Georgia-Pacific Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 24, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 802 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such an understanding in a signed agreement. AVE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with the efforts of Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Local No. 45, Ind., to bargain collectively. The bargaining unit is: All employees at Respondents' Seattle, Washington, plant, working in the roll-fed rotary press department as rotary pressman; in the sheet-fed duplicating department as dupli- cator press operator; in the film reproduction department as cameraman, negative assembler, and/or platemaker; and their trainees; excluding office clerical employees, shipping department employees, maintenance employees, bindery em- ployees, sales employees, guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act. HOWARD RIPPEE, GEORGE RIPPEE AND OLIVER RIPPEE D/B/A PACIFIC MULTIFORMS COMPANY, Employer. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 327 Logan Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle 4, Washington, Telephone Number, Mutual 2-3300, Extension 553, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Georgia-Pacific Corporation , Crossett ' Division-Forestry and Local Union 5-475, International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. P6-CA12492. September 04, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On June 29, 1962, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown]. 138 NLRB No. 95. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP., CROSSETT DIVISION-FORESTRY 8O3 The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and hereby -adopts the findings,2 conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the modifications noted herein. ORDER The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner with the following modification : Paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of the Recommended Order are re- numbered 1(b) and 1(c), respectively, and inserted, as paragraph 1(a) of said Order, is the following : Refusing to bargaining collectively with Local Union 5-475,. International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, as, the ex- clusive bargaining representative of its employees with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment in the unit found to be appropriate, namely, All employees of the Respondent employed at its Crossett, Arkansas, Division-Forestry, exclusive of office clerical employ- ees, guards, professional employees, technical employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. 1 At the hearing, the Trial Examiner refused to permit the Respondent to elicit certain testimony from some 12 of 19 employees who withdrew checkoff authorizations . There- after, in an offer of proof , similarly rejected , Respondent stated that each of said em- ployees, if permitted to testify , would testify that Supervisor Smith made no promises of benefit or threats of reprisal to him when advising him of his right to withdraw his checkoff authorization . We reject the Respondent ' s contention that it was precluded from a fair hearing by these rulings of the Trial Examiner. Thus, even were we to accept as true Respondent 's offer of proof , such testimony would not affect our disposition of this case. Moreover , upon careful review of the entire record , and the Intermediate Report, we are satisfied that the Respondent was not , in any other manner, precluded from a fair hearing, as it now contends , or that the Trial Examiner was biased and prejudiced 3 We note and correct the following inadvertent errors in the Intermediate Report, which do not affect the Trial Examiner 's conclusion or our concurrence therein: ( 1) The meet- ings between Respondent and the Union were held on March 12 , 19, and 20, not March 12, 20, and 21; and ( 2) the two lists containing the names of the employees purporting to request withdrawals of their checkoff authorizations appear to contain 15 names, not 12. s We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent refused to bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) as evidenced not only by Smith's conduct but by its outright refusal to negotiate further. We find it unnecessary to pass upon his further conclusion that Respondent violated Section 8 ( a) (5) and ( 1) by refus- ing to make available , for the Union 's inspection , the withdrawal of checkoff authorizations signed by its employees. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE A charge was filed by the above-named labor organization on March 28, 1962. Upon that charge the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, on April 13, 1962, issued his complaint and notice of hearing thereon . The Respondent's answer was received on April 24, 1962. The complaint alleges and the answer 662353-63-vol 138-52 804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD denies that at all times since about February 23, 1962, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended . Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Crossett, Arkansas, on May 22 and 23 , 1962 , before Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore. At the hearing all parties were represented by counsel and were afforded full opportunity to present evidence partinent to the issues , to argue orally , and to file briefs. A brief has been received from the Respondent. Disposition of the Respondent 's motion to dismiss the complaint , upon which ruling was reserved at the conclusion of the hearing, is made by the following findings, conclusions , and recommendations. Upon the record thus made, and from his observation of the witnesses , the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Crossett Company (Crossett Forestry Division ) is an Arkansas corporation, with principal office and place of business in Crossett , Arkansas, where it is engaged in the production of lumber, paper, and related products. Crossett Division--Forestry is the only operating unit of the Respondent which is here involved . During the 12 months before issuance of the complaint the Respond- ent purchased and received goods and supplies valued at more than $50,000 from points outside the State of Arkansas and, during the same period , sold and shipped products valued at more than $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Arkansas. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and it is here found that the Respond- ent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE CHARGING UNION Local Union 5-475, International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO , is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Setting and issues The events in issue in this case arose within a few weeks before the expiration date, March 21 , 1962, of a 2-year contract between the Respondent and the Charg- ing Union , the contract granting exclusive recognition during that period . Pursuant to the reopening clause of the same contract in January 1962 , the Union requested negotiations looking toward a new contract. Such meetings were held on March' 12, 20 , and 21 . At the last-mentioned meeting there is no dispute that the Respondent took the flat position that it would not further bargain with the Union unless and until the Board certifies the Union . It is the Respondent's position that it was justified in such refusal because it entertained good- faith doubt as to the Union 's majority status, such doubt having been caused by its receipt of a number of requests from employees to withdraw their union dues checkoff authorizations. General Counsel and the Charging Party, however , contend that whatever doubt the Respondent may have possessed was self-created , and that it engaged in unfair labor practices by soliciting and inducing employees to sign such withdrawals. In substance , it is the claim of the complaint that by such solicitation , at a time when the Union was already recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative and was seeking a new contract , the Respondent failed and refused to bargain in good faith. Related to this general contention is the claim that the Respondent refused to produce for inspection , upon the Union 's request , the very documents upon which the 'Re- spondent claimed it was relying in raising the majority status issue. B. The facts The 1960-62 contract , referred to above, provided for exclusive recognition of the Union as the collective-bargaining agent for all employees in an appropriate unit designated by a Board Direction of Election dated January 13, 1958, in Case No. 15-RC-1626 (not published in NLRB volumes ). The contract contained no union- shop clause (Arkansas having a right-to-work law), but it provided for company checkoff of union dues for employees authorizing such deductions . This provision also stated that employees could , in writing, cancel such authorizations during a period from March 6 to 21, 1962. According to Personnel Director Meredith in mid -March 1962 there were about 94 employees in the bargaining unit, 59 of whom had continuing dues deduction GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP., CROSSETT DIVISION-FORESTRY 805 authorizations on file in the payroll office. It is also his testimony that by March 20, management had received written requests from 17 employees to withdraw their authorizations. As a witness Meredith admitted that he refused to bargain further with the Union, and that since that date the Respondent has maintained such position. The testimony of Meredith and other management witnesses establishes beyond doubt that such withdrawals of deduction-authorizations were instigated by action of the Respondent at its top level. Manager Sulo Sihvonen testified that on February 23, 1962, at a meeting of his 26 supervisors, he instructed them personally to advise all employees of their right under the contract to withdraw their checkoff authoriza- tions. Sihvonen gave such instructions, he said, because a "good many of our em- ployees are illiterate . . . and we were quite certain that they probably weren't aware of all of the contents of the contract that was in existence.... . He admitted, however, that the Company had previously provided every employee with a copy of the contract, and that he had never before given instructions to have employees' attention drawn to any contract provision. Ordinarily, he testified, the Company issues memorandums to employees which are posted at each district headquarters. The motive precipitating his giving such instructions to his supervisors, he testified, was his having "heard from several supervisors a number of the employees had been asking them about the possibility of withdrawing their checkoff authorizations"- and he added that this had "occurred over a period of some months previous to the expiration of the contract." Logging Engineer Fred Smith was one of the many supervisors so instructed by Sihvonen. He oversees, in general, 2 crews termed the road crew and the bridge crew, totaling about 25 employees. As a witness, he admitted that he gave "advice" concerning withdrawal of authorizations to colored members of his crew, for one reason because "they are inclined to agree, I think, with most any white man" and two white men in his crew had previously indicated that they wanted to get off the checkoff list and out of the Union. He denied, in general and in the specific, that he made any attempt to influence such employees in their decision. Smith admitted, as a witness, however, that he told each employee summonded to his car that he had with him a "cancellation slip" written out by one of the employees and that the personnel department had told him it would be all right if "more than one wanted to sign the same cancellation slip." Credible testimony of a number of employees in Smith's crew establishes that in fact Smith, in obtaining signatures to at least two so-called "cancellation slips," went well beyond his own admitted conduct. In summary: (1) Smith told employee Charles Martin that the Company had instructed him to "inform all the guys that they could get out of the Union at this time if they wanted to." Later Martin went to Smith and asked him what it was "all about." Smith told him that all employees on the job with him had "got out," whereupon Martin signed a piece of paper handed to him by Smith. Smith told him the Company wanted to get credit for "what they were doing," and not the Union. (2) Smith called employee Leon Johnson to his car, told him some employees wanted to get out of the Union and "this is the proper time to get out" but he would not "advise us to get out and wouldn't advise us to stay in," and that whether they stayed in or not would have nothing to do with their work. Smith told him also that the Union had been in there for 2 years and no raise had been given, and as long as the Union was "in charge that we wouldn' t get a raise ." Smith added that Sihvonen would see that they got a raise, but he was not going to give a raise and let the Union get the credit. The supervisor further told him that "all be wanted us to do was go along with the Company," and if it didn't work, then he would "be with us one hundred percent" if they went back into the Union. (3) Smith called employee E. Radford to his car, alone , and told him there was a period when "we could get out of the Union," and said he would appreciate it if "we would give the Company a chance to represent" them. (4) Smith handed employee J. I. Boswell a "list" after employees Radford, Johnson, and Rogers had signed it, and asked him if he "wanted to withdraw from the Union," and the employee signed. ' (5) Smith went to the home of employee Girtman, who had been injured, and told him that while he did not have to, he could sign the paper he had with him if he wanted to get out of the Union. He told the employee that "probably" the Company would "do more" for the employees if they were out of the Union. Girtman decided he would "study" the matter a while. Later the same day em- ployee Leward Bennett, who had prepared the text of the lists for Smith , came to Girtman's home, told him he wanted him to sign it , and he finally did. (6) Smith told employee W. J. Rogers that some of the employees had wanted to get out of the Union and that now was the time. The supervisor further said that 806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD he wanted Sihvonen to get the "credit," but that if he did not like the way the. Company treated him he could get back into the Union. All of these employees , thus solicited , among others signed their names to one, of two sheets of paper, provided by Smith , bearing a text written by employee. Bennett for Smith which reads: I wish to cancel my check-off Authorization with Local Union 5-475 IWA- AFL-CIO Crossett, Arkansas and is addressed to Crossett Forestry Division , Crossett , Arkansas. These two sheets , in evidence , contain 12 names, all employees, according to, company representatives , on the payroll at the time.' In addition to the 2 lists containing 12 names, the Respondent placed in evidence individual requests for withdrawal of their checkoff authorizations apparently signed by 4 individuals. As noted in the preceding section , on March 20, at the second negotiating meeting„ company officials announced the position that because they had received such with- drawals, they would not bargain further, and that position has adamantly been main- tained up to the time of the hearing. As a witness , Meredith candidly admitted that he flatly declined upon request to show the claimed authorizations for inspection to union representatives at the meet- ings, and that although the contract was still in existence he "didn 't care, sir," what the Union had asked for. "I gave them what I chose to give them," he added, bluntly-a mere list of names. The Union thus was given no opportunity to inspect the withdrawal authorizations, although the form was specified in the contract. C. Conclusions The Trial Examiner does not credit Smith's denials as to statements and implied promises of benefit made to the employees , as above described . Several of these employees are of long service with the Company, and displayed no discernible reason for falsifying their testimony. Assuming that they are "naive people," as counsel for the Respondent claimed on the record , and, as Smith testified , that "they are inclined to agree . . . with most any white man," then there is scant reason to believe that these employees would misrepresent the truth-under oath as counsel reminded them-while confronted by top management officials at the counsel table. Smith's conduct was in reasonable consonance with the union animus voiced by Personnel Director Meredith at the hearing: "I didn't care what the Union had asked for. I gave them what I chose to give them." It is plain that the Respondent, in an effort to create a situation which would provide them with a pretext for ceasing to recognize the Union as the bargaining agent of the employees , solicited checkoff authorization withdrawals and, at least through the conduct of Smith, promised benefits if they would do so. Such conduct is clearly contrary to the spirit of good-faith bargaining, and its results may not be proffered as justification for refusing thereafter to bargain. In short, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the preponderance of credible evidence sustains the allegations of the complaint : ( 1) All employees of the Respondent employed at its Crossett, Arkansas, Forestry Division, exclusive of office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, technical employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act; 2 (2) at all times since February 13, 1958,3 the Charging Union has been and now is the exclusive bargaining agent for all employees in said unit , by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act; (3) by its management representatives the Respondent in March 1962, initiated a move implemented by promises of benefit to have employees withdraw their previously given authorizations for checkoff of union dues; (4) on or about March 19, 1962, the Respondent refused to furnish to the Union such checkoff withdrawals; (5) the Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union in good faith not only by outright refusal to negotiate further but also by Smith's conduct i Several of the witnesses for General Counsel said that when these sheets were handed to them only names appeared upon them . The testimony of Smith and Bennett is to the contrary, both insisting that the text was there at the time. It appears that at least one of the sheets may have been folded so that the text did not show when an employee signed. The point is minor, in any event , and hardly material if, as Smith claimed, many of the employees could not read. 2 The answer admits this allegation of the complaint 8 On this date the Board certified the Union , following a secret ballot election. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP., CROSSETT DIVISION-FORESTRY 807 and management 's refusal to submit the claimed authorization slips for the Union's inspection ; and (6 ) by such conduct the Respondent has interferred with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 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 described in section I, above, have .a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices the Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action to effectuate the policies of the Act. It will be recommended that the Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively with the Charging Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit described herein, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local Union 5-475, International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. All employees of the Respondent employed at its Crossett, Arkansas, Forestry Division, exclusive of office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, technical employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 3. By virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, at all times since February 13, 1958, the above-named labor organization has been and is now the exclusive representative of all employees in the said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment. 4. Since on or about February 23, 1962, the Respondent has refused and is con- tinuing to refuse to bargain in good faith with the above-named labor organization, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act. 5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, it is recommended that the Respondent, The Crossett Company (Crossett Forestry Division), its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from' (a) Soliciting employees to withdraw their membership from Local Union 5-475, International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or to withdraw any dues deduc- tion authorizations they may have executed, or promising them benefits therefor. (b) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive representative of all the Respondent's employees in the unit herein found appropriate, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. 808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Post at its several district headquarters, Crossett Forestry Division, copies of the notice attached hereto marked Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-sixth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from, the date of the service of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.5 "In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words "Pur- suant to a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "As Recommended by a Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further event that the Board 's Order be en- forced by a decree of a United States Circuit Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order." 5In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES As recommended by a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to conduct our labor relations in compliance with the National Labor Relations Act, we notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT ask employees Ito withdraw their dues deduction authorizations or to withdraw their membership in Local Union 5-475, International Wood- workers of America, AFL-CIO, or promise them benefits to do so. WE WILL NOT violate any of the rights you have under the National Labor Relations Act to join or remain in a union of your own choice or not to engage in any union activities. WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above-named Union as the repre- sentative of all employees in the unit described in the contract which expired in March 1962, and if agreement is reached we will sign a contract. All our employees are free to become or remain members of the Union named above, or any other union , and they are also free to refrain from joining any union. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, CROSSETT DIVISION-FORESTRY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 160 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 714 Falls Building, 22 North Front Street, Memphis, Tennessee, Telephone Number, Jackson 7-5451, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Active Mobile Homes Corporation and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW) AFL-CIO. Case No. 7-CA-3568. September 24, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On June 15, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent 138 NLRB No. 99.