advice and I
said, "If I can give it to you, Art, I will be glad to. What is it?"
He says : "There has been considerable pressure put to bear on me
to join this union. What should I do?" I says, "I can't tell you.
I have had my instructions that in noway, shape or form are we
to mention this to any employee and I can't tell you any thing
about it. You will have to use your own judgment."
Fleming further testified that he discussed the union with no other
men and that no other men approached him. Upon the entire record,
FLETCHER PAPER COMPANY 1279
we find that Fleming made,the remark substantially as LaLonde
testified.
On April 11, 1939, Archie Hook, general organizer for the Union,
airived,in Alpena. He held a meeting for the respondents employees
on April 13, 1939, a second meeting on April 16, 1939, and a third
meeting on April 20, 1939. The meetings were well attended. A
number of employees signed application cards, and some paid initia-
tion fees. At the April 20 meeting a charter for Alepna Local 393,
herein called the Local, was granted by the Union. Officers were
elected as follows: William F. Silver, president; George D'Aigle, vice
president; Albert Le Marr, treasurer; Arthur LaLonde, financial sec- -
retary; Benny Peplinski, recording secretary; Phil Le Marr, inside
guard; Dean Girard, deputy guard.
On or about April 21, 1939, in response to a request from Harry
Fletcher, vice president and general manager of the respondent, a
union committee met with the respondent. A general discussion'of
the paper industry, lasting three hours, took place, during which time
the contemplated closing of the sulphite mill was mentioned. The
Union made no demands on the respondent at this meeting.
Fletcher 2 testified that after this meeting he instructed his super-
visors to say nothing to the men for or against the Union. When asked
on the witness stand if he had ever reprimanded a supervisor for
"getting mixed up in this Union business," he replied, "I did not.
There is free speech in America, and I wasn't nursemaid to them all
the time.?' It does not appear that the respondent notified the em-
ployees that any such 'instructions had been given, and the record
does show that neither Fletcher nor his supervisors abided by the
alleged instructions.
- In June 1939 Al Mausolf, night superintendent, came down to the
firehole and discussed unions with Daoust. Mausolf, speaking of a
Detroit union, told Daoust that his brother had joined it, and that he
was now a poor man. Mausolf was not called as a' witness. On Oc-
tober 2, 1939, Daoust was transferred to the yard where the work was
less desirable and the pay per hour was two cents lower. The respond-
ent offered no explanation for the transfer.
On June 9, 1939, John Koteras, an employee,- asked Gabe Prevost,
plant superintendent, to return him to a position which he formerly
held. Prevost responded by saying, "Yes, I would like to see you get
your old job back, but ever since this Union proposition started here,
you are no God damn good any more." Prevost, though he testified;
did not deny making this statement or attempt to establish that
Koteras' efficiency had deteriorated since the advent of the Union. We
2 Fletcher, as used hereinafter, refers to Harry Fletcher, unless otherwise specified.
I
1280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
find that Prevost's statement to Koteras was intended'to discourage
union membership and activity.
On June 13, 1939, Hook and a union committee composed of Silver,
McConnell, William Doe, Albert LaLonde, and Sigmund Jezisolkow-
ski conferred with Fletcher and the respondent's attorney, Carl R.
Henry. Prevost later joined them. The purpose of the meeting was
to protest the discharges of three union men-Silver, Floyd Splitt,
and Oliver K. Hemmingson.3 Hook began the interview in answer to
Fletcher's "What can I do for you," by stating that he thought after
the interview of April 21, that the relationship between the management
and the Union was going to be very pleasant, but that upon his return
to-Alpena he learned that the management had coerced and intimidated
its employees and had discharged Silver, Hemmingson, and Splitt
because of their union activities. Hook stated that he understood
that the respondent was laying men off as a matter of economy and that
the Union would help the respondent in its economy if it would rein-
state Silver at the reduced rate paid to the man who replaced him.
Fletcher became angry and stated in substance that "no man ever came
into my office,. . . and made any accusation like that and got away
with them;" that he
would hire and fire who he saw fit . . . or . . . shut the damn
thing down. The men had followed him until Hook came into
Alpena; then these men turned about and followed Hook and
until the men left Hook and followed Fletcher, he wouldn't do
anything.
Hook stated that he then had no other recourse than to go to the Labor
Board. Fletcher told him to go to the Labor Board. At this point
Hook said, "Well, we are just wasting time arguing here. Let us go,
boys." As the union committee started to leave the room, Fletcher,
according to Hook, said, "Wait a minute. Any of you men who want
your time can go to the office and get it now." Fletcher claims he
"told them they could turn to the right and get their checks or they,
could turn to the left and go back to work and there was no hard feel-
ings with me, whatever their position was." How long the meeting
'lasted does not appear. At its close Fletcher stated that any further
conferences desired by the Union with the respondent could be with
it through its attorney.
Two days later on June 15, 1939, Edward Behrendt, one of the re-
spondent's employees, called at the office of Attorney Henry and made
an appointment for the .following day for a group of employees to see
him regarding withdrawal from the Union. On the day following,
Behrendt, John Stafford, Clyde Connors, and Charles Fredericks called
9 These discharges are discussed below.
FLETCHER PAPER COMPANY 1281
at Henry's office. Behrendt, as spokesman for the group, said that
although he had not joined the Union himself other men had and they
wanted to know how they could withdraw from the Union. Henry
told the men that as attorney for the respondent, he could not give
them any advice or represent them in any way. He told them also that
they had as much right to withdraw as to join the Union, although their
employer could not influence them to join or withdraw. In response
to a question as to the language necessary for legal withdrawal, Henry
told them that the wording was not material and that any writing in-
dicating a desire to withdraw would be sufficient. In response to a re-
,quest for a suitable wording, Henry typed 6 to 12 copies of a petition
to withdraw and handed them to Stafford, advising him at the same
time to use his own handwriting in making the petitions. Stafford
followed this suggestion, and thereafter circulated the petitions about
the plant.' Henry, in his cross-examination of Clyde Connors, an
eniployee'present at this conference, suggested his ignorance of the
purpose of the meeting when the appointment for it was made. In the
first paragraph of a letter written to Fletcher on the day of the meet-
ing, Henry disclosed that the purpose of the meeting was known to
hilt at the time when the appointment was made the day before.
Fletcher had a conference with his attorney following this letter. In
response to Henry's information that "the boys had ,asked him about
getting out some sort of a petition," Fletcher said they were "damn
fools," but made no move to disassociate the respondent from the
petitions. -
In July 1939 Prevost came into the shop at a time when Casimer
Splitt's machine had broken down and the crew was waiting for the
arrival of a mechanic to repair it. Prevost said, "I don't know what
the hell is the matter here .. . Ever since this union started, we can't
get nothing done here .. '. It seems everybody has got a big head ...
Splitt, do you know anything of a big head?" Splitt, who was active
in the Union, answered, "No,", to which Prevost replied, "You ought
to ; you have been loud and active enough."
Prevost testified in general terms with respect to remarks made by
him to the respondent's employees as follows:
I thought I had a pretty nice organization, you know ; that is,
they would cooperate and tend to business, and we had some dis-
4 Stafford ' had been in the respondent 's employ for 25 years at the time of the hearing
Ile was the oldest and most experienced man on the repair crew , working under Fleming
and sometimes left in charge in Fleming 's absence Because he was a lead burner, the
only one in the plant, he received five cents per hour more than other members of the repair
crew for the more hazardous work. He punched the clock. He had no authority to hire
or fire. Different witnesses characterized Stafford variously as an "ordinary employee"
under Fleming, but in charge when Fleming was not there ; as a foreman ; as "boss of the
sulphite plant" or "he -considered himself a foreman " ; as a "straw boss of some kind"
'who "worked with the repair crew."
32342S-42'-von 27-82
1282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ruption in our work where the boys would get together and they
would be grouped together and talking about things and leaving
their work, and of course, that is the only part of it that I didn't
like. Sometimes I bawled them out for it-for leaving their
work and not tending to business.
The Trial Examiner found that Prevost's statement was directed
at Splitt's union activities and was intended to discourage them.
Upon the entire record, including the fact that Prevost singled Splitt
out for rebuke although it does not appear that he was to blame for
the break-down or the ensuing delay, we find that the statements of
Prevost set forth above were intended and calculated- to disparage
the Union and to discourage union activity.
On August '31, 1939, when an investigation, to determine finally
whether or not George Villeneuve should be discharged, was still
pending, Fletcher commented to him in the course of a discussion of'
the labor situation existing in the plant as follows:
They used to be my boys. Now they can't be my boys because
when old man Hook came into town they all-followed him.
Further coercive statements and other coercive acts of the respond-
ent are noted below.
We find that the respondent through the above-mentioned state-
ments and other conduct of Henning on April 1 and June 7, 1939; of
Fleming in April 1939; of Mausolf in June 1939; of Prevost on June
9 and in July 1939; of Harry Fletcher on June 13 and August 31,
1939; and of Henry on June 15 and 16, 1939, in connection with the
transfer of Gannon and Dauost,, and in connection with the other
circumstances hereinabove and hereinbelow mentioned, has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced 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, or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
B. Discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment
1. The lay-offs of April 1939
In October 1938, when the normal workweek for its employees
became 94 hours under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the respondent
hired 25 to 30 additional persons in order to continue to operate its
mills 48 hours per week. In April 1939 work became slack,- and the
respondent decided to run its plant on a 44-hour week basis. The'
respondent laid off 25 to 30 employees, many but not all of whom had
-FLETCHER PAPER COMPANY 1283,
been employed in or after October 1938. These lay-offs began on
April 20, 1939.
. The complaint alleges that the respondent discriminatorily laid off
three persons in April 1939. The Trial Examiner recommended that
this part of the complaint be dismissed and the Union takes exception.
. Oliver K. Hermaingson was hired by the respondent April 25, 1938,
and laid off April 20, 1939. Hemmingson operated, during his entire
employment, the only save-all machine in the paper mill, although
there were similar machines in the sulphite mill. The machine
operated only on the day shift and its operation was necessary to the
paper mill. There were no complaints about Hemmingson's work.
Hemmingson attended one or two union meetings before he joined the.
Union on, April 13 or 20, 1939. •
Hemmingson testified that four or five days before he was laid off,
Prevost approached him during the noon hour and stated that he
-understood Hemmingson was "connected with this union mess" and
that "It is all right with me if you want to join a union and get
yourself fired, but don't try to drag these other fellows in with you."
The respondent in its brief objected to a finding by the Trial Exam-
iner that Prevost-did not deny this statement. He clearly did not
deny it expressly. On the subject, generally, Prevost limited his tes-
timony to vague statements that "he bawled the,men out" for leaving
their work and not "tending to business" and that Fletcher had in-
structed all his supervisors not to advise the respondent's employees
in any way concerning union affiliation. We do not find in the testi-
mony of Prevost a denial of Hemmingson's testimony. Hemmingson
was not at work when Prevost made the alleged statement to him.'
We find that Prevost made the statement substantially as Hemming-
son testified.
On the evening of -April 20, 1939, Prevost went to Hemmingson's
home and told him that he was no longer needed at the plant. Ac-
cording to Hemmingson. Prevost was "not his boss." For this reason
he asked Prevost no questions but went directly to the home of his
immediate supervisor, Henning. Henning stated that when he de-
cided to fire Hemmingson he would do so himself. Henning also told
Hemmingson to report to him the next morning. At his office next
morning, Henning told Hemmingson that he could do nothing for him
because 'the order for his lay-off had come from Fletcher himself.
Henning did not testify. -
In reply to the question as to who selected the employees to be laid.
off, Fletcher testified : "Those supervisory superintendents, such as
Mr. Prevost, Mr. Henning and so forth, that those men came under."
Prevost testified as follows :
1284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Well, sometimes, when Mr. Henning hires a man and I use him
afterwards in my department-or sometimes I hire men and Mr.
Henning uses them in his department, but wherever they happen
to be, if they would be dismissed at any time, by whatever depart-
ment they would be in, the superintendent for that department
would have supervision over him and have the right to discharge
him if he wanted to.
Although,Prevost was plant superintendent with particular attention'
to the paper mill, Hemmingson worked under the immediate super-
vision of Henning who, in turn, worked, under the general super-
vision of Fletcher . From the testimony of Fletcher , Prevost, and
Hemmingson , it is clear that Henning would normally have selected
the persons under him to be laid off or at least been consulted in this
connection . Yet from Henning's statement to Hemmingson, it is
clear that he was not consulted prior to Hemmingson 's release. In-
deed, although Fletcher disclaims having picked the persons to be
laid off, Henning attributed Hemmingson 's 'selection to him , and the
respondent did not call Henning as a witness to explain this state-
ment. Moreover , it will be recalled that Prevost, who notified Hem-
mingson of his lay-off , had, a few days prior thereto , in substance
threatened him with discharge because he had joined the Union.
The respondent contends that Hemmingson wzs selected for lay-off'
so that a former operator of the save -all machii e , one McLeod, could
be returned to it when he should be laid-off from the pipe-fitters'
crew. The respondent alleged that, as McLeod was continued "from
'day to day " on the pipe -fitters' crew , Joe Sydlowski , an old employee,
who had requested day's work , was put on the save -all machine.
Sydlowski took over the save-all machine, however, on the very day
following the evening that Prevost went personally to Hemmingson's
home to release him . Hemmingson was not kept at work pending
any such anticipated return. McLeod has not been reinstated to the
save-all machine.
In view of Hemmingson 's identification with the Union, the re-
spondent 's hostility to and interference , with it, Prevost's threat to
discharge him for having joined the Union, the lay-off by Prevost
within a few days thereafter , the above -described circumstances imme-
diately surrounding the lay-off , and upon the entire record, we find
that the respondent laid off Oliver K. Hemmingson on April 20, 1939,
and thereafter refused to reinstate him because of his union mem-
bership, and activity , thereby discouraging membership in a labor
organization and by the threat and lay-off interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
FLETCHER PAPER COMPANY 1285
Hemmingson was receiving 45 cents per hour at the time of his
discharge. From the date of.his discharge to the date of the hearing
lie earned about $100 for odd jobs. At the time of the hearing he
had not received regular employment.
Floyd Splitt was hired May 20, 1938, and laid off April 20, 1939.
He had been employed as a helper on a ream-cutting machine and
as a,.handy,man. He signed an application dated April 13, 1939, but
actually -joined the Union on April 20, 1939, a few hours following
his discharge. When Prevost laid him off, he told Splitt that he
had to lay him off because he was cutting down on, help and Splitt
"was the youngest man there."
About 2 weeks later Splitt returned to the plant and asked for
work. In answer to his inquiry Prevost said, "Nothing doing; no
orders." Prevost also stated : "I am getting sick of that crying and
sobbing. You come around here and beg for work, and when you
get it, you don't know enough to appreciate it. God damn you, if
you were a working man, you would be working today." To his ques-
tion, "What do you mean?" Prevost then replied, "God damn you, you
know what I mean." Prevost testified without contradiction that the
day of Splitt's lay-off, alterations were in process and the finishing
room was not under production; that Splitt was sent for water to
wash up the floor; and that after some delay Prevost went in search
of Splitt and found him smoking in the rest room. Prevost testified
further that Splitt's inattention to work on the last day of his em-
ployment provoked the remark quoted above; and that this inatten-
tion contributed to his selection of Splitt for lay-off.
We find that the record does not support the allegations of the
complaint that the respondent discriminated in regard to Splitt's
hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in
the Union.
4rthwr LaLonde ° was hired October 10, 1938, and laid off April
24, 1939. During his employment he worked on a spudding machine
in the sulphite mill. On April '20,1939, he joined the Union and was
elected financial secretary of the Local. He was a member of the
union committee that conferred with the respondent's officers and
supervisors on April 21. The-other committeemen were still employed
by the respondent at the time of the hearing.
On the morning of April 24 Stafford, whom LaLonde described
as his foreman, came to his home and told him that there was bad
news for him-that he was not to go to work as usual at 2 o'clock
5 Although the Union filed its first charge in this proceeding on June ' 21, 1939, and an
amended charge on November 13, 1939, it mentioned LaLonde's name for the first time in
its second amended charge filed on January 23, 1940
1286 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that afternoon. Stafford told him that the reason for his lay-off
was lack of work. ,
t Pursuant to reducing the number of shifts and running the plant
on a 44-hour week in 'April 1939, the respondent laid off 12 men,
including LaLonde, from the sulphite mill. Seven of them were
hired in October 1938, three before and two after that time. None
of the 12 employees was replaced. LaLonde testified that he knew
of no difference between the respondent's treatment of other men
laid off and of himself.
Although we entertain certain doubts, we are not convinced, and
we therefore find that the record does not support the' allegations
of the complaint, that the respondent discriminated in regard to
LaLonde's hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging
membership in the Union.
2. The release of William F. Silver, June 10, 1939
The complaint alleges that the respondent discharged William F-.
Silver for union membership and activity; thereby discouraging
membership in the Union. The Trial Examiner sustained these alle-
gations and the respondent takes exception.
Silver,' an electrician, was hired by the respondent in December
1919. He was "laid off" or "discharged" on June 10, 1939. His
work card shows the entry "job discontinued." During the 12 or-15
years prior to his dismissal he served as chief electrician and work-
ing foreman of the electrical crew. He attended one meeting of
the Union before April 20, 1939. On April 20 he joined and was
elected president of the Local.
About the middle, of April Fleming approached Silver while he
was alone at work and asked him how many members had attended
the union meeting held the night before. Silver replied, "About
80." Fleming thereupon commented that it was "a heck of a time
to start a union." On a later day, 'after he had become president,
Prevost stopped him in. the engine room and stated : "I would like
to know something about this union . . . I would like to know
something about it-what kind, or what is the name of it, or what
it is." Prevost testified that from time to time the respondent's
employees asked him, questions about the Union and his advice,
whether or not to join; and that in pursuit of information for them
he was referred to Silver. ,,
Silver was a member of a hunt club to which Tom Fletcher, assist-
ant manager, also belonged. - On or about May 3, -1939, he asked
'Silver to attend a get-together 'meeting of the hunt club to be held
that evening. Silver said that he had another important meeting
and might not be able to get to the club meeting. On May 26, 1939,
FLETCHER PAPER COMPANY 1287
Fleming. told Silver to report to Tom Fletcher's office. Silver ob-
served that he was ill at ease. He said, "You know we had our hunt
club meeting, and you know what I mean, that we talked it over and
agreed, to avoid embarrassment, and that an argument might come
up sometime, that we would pay back your money that you have in
the club." Tom Fletcher said that the club would pay, him $100.
Silver said, "I don't want the $100; I just want the $60 share that
I put in." Silver added that he was sorry that "they" felt that way
about it, and wished "they" would think it over. Tom Fletcher
said, "No, I would rather you take it now." The conversation con-
tinued as follows :
A. So I [Silver] said, "I have been in your employ of.20 years,"
and I stated why and how that Mr. Fleming had antagonized me
and rode me for the past few weeks so hard. And he [Tom
Fletcher] said he thought perhaps he was all heated up over this
affair.
Q. What affair was he talking about?
A. This affair I would take would be my affiliations with the
Union . . . And he stated that "There is going to be some radi-
cal changes made here," and he said, "You are in a tough spot."
He said, "You may be the goat."
Tom Fletcher did not deny or explain this conversation. Upon the
entire record we find that Tom Fletcher participated in the expul-
sion of Silver from the hunt club and intimated that in the "radical
changes" forthcoming at the plant he might be "the goat," because
of his affiliation with the Union.
On June 10, 1939, Fletcher released Silver and Ralph Collins,
another electrician. He informed them that their, lay-off was due to
the reduction in the electrical crew, that it was not for union activity,
that he would give them each 2 weeks' pay in lieu of further notice,
and that he would supply them with recommendations to other
employers.
On June 13, 1939, a union committee including Silver met with
and asked the respondent to reinstate Silver at the reduced rate paid
to the electricians who had been retained. The respondent did not
act upon this suggestion. We have noted above the statements which
the respondent made at this conference.
The electrical crew comprised 4 men-Silver and Collins, who were
laid off, and Gene Girard and Stanley Fanslow, who were retained.
Girard and Silver were, respectively, deputy guard and president
of the Local. The record does- not disclose any union affiliation of
the other two men.
Upon this record, we assume that the respondent for lawful busi-
ness reasons reduced this crew by two. The issue presented is whether
1288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent 'selected Silver because of union membership or
activity.
It appears that Fletcher selected Silver, and Collins as Ithe per-
sons to be laid off from the electrical crew, and it does not appear
that he consulted with Henning, in immediate charge of the electrical
crew, or with other supervisors under whom this crew worked, prior
to making these selections.
Silver had done electrical work for the respondent since December
1919 and he was the chief electrician. Fanslow, although an older
employee, did not join the electrical crew until January 1921. Girard,,
a helper, had been with the crew only about a year and a half when
Silver was released. Silver received 82 cents an hour as compared
with 52 cents, and 47 cents received, respectively, by Fanslow and
Girard. The respondent conceded that Silver was a "No.' 1" elec-
trician and that he was able to do the electrical work performed
by the respondent subsequent to his release.
The respondent, in seeking to explain why it did not retain Silver,
alleged that Silver did construction work primarily whereas the
respondent eliminated this type of work after June 10, 1939. This
distinction, however, does not explain Silver's selection for lay-off
because Silver was chief electrician of the whole crew and the respond-
ent makes no claim that he was unqualified for maintenance work.
Besides, Silver testified without contradiction that the rewinding of
the respondent's 200 motors lay entirely within his routine work. It
may be noted that after Silver's lay-off, Fansldw and Girard did some
construction electrical work, described by Fletcher as "minor" in
character. We are satisfied from the record that maintenance and
construction electrical work at the respondent's mills are not so dis-
parate that the men of the crew were allocated exclusively to one or the_
other type of work, but that they spent their working hours in any
electrical work that their abilities and the respondent's needs required.
In view of Silver's prominent identification with the Union; Tom
Fletcher's admission that Fleming victimized him therefor, his par-
ticipation in Silver's expulsion from the hunt club, and his intimation
that the respondent would soon find a pretext for eliminating Silver
because of Silver's union affiliation ; the respondent's other manifesta-
tions of hostility to, and interference with, the Union; Silver's long-
standing employment with the respondent; his status as chief electri-
cian; hig greater electrical experience with the respondent than the 2,
electricians retained; the respondent's failure to inquire whether
Silver would remain at a reduced salary and its unexplained failure
to accept this suggestion when made by the Union in Silver's presence;
the respondent's failure to offer a satisfactory explanation for retain-
ing the 2 electricians in preference to Silver'; and upon the entire
FLETCHER PAPER COMPANY 1289
record, we find that the respondent, on June 10, 1939, released and
thereafter refused to reinstate William F. Silver because of his union
membership and activities, thereby discouraging membership in the
Union, and that the respondent by such acts, and by the statements and
acts of Prevost and Tom Fletcher, hereinabove set forth, interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Silver was earning 82 cents per hour at the time of his discharge.
From the time of his discharge to the time of the hearing he earned
about $156. At the time of the hearing he had not received regular
employment.
3. Discharges for alleged cause
Following the release of Silver and the conference of June 13, 1939,
which we have discussed above, the respondent discharged three em-
ployees, alleging in each case a specific and different cause for the dis-
charge. The complaint alleges that these discharges were discrimina-
tory. The Trial Examiner recommended that the complaint with
respect to these discharges be dismissed and the Union takes ex-
ception.
Alvin J. Januchowski was hired November 26, 1938, and discharged
June 22, 1939.
Januchowski joined the Union about April 20, 1939. About a month
before he was discharged Prevost approached him and said, "There
is a new fireman down in the fire hole trying to start a union here.
That is a good way to kiiock a lot of men out of work." Following
the remark, Prevost "laughed in his face." Prevost repeated the
statement to another workman on the same machine a few feet away.
Prevost does not deny the incident.
Januchowski's work card gives "attempted theft" as the cause for
his discharge. The respondent contended that he was discharged for
attempting to steal property belonging to the respondent.
During a temporary shut-down fpr repairs Januchowski, who was
regularly employed in the, beater room, was retained with other
employees in this room to do some painting. Pursuant to Prevost's
instructions on June 22, 1939) the last day of the shut-down, Januchow-
ski and others quit work at 4 o'clock, placing their brushes in a pail.
The testimony is in conflict as to Januchowski's subsequent movements.
Prevost testified that while he was talking to Frank Rouleau, shop
foreman, he observed Januchowski go to a pile of burlap bags 30 feet
away from where they were standing, and apparently deposit some-
thing in them, then pass to the time clock and leave the plant with a
bundle wrapped in white paper under his arm; that he immediately
communicated to Rouleau his suspicion that, "that fellow was hiding
1290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
something there''; and that they walked over to the bags and discov-
ered a number of company brushes concealed in them Prevost testified
further that a short time later Januchowski returned to the shop room
by another door and went over to the pile of bags, but that "I didn't
pay any more attention to him, and he went out." Januchowski denied
that he took or hid any company brushes. He claims that upon quit-
ting work he immediately left the plant; that when he was a short
distance away, he remembered that he had forgotten his paint shirt;
that he returned, got his shirt, and left the plant. He and Prevost
agree that when he was a short distance from the plant, Prevost told
him that he was discharged.° 1
We are of the opinion that Prevost did not discharge Januchowski
because of any bona fide belief that Januchowski attempted to or did
steal company property. Prevost gave inconsistent testimony in that
on direct examination he claimed that upon Januchowski's return to
the plant he remarked to Rouleau, "that fellow is coming back after
those right away in daylight . . . That is what I suspected he was
going to do"; whereas on cross-examination, he remembered having
told Rouleau, "Here is this fellow, I didn't think he would come back
in daylight for them; I thought he would come back at night." Fore-
man Roulcau could have corroborated Prevost's testimony if it was
t rue; yet Rouleau did not testify. The respondent's unexplained fail-
ure to call him indicates that his testimony would not have borne out
Prevost's assertations. Moreover, Prevost's conduct is not consistent
with any real belief in Januchowski's guilt. According to Prevost,
Januchowski carried a bundle wrapped in white paper when he left the
plant the first time. In the light of Prevost's alleged immediate sus-
picion that Januchowski intended to hide and thereby steal property
of the respondent, we do not understand why Prevost permitted him to
leave the plant with a wrapped bundle; or why Prevost did not appre-
hend him at the moment of the alleged concealment and conduct an in-
vestigation on the spot. Prevost had a clear opportunity to apprehend
Januchowski at a time when the evidence would have been clear and
unmistakable as to his guilt. Januchowski would have been forced
to explain any brushes in possession if Prevost had acted promptly
when, as he testified, Januchowski instantly aroused his, suspicions
when he stopped at the bags. Prevost casually permitted Januchowski,
as he himself testified, to leave the plant the first time unaccosted.
Upon Prevost's discovery of the brushes among the bags, he made
no effort to identify them as having been used by Januchowski. Pre-
vost permitted him to return to the plant and leave again, with sur-
prising inattention on Prevost's part to his behavior. Although the
° We need not resolve the conflict as to v hether Prevost assigned any reason to Janu-
chowski in discharging him.
FLETCHER PAPER COMPANY - 1291
record does not suggest that Januchowski's previous behavior, or that
of the other employees, gave ground for suspicion, or that Prevost
suspected, that Januchowski was a thief, Prevost did not, prior to
discharging him, accuse him of any theft or confront him with any
evidence thereof. - Prevost acted as above described in face of the fact
that his asserted charge against Januchowski is a serious one. We can-
-not reconcile Prevost's cavalier behavior with any real wish by him to
ascertain whether or not Januchowski was, i it truth, guilty of a serious
offence. Finally, we cannot say, upon this record, that Januchowski
was stealing company property.'
In view of Januchowski's identification with the Union, Prevost's
veiled threat to Januchowski concerning union activity, the respond-
ent's otherwise manifested hostility to, and interference with, the
Union, and Prevost's discharge of Januchowski on the alleged ground
that Januchowski had taken or tried to take company property al-
though he did not entertain a bona fide belief in Januchowski's guilt,
we find that Prevost seized upon a convenient pretext to carry out his
discriminatory threat. NATe find that the respondent' discharged Alvin
J. Januchowski on June 22, 1939, because of his union membership and
activity, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization,
and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Januchowski was receiving $19.80 per week at the time of his dis-
charge. At the time of the hearing he had regular employment and
was receiving $24 per week. He testified that he wished to return to
work at the respondent's plant if the Union had a contract with the
Company, but that he would consider a return even in the absence of
such contract.
Casimer Splitt was employed by the respondent for about 8 years
preceding his discharge on August 19, 1939, allegedly for "sabotage."
Splitt was a membef of the Union and active in union affairs. In
July 1939, as above indicated, Prevost deprecated his conspicuous ac-
tivity. .Mrs. Mausolf, a fellow employee in the cutting department
and wife of the night superintendent, spoke to him at work and urged
him to sign one of the- white withdrawal cards which first appeared in
the plant in July 1939, saying, "Cash, take a good tip from a friend,
from a good friend ... there is some cards being distributed around
here, I don't know who has got them, but if you get a chance to, sign
one of-them, sign it, if you want to save your job." Mrs. Mausolf was
not called as a witness and her warning as recorded by Splitt is not
denied. _
7 The state unemployment compensation examiner refused to find Januchowski guilty
of this charge
1292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the time of his discharge Splitt was working on a paper-cutting
machine called a laboy, to which he had been assigned when the machine
was bought in June 1938. The laboy had a maximum capacity of
eight rolls of paper. The number of rolls loaded at any one time
depended upon the weight, of the i olls. In loading the machine, a
shaft was inserted in a roll of paper and the roll made tight. to the
shaft by chucks or collars of tapered wood or iron inserted and forced
tight at each end of the roll. Through threaded holes in the chucks,
set screws of a half by one and a quarter inches held the chucks firm
in position to the shaft so that the roll of paper would rotate with
the shaft. Rolls of paper so secured were loaded upon the machine.
For the proper running of the machine, the set screws and chucks had
to be watched and kept tight. Because of friction applied to keel) the
paper from wrinkling and other factors, the screws worked loose in
the operating of the machine. Too much friction prevented the rolls
from turning-and tore the cores from the rolls of paper. On full heavy -
rolls the greater pull of the,paper and friction caused the chucks to
loosen more readily. The vibration of the machine was also a contrib-
uting cause. The speed- of the machine required adjustment to the
weight of the rolls. Loosened chucks would in time release the roll
of paper so that it would fall out of alignment, causing loss of time
and paper. It took 2 or 3 minutes to tighten a loose chuck and only
a minute or two more if it had come entirely out of the roll. The
machine was frequently stopped in order to tighten them. Each new
loading of the machine made necessary a period of adjustment for
the appropriate speed and friction. The machine was subject to
breakdowns.
At the beginning of each shift the new crew oiled the machine
before the cutting operation was-resumed=,•=so that there was-always a
period of 5 to 10 minutes when the machine was idle. If chucks were
loose at the end of a shift at a time when the machine was loaded with
partly cut paper, it was customary for the outgoing crew to inform
the incoming crew of it or of any other faulty condition in order that
proper adjustment should be made before starting the machine. If
nothing was said, the new crew would assume the machine was in good
running order. Unless specially asked to do so, the outgoing shift
would not stay overtime to make adjustments on the machine. The
incoming crew would attend to them. ,
Three men worked on the laboy, the machine tender or operator and'
two helpers. The machine tender was responsible for the entire
machine, and for insuring that it was in proper running order. One
helper placed at the back of the machine loaded the machine and had
the special duty of watching the chucks to prevent them from becom-
ing loose while the machine was operating. The third man was placed
FLET.CHER PAPER COMPANY 1293
in front of the machine to prevent the cut paper from jamming. Loose
chucks might be due to. the carelessness of the operator or the helper
at the back of the machine and were not uncommon. -
The amount of paper cut during an 8-hour shift depended upon
the weight of the paper. About 35 rolls of paper might be cut on
such a shift. The respondent's losses because of loosened chucks aver-
aged about one roll of paper per shift per month. Since the loosening
of a chuck while the machine was in operation,would usually be
visible to a watchful helper, the loosened chuck would normally be
tightened before any loss of paper occurred.
The day shift of August 19, 1939, was composed of Martin Smolin-
ski, operator, John Koteras at the front, and Splitt at the back of the
ma0hnne. On the night shift,-which followed the day shift at 5
o'clock, Edmund Duranceau was operator, Frank Filarski was in -
front, and Ernest Marcotte was at the back, occupying the same posi-
tion as Splitt on the day shift.
The record discloses that for 3 consecutive nights, the night crew,
which relieved the day crew on which Splitt was employed, found
loose chucks at the beginning of their shift. On the first two nights
complaints were made to Frank White, the night superintendent, who
reported it to Prevost on the second morning. On the first of the 3
nights the night crew had trouble with the machine because one roll
of paper was placed in a wrong position and loose chucks needed
adjustment. The second night loose chucks again caused trouble.
On the third night, August 19, the night crew arrived at the laboy
before the day crew left. The men were talking while Duranceau was,
getting his orders from the foreman. The machine was not then in
operation., The six rolls of paper on the machine were nearly full,
but some paper had been run off. The rolls were still so large that it
'was not, possible to see across the machine because of their size.
The day crew left. The night crew oiled the machine and Duranceau
started it. Shortly after the machine was started, three rolls of paper
weighing about a thousand pounds'each came off the machine, one'rest-
ing against the frame of the machine.' Chucks,on the other three rolls
were loose. The matter was reported to the night superintendent, who
sent for Prevost to survey the situation before it was corrected. `
Splitt testified that he believed the chucks were tight when he left
the machine,' but 'that when his shift came to an end' he explicitly
told Marcotte, the man who relieved him, that "he should look it
over"-that Splitt did not have time to "get the set all lined up":
"A conflict in the testimony a, to whether the accident occurred as soon as Duranceau
threw the starting control 'or 5 or 10 minutes thereafter need not be resolved
s Koteras , front man on $phtt's crew, testified that so far as he knew, the chucks were
tight at the end of the shift "The job was fit to run ahead."
1294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"We understood each other that way, he would have to look the set
over." According to the testimony of Duranceau, machine operator
on the night shift, Marcotte in a joking way asked Splitt as he was
leaving "if all the chucks were tight tonight"; Splitt answered him
in a joking way to the effect that maybe they were and maybe not;
Duranceau considered the remark a- joke in view of the last 2 nights'
experience; and he did not attach :any importance to it. Duranceau
did not recall the words used by Splitt. He was busy with the fore-
man while the men were talking, getting his orders for the night.
Marcotte did not testify. We find that Splitt gave the night crew
ample warning to inspect the laboy before attempting to operate it.
Koteras, when asked upon cross-examination whether he, knew that
two rolls of paper had been loaded upside down on .the machine,
answered that two rolls were put in upside down because they were
of a different set, but that for this reason the day crew had informed
the night crew that they would have to run only four rolls at a time.
This- testimony was not disputed. There were six rolls on the
machine when it broke down.
The night crew had adequate opportunity to make the required
inspection and adjustments, pointed out by Splitt and Koteras. They
oiled the machine, looked it over, and did not start it until 5 or 10
minutes after the commencement of the night shift. Nevertheless,
.Duranceau did not, and it does not appear that Marcotte or any
other night shift employee did, examine the chucks to see if they
were secure before attempting to operate the machine. Neither did
they reduce the load of the laboy from six to four rolls.
About 4 o'clock on the day following the loss of the rolls, Prevost
sent for Splitt and told him he would have to let him go because he
believed that the loose chucks were the result of his gross carelessness
or intentional act. Splitt told Prevost that he had warned Marcotte
to 'look over the machine and that he had not had time to get the
machine lined up. At Splitt's request Prevost agreed to make an
investigation of the matter. Although 'Prevost testified that he
called the night crew into his office and questioned them at length and
that the night crew agreed that Splitt had loosened the chucks on
purpose, he did not testify as to the individual reports made to him,
and it does not appear that he questioned them in an effort to learn
the specific facts or that he questioned the day crew at all. The
next day Prevost reported the matter to Fletcher. Fletcher decided
to discharge Splitt allegedly for "sabotage."
The following Monday Splitt returned for Prevost's decision.
Prevost told -him he would have to let him go' as he believed that
Splitt had intentionally left the collars loose. Splitt had never been
criticized for loose chucks and was the first man ever discharged for
FLETCHER PAPER COMPANY 1295
such cause. Splitt's place as helper was given to Alphonse Le-
Brecque, whom Splitt had broken in to the work during the summer
at Prevost's order.
The laboy had apparently been loaded shortly before the end of
the day shift. That it required adjustment at the beginning of the
night shift was, therefore, to be expected. Splitt had warned the
night crew that they had better inspect the machine for necessary
adjustments. Koteras had advised the night crew to reduce the load
from six to four rolls. Although the night crew had ample oppor-
tunity to prevent the accident, it did not do so. If Splitt was to
blame for the loosened chucks, it is clear that the night crew had as
great or a greater share of the responsibility for causing the accident
which precipitated Splitt's discharge. Yet the respondent upon the
basis of 'a superficial and inadequate investigation discharged Splitt,
accusing him of sabotage, and made no effort to apportion the blame
among the other employees working on the laboy. This action
appears all the, more -arbitrary in view of the facts that Splitt had
never before been criticized for loosened chucks and the respondent
had never before discharged a man for such cause.
Under these circumstances we find that the respondent did not
have a bona fide belief that Splitt was guilty of sabotage and that
the respondent, in view of the respondent's hostility toward and in-
terference' with the Union, and Splitt's union activity, seized upon
the accident of August 19, as a pretext to discharge Splitt because of
union membership and activity. We find that the respondent dis-
criminatorily discharged Casimer Splitt, thereby discouraging mem-
bership in a labor organization and interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
Splitt was unemployed from the date of discharge to the date of
the hearing. At the time- of his discharge he was receiving 45 cents
per hour for day work.
George Villeneuve had been in the respondent's employ for 6 years
at the time he was discharged on August 30, 1939. He was a paper
cutter on, a reamer or trimming machine. The respondent contends
that he was discharged for carelessness in cutting paper.
Villeneuve was an active member of the Union. Mrs. Mausolf, an
employee and wife of the night superintendent, told Villeneuve that
he was called "the big bouncer" because at the first union organization
meeting he was elected inside guard. Referring to the union meet-
ings, she said further, "We know somebody in there that tells us
everything that is going on." Mrs. Mausolf told Villeneuve not to
read a letter from her husband's brother, which' came into Ville-
neuve's hands, because it contained some anti-union remarks and "he
1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was a union man." Other employees came to Villeneuve with
questions about the Union.
The record discloses that during and prior to October 1938, ten
months before Villeneuve's discharge, the respondent received fre-
quent complaints about improperly cut paper from its customers, one
of which was Marquette Paper Company, Chicago, Illinois, herein
called the Marquette. The Marquette, a big customer, threatened to
close its account with the respondent unless the short cutting was
corrected. These complaints as received were discussed with the
cutters.
At, this time the respondent used no device to trace the careless
cutter. According to the plant procedure, each cutter received his
orders for the size of the paper that he was to cut. The adjustment
of the cutting machine was entirely under his control. The cutter
with his helper usually wrapped the paper as it was cut. As wrapped
it was sent to the shipping room and dispatched to the buyer. Paper
not cut on special order was sent unwrapped to the storeroom. No
one inspected a cutter's work before it left the plant. By reason of
the complaints received, the respondent adopted in October 1938 a
system of having each cutter put an identification slip bearing his
name in all cartons of paper, showing that he had cut the paper
enclosed. In February 1939 the respondent received a complaint and
made an allowance on short-cut paper. Villeneuve's identification
slip was found in this paper and subsequently he was informed of the
complaint. For some months after this there, were no complaints
of faulty cutting. Sometime in July 1939 Villeneuve questioned Tom
Fletcher specifically and was told that lie was doing well and there
were no complaints about his work.
In a letter dated August 29, 1939, the Marquette again complained
of short cutting, enclosing four identification slips which had been
found in cartons of short-cut paper sent it by the respondent. Under
separate cover were sent sample sheets of the faulty work. On the
afternoon of August 30, 1939, Prevost" called Villeneuve to his office
and showed him the Marquette letter, the samples of short-cut paper-
pink, green, canary,, and white-and told him that he had under-cut
the paper. They measured the paper. Villeneuve said, "Maybe I did
make a mistake, but how in hell can you prove it?" Thereupon Prevost
showed him the identification slips bearing his name sent by the Mar-
quette. Villeneuve asked if lie was fired. Prevost told him to see Tom-
Fletcher.
The following morning Villeneuve had a long interview with Tom
Fletcher, Manager Fletcher, and Allen Fletcher, at which the respond-,
ent discharged Villeneuve. During this conference Manager. Fletcher
discussed with Villeneuve the labor situation at the plant and re-
FLETCHER PAPER COMPANY 1297
marked : "They used to be my boys. Now they can't be my boys,
because when old man Hook came into town, they all followed him."
Fletcher assured Villeneuve that they would get to the bottom of the
matter, that Tom Fletcher would go to Chicago, and that Villeneuve
could return in two weeks to learn the result of the investigation.
Tom Fletcher went to Chicago and conferred with the Marquette
about the short-cut paper and its complaint. Upon his return Man-
ager Fletcher had a further conference with Villeneuve. Fletcher
informed Villeneuve in substance that the respondent was convinced
that Villeneuve had erred in the cutting of the paper and confirmed
his discharge. Villeneuve was the first employee to be discharged
for this cause.
While we entertain certain doubts, we are not convinced that the
respondent advances its defense in respect,to Villeneuve in bad faith,
or that the respondent discharged him because of union membership
or activity. We find that the respondent, by discharging Villeneuve
did not unlawfully discriminate against him. %
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed 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 burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
We 'have found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act 'and
by iunlawfully discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of em-
ployment. We shall order the respondent to cease and desist from
engaging in such unfair labor practices.
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall also order
the respondent to offer Oliver K. Hemmingson, William F. Silver,
Alvin J. Januchowski, and,Casimer Splitt immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges. We
shall further order the respondent to make them whole for any loss
of pay they may have suffered by reason of their discriminatory dis-
charges by payment of a sum of money equal to the amount which
each of them normally would have earned as wages from the date of
323428-42-vol . 27-83 0
1
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 'BOARD
his discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement,'less net earn-
ings -during said periods.10
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. International Brotherhood of Paper Makers is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Oliver K. Hemmingson, William F. Silver,
Alvin J. Januchowski, and Casimer Splitt, thereby discouraging
membership in the Union, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the -meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. 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.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act. -
5. The respondent, by discharging or laying off and failing to
reemploy Arthur LaLonde, Floyd Splitt, and George Villeneuve,
has not engaged in unfair labor practices 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 Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond-
ent, Fletcher Paper Company, its officers , agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Brotherhood of
Paper Makers, or any other labor organization of its employees, by
discharging any of its employees or in any other manner discriminat-
10 By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for the unlawful
discrimination and the consequent necessity of the employee's seeking employment else-
wrhere See Matter of Crossett Lumber Cohnpany and United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America , Lumber and Saidmtill Workers Union , Local 2590, 8 N L R. B 440.
Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other
work-relief projects are not considered as earnings, but, as provided below in the Order,
shall be deducted from the sum due the employee, and the amount thereof shall be paid
to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal. State, county, municipal, or other govern-
ment or governments which supplied the funds for said work -relief projects . Republic
Steel Corporation, et al. v. National Labor Relations Board, et al , 107 F. ( 2d) 472
(C. C. Am3 ), enf'g as mod as to other issues ; Matter of Republic Steel Corp . and Steel
Workers Organizing Committee, 9 N. L. R B 219 ; 1im Bert granted , 310 U S. 655.
J
FLETCHER PAPER COMPANY 1299
ing in regard to the hire, tenure of employment, or terms or conditions
of their employment because of membership in or activity in con-
nection with any labor organization ;
(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 con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or 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) Offer to Oliver K. Hemmingson, William F. Silver, Alvin J.
Januchowski, and Casimer Splitt immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges.
(b) Make whole the said Oliver K. Heinmingson, William F.
Silver, Alvin J. Januchowski, and Casimer Splitt for any loss of
pay they may have suffered by reason of their discriminatory dis-
charges by payment of a sum of money equal to that which each of
them would normally have earned as wages from the date of his
discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less net earnings
during said period; deducting, however, from the amount otherwise
due each of them monies received by them during said period for
work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other
work-relief projects, and paying over the amount so deducted -to the
appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal,
or other government or governments -which supplied the funds for
said work-relief projects;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its plant, and main-
tain for a period of at least sixty-(60) consecutive days from the date
of posting, notices to its employees stating : (1) that the respondent
will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and
desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; (2) that the re-
spondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a)
and (b)' of this Order; and (3) that the respondent's employees are
free to become or remain members of International Brotherhood of
Paper Makers and the respondent will not discriminate against any
employee because of membership or activity in that organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh 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 a5 amended be, and '
it hereby is, dismissed, in so far as it alleges that the respondent has
discriminated against Floyd Splitt, Arthur LaLonde, and George
Villeneuve.
t