Murray Envelope Corp. of Mississippi

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1961

130 N.L.R.B. 1574 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. East Bay Union of Machinists, Local 1304, United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The allegations of the complaint, as amended, that Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8( a)(1),
(3), and (5) of the Act, have not been sustained by substantial evidence..
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Murray Envelope Corporation of Mississippi and United Paper-
makers and Paperworkers , AFL-CIO.' Case No. 15-CA-1693.
March 27, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 19, 1960, Trial Examiner Reeves R . Hilton issued his
Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that
the Respondent had not engaged in and was not engaging in the un-
fair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that
said complaint be dismissed in its entirety , as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto . Thereafter , the General
Counsel and the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report,
together with supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its power in connection with
this case to a three -member panel [Members Rodgers , Leedom, and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
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 briefs , and the entire record in
the case , and hereby adopts the findings , conclusions , and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following exceptions,
modifications , and additions :
1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
did not discharge Arvis W. Shows because of his union activities in
violation of Section 8(a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act, but rather because
he entered the plant when off duty in violation of a plant rule, and
thereupon failed to report, as instructed , to Rhian,2 Respondent's
owner, the next day.
2. The Trial Examiner also recommended dismissal of the remain-
der of the complaint which alleged independent violations of Section
8 (a) (1). He found that : ( a) various interrogations of the employees
by Respondent were not coercive and therefore not unlawful in line
1 Hereinafter referred to as the Union.
z "Rhian" shall refer to L. E. Rhian , Sr., Respondent 's owner, herein , and not to his
son, L E . Rhian, Jr., also an officer of the Company.
130 NLRB No. 163. ' '
MURRAY ENVELOPE CORPORATION OF MISSISSIPPI 1575
with the principle announced in Blue Flash; 3 (b) Rhian did not re-
quest that an employee (Bullock) 'spy on.the Union for him; and
(c) certain so-called polling cards, distributed by the Respondent for
the employees' signatures, constituted a violation of the Act, but that
the policies of the Act would not be effectuated by a remedial order
directed to that single violation, particularly since the Union was
subsequently certified as the statutory representative of the employees
involved. We do not agree.
The alleged threats, promises of benefits, and interrogations : Briefly,
several employees testified to numerous incidents which are de-
scribed in detail in the Intermediate Report, involving interrogations
and threats pertaining to union activities and promises of benefits
for abstaining from such activities, which, if true, would be in viola-
tion of the Act. Queries as to union membership or preference and
threats to close the plant, to fire all union adherents, to fire individuals
suspected of prounion sympathies, to reduce wage rates, to transfer
employees to less desirable jobs, and to effect a wholesale reduction
in work force form the gist of the alleged interrogations and threats,
and promises of better jobs and increased pay are the substance of
the promises of benefits alleged. Rhian and other of the Respondent's
supervisors denied making the threats or promises of benefits. Al-
though Rhian also denied interrogating the employees, he admitted
talking with virtually every employee about the union situation.'
Although the Trial Examiner concluded, on the basis of his credi-
bility finding, that the alleged threats and promises and certain of
the alleged interrogations had not occurred, he also found that Rhian
had in fact interrogated the employees concerning their union mem-
bership and sympathies. However, he nevertheless found that that
interrogation "obviously . . . did not interfere with or coerce the
employees in the exercise of their rights, for the Union won the elec-
tion by a substantial majority." 5 Having found an absence of coercion
in such conduct, he concluded that under the principle of Blue Flash'
there was no violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
While we accept the Trial Examiner's resolutions of credibility, we
disagree with his conclusion that the Respondent's conduct was not
coercive within the meaning of Blue Flash. In Blue Flash we held
in essence that isolated incidents of interrogation by an employer into
the union sentiments or membership of its employees were not a viola-
8 Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591.
' The sole allegation of benefits promised for abstaining from union activity involved a
direct contradiction of testimony which the Trial Examiner resolved in favor of Rhian,
who denied having offered such benefits . We shall , therefore , adopt the Trial Examiner's
recommended dismissal of that allegation.
5 Subsequent to these incidents , on August 28, 1959 , the Board conducted an election
in a broad production and maintenance unit in which the Union received 95 votes, 63 votes
were cast against the Union , and 1 ballot was void . The Union was certified on Septem-
ber 8 , 1959 . See, Case No. 15-RC-2009. _
Supra, footnote 3.
1576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion of the Act when, in the context of all the circumstances, such
interrogations did not reasonably tend to interfere with or coerce the
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7
of the Act. Such is not the case here. Unlike Blue Flash, the Re-
spondent in this case, while interrogating virtually every employee
through its owner, Rhian, made abundantly clear its antipathy to the
Union through admitted antiunion statements of Rhian and other
supervisors, through a speech delivered shortly before the election to
the assembled employees, and through so-called polling-cards which
were distributed among the employees. Respondent's motivation was
not, as in Blue Flash, to ascertain if it should honor a union's demand
for recognition by establishing whether or not it had attained majority
status, but rather to make clear its attitude toward the Union and thus
interfere with its employees' free choice of bargaining representatives.
To presume that such conduct was not coercive merely because the
Union subsequently won an election among the employees, assumes
that coercion does not exist unless either a majority of employees are
coerced or coercion is so complete that the employees will vote contrary
to their desires in an election conducted by secret ballot. We do not
believe that Section 7 and Section 8 (a) (1) of this Act should be so
construed. Moreover, neither interrogation nor such other unfair
labor practices which are designed to discourage union activity need
be successful in order to constitute restraint.' Accordingly, we find
that the interrogations indulged in by the Respondent are not lawful
within the scope of the Blue Flash principle, and that the Respondent,
by so interrogating its employees, violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act."
The Bullock incident: Bullock, an employee at Respondent's plant,
testified that sometime in September 1959, Rhian requested her to
attend a union meeting in the role of company spy and report back
to him, that she attended the meeting but did not report back to Rhian,
and that when Rhian questioned her about her failure to report she
told him that she had not attended the meeting, whereupon Rhian
called her a liar. Rhian's version of this incident varies only slightly.
He testified that Bullock approached him and volunteered to act as
a spy claiming only that he did not initiate the suggestion. He did not
state that he called Bullock a liar, but that he believed otherwise.
Rhian "believed otherwise" because other employees had told him
Bullock attended the meeting.
The Trial Examiner credited Rhian's version of the incident, and
thus, on the basis that Bullock offered to act as a spy, recommended
dismissal of this charge. We do not agree with this recommendation.
Granting that if Rhian had approached Bullock with the proposal
(Bullock's version) the offense would be more odious; it is nonetheless
7 Detroit Plastic Products Company, 121 NLRB 448, 468.
8 Syracuse Color Press , Inc., 103 NLRB 377, enfd . 209 F. 2d 596 (C.A. 2).
MURRAY ENVELOPE CORPORATION OF MISSISSIPPI 1577
a violation by Rhian's own version.' By acquiescing to Bullock's
proposal, attempting to reap the benefits of it, and by indicating to,
Bullock that he knew she had attended the meeting, Rhian encouraged
surveillance and gave the impression that the employees' union meet-
ings and activities were under surveillance.10 We find, therefore, that
by such conduct the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act..
The so-called polling-cards: Sometime before the election the Re-
spondent distributed cards in the plant which contained two statements.
to be affirmed and signed by the employees. As testified to by em-
ployee Everett, without contradiction, the two statements in essence
were: (1) "I have signed a Union card; I wish to have it withdrawn";
and (2) "I have not signed a Union card; I am satisfied with conditions:
as they are."
The Trial Examiner characterizes these cards as polling-cards de-
signed to reveal whether the employees had signed union cards and
to request withdrawal if they had. He finds this constitutes illegal
polling of the employees as to their union membership, but recommends
no remedial order, because, having found no other violation, he was
of the opinion that such an order directed to. this single violation would
not effectuate the policies of the Act-particularly as the Union has
subsequently been certified as the statutory bargaining representative
of the employees involved.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the distribution of the cards
constitutes a violation, but we do not agree that it merits no remedial
order. Not only is the Union's subsequent certification not germane
to the issue of whether or not such a remedial order would effectuate
the policies of the Act, but also as we have already found other viola-
tions not found by the Trial Examiner, this activity no longer re-
mains a single violation which might not warrant such an order.
Furthermore, to describe the distribution of such cards as polling,
which is designed to ascertain the number of employees for or
against a given labor organization or issue, is to ignore the language
of those cards. The first clause of each statement on the cards was
designed not merely to determine the numerical strength of the
Union, but also to ascertain which particular employees (by their own
signatures) would admit to having joined or otherwise assisted the
Union, and thus to undermine the strength of the Union. The second
clause of each statement clearly was intended to provide an avenue for
sapping the strength of the Union either by reaffirmation of opposition
or reversal of previous endorsement of that Union, and thus to inter-
fere with the employee's right to join that labor organization. Apart
from any other consideration,- we find that such conduct requires the
See Jackson Tile Manufacturing Company, 122 NLRB 764, 786.
10 Waynline, lite., 119 NLRB 1698, 1705; Detroit Plastic Products Company, supra,
footnote 7.
1578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
issuance of a cease -and-desist order in order to effectuate the policies
of the Act."
THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent, which is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act, 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. -
THE REMEDY
As we have found that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of the Act, we shall order Respondent to cease
and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action, designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Murray Envelope
Corporation of Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their membership in
or sympathies on behalf of the Union, in a manner which constitutes
restraint and coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(b) Encouraging surveillance and stating to employees that it
knows who attended union meetings and that their union activities
are under surveillance.
(c) Distributing cards among the employees for their signatures in
order to ascertain whether or not employees had joined the Union and_
in order to encourage those employees to renounce the Union.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Paper-
makers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective' bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, or to refrain
from engaging in such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
u aatilla Rural Electric Membership Corporation , 129 NLRB 1093. See also American
Life and Accident Insurance Company of Kentucky, 123 NLRB 529. -
MURRAY ENVELOPE CORPORATION OF MISSISSIPPI 1579
(a) Post at its plant at Hattiesburg, Mississippi, copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the
Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it 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
by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. .
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Order,
what steps it has taken to comply therewith.
12 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree,of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
. Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their mem-
bership in or sympathy on behalf of United Papermakers and
Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, in a
manner which constitutes restraint and coercion in violation of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT encourage surveillance or give the impression of
engaging in surveillance or engage in surveillance upon United
Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT, distribute. cards among. our employees for their
signatures in order to ascertain whether or not employees had
joined United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization, and in order to encourage those
employees to renounce such labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organiaztion, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and
protection, or to refrain from engaging in such activities.
1580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All our employees are free,to become or remain or to refrain from
becoming or remaining members of United Papermakers and Paper-
workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
MuRRAY ENVELOPE CORPORATION OF MISSISSIPPI,
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..
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge, as amended , filed by United Papermakers and Paperworkers,.
AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board , through the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New
Orleans, Louisiana ), issued a complaint . dated December 29, 1959 , alleging that
the Respondent or the Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Labor-Management Rela-
tions Act, as amended . In its answer the Respondent admits certain allegations
of the complaint but denies the commission of any unfair labor practices . Pursuant
to notice , a hearing was held on March 29 , 1960 , at Hattiesburg , Mississippi , before
the duly designated Trial Examiner . All parties were present and were afforded
full opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross -examine witnesses, to
present oral argument , and to file briefs . The General Counsel and counsel for
the Respondent filed briefs which I have fully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case , and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE COMPANY 'S BUSINESS
The Company , a Mississippi corporation, has its principal office and place of
business at Hattiesburg , Mississippi , where it is engaged in the business of assembling,
printing, and selling envelopes and related paper products . During the 12-month
period preceding the filing of the charge herein the Company sold and shipped
finished products valued in excess of $50 ,000 to customers in States other than the
State of Mississippi . I find the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issue
The issue is whether the Company discriminatorily discharged Arvis W. Shows
and whether it interrogated its employees concerning their union membership and
sympathies and threatened and coerced the employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them under the Act.
Preliminary Statement
The events herein occurred during 1959 and at all times material L. E. Rhian,
Sr., was president of the Company (hereafter referred to as Rhian ), L. E: Rhian, Jr.,
secretary-treasurer , T. J. Stromeyer, general superintendent , and Clarence Young,
production superintendent . Zeno Hurt was employed as senior adjuster in the open
.end department and, as stated by Rhian, directed the work in that department and
had authority to hire or fire employees , or to effectively recommend such action.
I find Hurt to be a supervisory employee within the meaning of Section 2(11) of
the Act.
MURRAY ENVELOPE CORPORATION OF MISSISSIPPI 1581
The Company also had . in effect certain rules governing employment , which were
printed and posted, one of which provided:
Persons other than employees presently-at work, are not allowed in the plant
without permission of the office.
The rules provided that employees would be warned for the first violation thereof
and dismissed in the event of a second violation.
B. The alleged discriminatory discharge of Shows
Shows was employed by the Company during November 1957, as a laborer,
then clerk in the shipping department. In February 1959, Shows, at his own
request, was transferred to the open end department as trainee-adjuster. While in
training Shows worked the day shift, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., and usually returned in the
evening, on a voluntary basis, to work with the second shift (3 to 11 p.m.) in order
to increase his knowledge of the machinery. After about 6 weeks as a trainee,
Shows was put on the second shift and performed the duties of an adjuster, although
he did not know whether he was classified as such. Shows stated there were no
complaints regarding his work in the open end department.
Around May 25, Shows contacted the president of the Central Labor Union at
Hattiesburg, in regard to organizing the employees, and about June 4 a union repre-
sentative called upon him, at which time he signed an authorization card. Shows
secured additional cards from the organizer and by June 7 he had signed up some
15 or 20 employees. All of his organizational activities were conducted on his own
time and outside plant property.
On Sunday, June 7, Shows asked Bill C. Shapansky, who worked the midnight
to 8 a.m. shift, to speak to the employees about signing up for the Union before
the commencement of their shift that night. Shows gave Shapansky a batch of
cards and told him he wanted the cards back that night or morning, signed or un-
signed. Shapansky took the cards and promised to call him around 12:30 the morn-
ing of June 8.
Shows did not hear from Shapansky by 2 a.m., so he drove over to the plant to see
him. After entering the plant building Shows met Young who inquired if Shows
knew he was breaking a company rule by being in the plant at that hour. Shows
explained he had come in to see Shapansky and he would appreciate it if he could
talk to him. Young repeated that Shows was breaking a company rule and advised
Shows, "I would have to see Mr. Rhian before I went to work." Later he quoted
Young as saying he had to see Rhian "that afternoon." Shows answered he did not
know that the rules had been enforced in the past and again asked if he could see
Shapansky. Young told him to wait, that he would send Shapansky out to see him,
which he did. Shapansky informed Shows he had been unable to sign up anyone and
returned the cards. Shows then left the plant. Shows admitted he did not reveal
the purpose of his visit to Young and Young was not present when he talked to
Shapansky.
Young testified he saw Shows in the building around 2 or 2:30 a .m. on June 8,
and he told Shows he had no business in the building at that hour and to report to
Rhian later in the morning. Shows said "all right" or "okay" and then asked if
he could speak to Shapansky for a few minutes. Young agreed and sent Shapansky
to see Shows. In 2 or 3 minutes Shapansky returned to his job. Young did not
question Shapansky concerning his conversation with Shows. The same morning
Young reported the incident to Rhian.
Shows stated he reported for work that afternoon at 3 o'clock and just as he
punched the timeclock Stromeyer handed him two checks, covering his wages and
vacation, respectively, and informed him that Rhian said he did not work there any
more, something about his being in the plant at 2 o'clock that morning. Stromeyer
told Shows he could talk to Rhian about the matter, but Shows declined, stating he
already had his check, he was no longer working, so there was no need to talk
to Rhian. He then left the plant. On cross-examination Shows denied that Young
had instructed him to see Rhian in the morning, but that Young had instructed him
to see Rhian before he went to work. Admittedly, Shows did not report to Rhian
prior to punching in that afternoon and thereafter he made no attempt to see Rhian
or any other company official.
Rhian said he arrived at the plant between 6:45 and 8 a.m. on June 8, and later,
he could not recall the exact time, Young reported that Shows had been in the plant
about 2 a.m., and he had instructed him to report to Rhian that morning. When
Shows did not appear at the office by noon Rhian assumed he was not interested in
working for the Company, so he had a check or checks prepared covering his wages
and vacation pay. Rhian instructed Stromeyer that if Shows came in for his shift
1582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he was to see him before going to work . Later, that afternoon , Stromeyer informed
Rhian that he had carried out his instructions , but Shows refused to see Rhian, for
the reason that if he could not come to the plant whenever he wished , he was no
longer interested in working for the Company. Stromeyer thereupon handed him his
checks.
Stromeyer was advised of Shows' visit to the plant and that he was to report to
Rhian that morning. When Shows reported for work that afternoon , and prior
to his punching in, Stromeyer , in line with his instructions , inquired if he had seen
Rhian and Shows answered no. Stromeyer stated Rhian was in the office if he
wanted to see him but Shows replied , "No," that if he could not come into the plant
and talk to persons when he felt like it , then he did not want to work there any
more. He then asked for his checks , which Stromeyer gave to him. Shows asked if
he could get his tools and Stromeyer told him to see Hurt.
Hurt testified Shows came to the department and remarked he was washed up,
and that he did not want to work in a plant where he could not talk to people
whenever he wished. He then picked up his tools , shook hands with Hurt, and left.
C. The proceedings before the Board, the strike
The records of the Board show that the Union filed a representation petition on
June I1 (Case No. 15-RC-2009, not published in NLRB volumes) and following a.
a hearing on June 29, the Board, on August 1, directed an election be conducted
among the employees in the customary production and maintenance unit. On
August 28, the election was held and of the approximately 176 eligible employees,
158 cast valid ballots; 95 in favor of the Union, 63 against, and I void ballot. On
September 8, the Board issued its certification in the matter.
On November 16, the original charge was filed herein alleging the discriminatory
discharge of Shows and five other employees and a general Section 8(a)(1) violation.
Although not an issue in the case, the record discloses that the Union called a
strike on November 17, which, apparently, was still current at the time of the hearing.
On December 15, the initial charge was amended by eliminating all the alleged
discriminatees except Shows.
D. Alleged acts of interference, restraint, and coercion as supporting Shows'
discharge and as an independent violation of Section 8(a) (1)
Merrill Everett was employed on the 4 to 12 p.m. shift as floorlady over seven
girls in the wide-range department. As Floorlady Everett was responsible for carry-
ing out Young's orders, inspected the work, assigned girls to machines, relieved them
on work breaks, received from 12 to 20 cents an hour more than the girls in her
group, and while she had no authority to hire or fire, or to recommend such action,
she could bring complaints to the superintendent. She signed a union card sometime
before the election and voted in the election without being challenged. Everett and
Shows were keeping steady company and their relationship was rather well known at
the plant. She stated that when Shows was a trainee-adjuster on the day shift he
would return to the plant every evening, on his own time, to watch the adjuster and
to drive her home at the end of her shift. Stromeyer and Young were fully aware of
this situation.
Everett testified that about 4 p.m. on June 8, she had a conversation with Rhian in
his office in which he said he had fired her friend, Shows, not for union activities but
because he was in the plant when he was not supposed to be there. He further
stated he had heard she had nothing to do with the Union and, seemingly, declared
he could find an excuse to fire her within 24 hours.
On Sunday, June 14, Everett attended a meeting of supervisors at which time
Rhian stated he did not want the Union in his plant and urged the supervisors to talk
against it. He also said he did not like Shows and he was angry because Shows tried
to undermine him. Apparently, the meeting ended with Rhian stating, "He didn't
say anything he cared for the union to know, that I [Everett] could tell them if I
liked." When Everett inquired if she was to be his "stool pigeon," Rhian answered,
"No." The next day Rhian approached Everett in the plant and told her the reason
he had invited her to the meeting was the fact that some employees had asked that
she be fired because they thought she was working for the Union. Everett made no
reply.
Sometime in August, Rhian told Everett to inform Shows that if he wanted to hold
a job in Hattiesburg he had better stop telling people he had been fired for union
activities.
Ruth Cooksie, a machine operator, stated that in June Stromeyer transferred her-
from the box department to the LO machine under Hurt. Stromeyer said she was
MURRAY ENVELOPE CORPORATION OF MISSISSIPPI 1583
being transferred , "because of the union and that the lady was off that machine
for 6 weeks" and "he was going to put me up there so I could be watched."
After her transfer Hurt asked if she had joined the Union and she replied she had
not. Hurt remarked she would be fired if she joined and that Rhian had inquired
whether she had signed up.
Cooksie testified that shortly after Rhian had transferred her to the LO machine
and warned her not to go into her old department , he came to her machine and
accused her of distributing union cards and literature . At the same time he said
Shows had been fired for trying to organize the Union and if she was caught with
anything concerning the Union she would be fired immediately . Cooksie said Rhian
talked to her about the Union until she went out on strike . During these conver-
sations Rhian was usually mad and stated he would not let the Union come in the
plant and if she or anyone else fooled with the Union they would be dismissed.
Apart from signing a card , and she could not remember when she did so, Cooksie
engaged in no union activities whatever.
Ann LaPerle worked in the open end department under Hurt . She signed a union
card about June 7. LaPerle stated that around 8 a.m. on June 8 , Hurt told her that
Shows "had been fired on account of the union." The same afternoon Shows came
to the department and said goodby to the employees.
About 2 or 3 weeks before the election Stromeyer sent word to LaPerle to meet
him at the coffee urn, which she did. While having coffee he asked her how she felt
about the Union and she said she belonged to the Union but did not know how she
felt about it, that she was undecided . Stromeyer said he did not believe the Com-
pany wanted the Union and as most of the employees had never belonged to a union
he did not think they wanted one . Thereafter, LaPerle and Hurt talked about the
Union "lots of times ," with LaPerle saying she was in favor of the Union and Hurt
being opposed to it.
Lillian Wall was employed for many years and on August ,29 she quit or was dis-
charged . On that date Young told her she was being transferred to the print shop
but she refused the transfer because the work was too heavy for her. Young said
that was the only job available and when she refused to accept it her employment
was terminated .' Later , the General Counsel asked her if Young had made any
mention of the Union at the time and she promptly replied:
Well, he [Young ] said that he wanted me to have one and everybody else to
understand that Mr . Rhian would never have a union in his plant , and I told
him, well , ,l didn't know anything about it and he said that Mr. Rhian was still
going to continue like he was with no union.
On cross-examination Wall admitted she telephoned Rhian , Jr.,' about her transfer,
and, although hazy as to what was said , Rhian did tell her to try the print shop job,
that maybe it was not as bad as she thought , but she declined his suggestion.
Wall signed a union card , she could not remember the date, and voted in the
election . She stated that on the morning of June 8, Rhian came to her in the plant
to inform her that Shows "was caught in the plant working for the union and he
just didn 't work there anymore." Wall related two other instances , occurring during
the last week of August , when Rhian spoke to her at her place of work. The first
time he accused her of working for the Union , which she denied , and warned her
she "better get out of the plant and work against it or I would be sorry." The
second time Rhian said he heard she was working for the Union , which she denied,
and he accused her of "hobnobbing " with prominent union members , mentioning
Ray Liverett , a union officer.
Margaret Bullock , a machine operator without a definite job assignment, first
heard of organizational activities around the middle of June when a union repre-
sentative requested her to sign a card , which she refused to do . In September, Rhian
asked her to attend a union meeting and report what was going on. Bullock ob-
viously agreed to do so and did attend a union meeting although she did not call
Rhian as she had promised . Rhian then came to her while she was working and
inquired if she had attended the meeting . Bullock said she did not go to the meeting
whereupon Rhian called her a liar, that he had heard she was present at the meeting.
The conversation then ended . Following her conversation with Rhian , apparently
the first one, Bullock signed a union card because she was dissatisfied with being
pushed from department to department and because she found out that Rhian was
not the friend she had believed him to be and the Union could be no worse than
Rhian . On several occasions before the election Rhian approached her in the plant
and stated he would never have a union , that he would shut down or move the ma-
chinery out of the State. Both before and after the election Rhian asked her to tell
I Wall was named as a discriminatee in the original charge.
1584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Everett to stay out of the Union and to keep away from Shows, otherwise he would
have to fire her.
H. J. Graves was employed as night watchman and also worked on the machines:
He was discharged on Labor Day, 1959.2 He sighed a union card sometime during
the summer. One night about 2 or 3 weeks before the election he and Young had a
rather lengthy conversation at the plant concerning the Union. In brief, Young
.asked which department were strongest for the Union and whether the women were
-more active in organizing than the men. Graves expressed the opinion the Union
was strong throughout the plant, that more women favored organization than the
men, and that the Union would win an election . According to Graves, Young in-
quired, "Didn't I [Graves] think that there would be some reason-to fire all of us if
-the union was voted in, that everybody who had anything to do with it would be
fired." Graves replied he thought it would be easier to fire all the employees before
the Union came in rather than afterward. Young told Graves to think about it and
talk to the employees. About a week later Rhian asked Graves if he had signed a
union card and he said that he had.
James McMahon, after quitting his job, returned to work in July and was em-
ployed as an adjuster under Hurt. Upon his return McMahon asked what had hap-
pened to Shows and Hurt said he had been "fooling with that union." Hurt never
questioned McMahon about the Union but cautioned him not to fool with the
Union or he would be fired. On another occasion he said the plant would close down
,or move if the Union came in . McMahon signed up for the Union on some unspeci-
fied date.
Ray Liverett was employed as a pressman and was president of the local union.
`Sometime prior to the election Rhian called Liverett to the office and, after stating
he knew Liverett was active in the Union, asked what his hourly rate was and he
said it was $1.20. Rhian showed Liverett one line on a piece of paper and stated
that he would make $1.05 under a union contract. Liverett remarked if that was
true he did not want the Union. Rhian then stated he was getting some new ma-
chinery and if Liverett would pull out of the Union he would put him on one of
these machines as an adjuster. Rhian said he did not know where he was going to
get the "big money" that had been promised by the Union and before he would sign
:a union contract he would move to his $40,000 yacht and give the business to his
son. Liverett said he would think it over and the conversation ended. He had no
further talks with Rhian along that line.
In the latter part of October, Liverett and C. A. Creel, vice president of the local,
met with Rhian to complain of short hours being worked by union members. Rhian
:said the only union members he knew were those, on the list submitted to him by
Liverett. This list set forth the names of the local officers. The meeting was incon-
clusive but during the course thereof Rhian said he was going to cut down the busi-
ness by about one-third. Rhian also gave a history of how he established the busi-
ness and commented that since the Union would probably file unfair labor practice
-charges, "he was going to be careful what he said." The meeting then ended.
Liverett denied Rhian informed them that his Government contracts had been cut
60 percent for the second half of the year.
Creel was present at the above meeting and, like Liverett, testified the purpose of
the meeting was to complain about short hours, that it was inconclusive, and that
Rhian gave an account of how he established the business. In addition Rhian de-
clared he had heart trouble, that he could not let the Union bring on an attack, and
he would turn over the business to his son and take to his yacht, or burn down the
plant, rather than have the Union. Creel, who worked as a cutter under Young,
said neither Young nor Hurt ever spoke to him about the Union.
Rhian testified there was much confusion and talk among the employees during
the period of organization which effected the volume and quality of work. He ad-
mitted that during this time he spoke to practically all the employees, many of whom
came to him on the subject of organization. In these conversations he answered
questions propounded by the workers and he tried to point out the advantages and
disadvantages of a union plant operation and the Mississippi right-to-work law.
Rhian urged the employees, verbally and by letter, to attend union meetings to get the
facts and then decide for themselves whether they wanted the Union. He conceded
he told the employees that it was to their best interests to vote against the Union, but
they were free to vote as they pleased. In general Rhian denied the acts of interroga-
tion, threats of economic reprisals, and sundry other acts attributed to him by the
witnesses for the General Counsel.
2 It appears that Graves was discharged for leaving his watchman's post without being
relieved. He was named as a dischargee in the original charge.
MURRAY ENVELOPE CORPORATION OF MISSISSIPPI 1585
Specifically, Rhian denied telling Wall that Shows was discharged because he was
caught working for the Union. Wall, he stated, asked him for a ,raise because of
her loyalty to him during the union drive and because she needed money. Rhian
refused to give her, or anyone else, a pay raise.
Rhian denied that he requested Bullock to spy on the Union. On the contrary,
Bullock volunteered to attend a union meeting and to report thereon by telephone.
Bullock did not call so the next day Rhian, while in the plant, mentioned she had
not called him. Bullock said she did not go to the meeting and he remarked he had
heard otherwise.
Rhian denied that he offered Liverett a better job if he would Quit the Union or
work against it. Concerning his meeting with Liverett and Creel, Rhian said the
hours in one department were cut due to the elimination of some Government con-
tract work. Rhian explained that when he bought the business from Murray in
1943, he agreed to manufacture envelopes for Murray, including Government work
secured by Murray on his own bids and for which he received the commission.
Murray died in September 1958, and Rhian was no longer obligated to accept this
business. Rhian completed the last Government order for Murray on August 31,
1959. Rhian submitted his bid for Government work, which was on a competitive
basis and higher than those previously submitted by Murray. As a consequence the
Company received but 40 percent of the business it had performed in the previous
6 months. Rhian denied making any remarks about having a bad heart or a $40,000
yacht; he said his yacht cost $4,000.
Stromeyer denied he interrogated employees regarding their union membership or
sympathies, or threatened them or discussed the Union with any of the workers. He
stated that when one of the operators went on sick leave he transferred Cooksie to
the machine because she had experience on that operation. Stromeyer made no men-
tion of the Union at the time and Cooksie did not complain about her transfer.
Young admitted he talked to some of the employees about the Union, including
Wall and Graves. These conversations, he stated, amounted to nothing more than
a general discussion of the Union in which he took the position that it was up to the
workers to decide whether they wanted the Union.
Hurt denied he interrogated employees. He denied that he told LaPerle that
Shows had been fired on account of the Union. Hurt denied telling McMahon he
would be fired if he fooled with the Union.
The Alleged Polling of Employees Concerning Their Union Membership
At the hearing I granted the General Counsel's motion to amend his complaint
to allege that during June and July the Company interrogated and polled its em-
ployees concerning their union membership and solicited their withdrawal from the
Union.
Rhian admitted that during the summer he authorized the printing of cards (de-
scribed below) which were distributed among the employees at the plant. He could
not recall whether the employees were told to sign the cards. Rhian did not know
how many employees may have signed cards for they were collected and destroyed
without being examined by anyone.
Everett received one of these cards from Stromeyer, in the latter part of June or
early July, which was printed on both sides; one side read, "I have signed a union
card; I wish to have it withdrawn," while the other side stated, "I have not signed a
union card. I wish to remain as it is. I am satisfied with conditions as they are."
Everett asked Stromeyer if she had to sign the card and he said management would
appreciate it if she did. She then signed the card and gave it to Stromeyer who
placed it in an envelope.
Cooksie refused to sign her card although requested to do so by her immediate-
supervisor and Stromeyer. Creel signed a card for Hurt but LaPerle declined Hurt's
suggestion that she sign up. Liverett signed his card and Bullock signed one for
Stromeyer without even reading it. Graves never saw a card and when Rhian asked
if he had signed one he told him no.
Concluding Findings
The gravamen of the complaint is the discharge of Shows allegedly for his union
membership and activities. Shows himself admitted he visited the plant in violation
of a valid company rule, refused Young's instructions to report to Rhian regarding
the violation before starting'his work shift, and declined an opportunity to see Rhian
when Stromeyer handed him his paychecks. Shows made no attempt to explain
why he ignored Young's instructions. Again, his refusal to heed Stromeyer's invita-
5 97254-G 1-vol. 130-101
1586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion to see Rhian for the reason that he had been discharged is flimsy and strictly an
afterthought. The record offers no satisfactory answer for Shows' conduct. The
General Counsel, overlooking Shows' disobedience of Young's instructions, says it
is illogical to believe Shows would quit over a minor violation of a company rule
while he was organizing the employees. While this is a weak and improvised argu-
ment it is about the best the General Counsel could advance under the circumstances.
To me Shows' actions and attitude make no sense whatever. On the basis of his
own testimony, and assuming company knowledge of his union activities, I have no
difficulty in finding Shows was not discriminatorily discharged. Further, I was more
impressed with the testimony of Young, Rhian, and Stromeyer than that of Shows,
so I find that he was discharged for the reasons and under the circumstances related
by them .3
Despite the termination of its active proponent at the very outset of the organiza-
tional movement, the Union initiated no charges on his behalf, instead the Union
promptly filed a representation petition and was subsequently certified by the Board
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the production and maintenance em-
ployees. More than 5 months after Shows' dismissal the Union filed a charge on
behalf of Shows, and others, and oddly enough the charge was filed on the eve of
the Union's strike against the Company. Of course, the charge meets the statutory
requirement of timeliness but it occurs to me the filing thereof was more of a strike
stratagem than a delayed resort to Board procedures to protect the rights of Shows
guaranteed under the Act.
All that aside, and motive for the charge way well be immaterial, the evidence
adduced by the General Counsel to support his complaint is based on a conglomera-
tion of so-called admissions by company officials around or after the,time of Shows'
discharge and the Company's preelection conduct.
As set forth above, Shows' activities took place outside the plant, he did not reveal
the-purpose of his visit to Young on the night in question, and he made no claim
that anyone from management even spoke to him concerning his union membership
or organizational efforts. In such circumstances it is difficult to believe or infer that
the Company was aware of his -activities. However, in the teeth of these facts,
witnesses for the General Counsel willingly furnished testimony 'which, if accepted,
would establish the discriminatory character of Shows' dismissal. Thus, Wall testi-
fied that on June 8, Rhian confessed to her that he had fired Shows because of the
Union and Cooksie related a similar confession was made to her sometime later in
June. LaPerle claimed that-on June 8, Hurt volunteered'the information that Shows
had been discharged because of the Union and McMahon cited Hurt's declaration, in
July, that Shows was no longer working because he fooled with the Union. In
contrast to this testimony, Everett, Shows' girl friend, testified that on the after-
noon of June 8, Rhian told her Shows had been discharged for violation of company
rules. Later, in August, Rhian told Everett to inform Shaws that if he wanted to
keep a job in Hattiesburg he had better stop saying he was fired for union activities.
I attach no importance to this latter testimony for it falls far short of indicating any
blacklisting; if that was the purpose thereof. It may also well be that Rhian was
simply complaining that Shows was circulating a false rumor.
From my observation of Wall, LaPerle, Cooksie, and McMahon I got the impres-
sion they were doing their best to rescue Shows' job and to make out a case of inter-
ference with their rights to organization.' Wall and Cooksie exhibited open hostility
toward the Company and sought to create the idea that their transfers to different
jobs, as well as Wall's termination, was a result of their union 'membership. Hurt
had nothing to do with Shows' discharge and he did not strike me as a. person'who,
for no apparent reason, would volunteer the information attributed to him by La-
Perle and McMahon. I think it is sufficient to state that I am not moved or per--
8I fail to see 'how knowledge of Shows' union activties may be imputed to the Company
and this, of course, is a prerequisite to a finding of discriminatory discharge. The General
Counsel contends knowledge may be inferred on the authority of Wiese Plow Welding Co.,
Inc., 123 NLRB 616. In that case the Board inferred knowledge on the basis of (1) the
small size of the plant, only 13 employees, (2) the dischargee recently spoke in favor of
the union to other employees, (3)' the employer's knowledge of the dischargee' s union
activity at a previous place of employment,. (4) the timing of the discharge which took
place as soon as union activities became apparent, (5) the fact that the only two em-
ployees who had been active on behalf of the union were discharged, and (6) the absence
of warrning of discharge such as had been given in previous instances. None of the
foregoing factors have been established in the present case.
MURRAY ENVELOPE CORPORATION OF MISSISSIPPI 1 587
suaded by the uniform pattern of testimony of the above witnesses. Accordingly, I
reject their testimony.
Having found that Shows was discharged for nondiscriminatory reasons the al-
leged acts of interference, restraint, and coercion occurring subsequent thereto have
no effect upon his discharge. The remaining issue is whether these acts are sufficient
to constitute an independent violation of Section 8(a)( I) requiring remedial relief.
On this phase of the case the witnesses for the General Counsel related various inci-
dents involving company officials, practically all of which took place in the preelection
period. In brief, Everett, Cooksie, Wall, Bullock, and Graves testified that Rhian
spoke to them about the Union, or inquired if they had signed up, and threatened to
fire them if he caught them working for the Union. Rhian admitted he talked to
practically all of the employees prior to the election and while he expressed opposi-
tion to organization he made it clear that they were free to vote as they pleased in
the coming election. He denied that he interrogated them concerning their union
membership or activities or threatened them with economic reprisals because of
the Union.
As I have already stated I was not at all impressed by the above-named witnesses
and, frankly, I do not believe Rhian interrogated or threatened them in the manner
and to the extent to which they testified. At the same time I doubt that Rhian could
have conversed with practically every employee on the subject of organization, and
expressed his opposition to the Union, with such tact and restraint that he did not
inquire into union membership or activities. I believe the record as a whole war-
rants the conclusion that Rhian did generally interrogate the employees concerning
their union membership or sympathies, and nothing more. However, the interroga-
tions took place during the period of organization when undoubtedly there was con-
fusion and talk among the workers. Further, I find no credible evidence indicating
that Rhian did any more than question the employees as to their union membership
and activities and, obviously, the questioning did. not interfere with or coerce the
employees in the exercise of their rights, for the Union won the election by a sub-
stantial majority. Under all the circumstances, and in line with the principle an-
nounced in Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591, I conclude the interrogations
were not coercive and, therefore, not unlawful. In the Blue Flash case the Board
held (p. 593), "that interrogation of employees by an employer as to such matters
as their union membership or union activities, which, when viewed in the context in
which the interrogation occurred, falls short of interference or coercion, is not
unlawful." The General Counsel cites the Syracuse Color Press case 4 to support his
contention that the interrogations violated the Act. The facts in the Syracuse Color
Press case bear no resemblance to the facts as found herein. Moreover, the issue in
that case arose on the union 's objections to the election and a charge of unfair labor
practice. Here the Union won the election, so the bare question of whether the
Company interrogated employees prior thereto is more academic than real.
Liverett described a meeting with Rhian at which Rhian warned that his wage
rate would be lower under a union contract, offered Liverett abetter job if he would
quit the Union, and wound up by stating he would give the business to his son rather
than have the Union at the plant. Rhian denied making such statements . I gathered
Liverett was giving his support to the cause and I cannot accept his farfetched testi-
mony regarding this meeting.
Graves asserted he had a lengthy conversation with Young on the Union's strength
at the plant and requested Graves' advice as to how the Company could fire all the
union adherents. I find Graves' version of the conversation wholly unbelievable and
on the basis of Young's denial, I reject his testimony.
McMahon claimed that although never questioned by Hurt regarding the Union,
Hurt warned him he would be fired if he joined and that the plant would shut down
or move if the Union came in . I have already found McMahon to be an unreliable
witness, so I accept Hurt's denial and find he did not utter the threats or warnings
attributed to him.
Only two instances of post-election conduct appear in the record.
Bullock gave a somewhat garbled account of how a request to act as company
spy ended in her joining the Union. It seems that in September, Rhian asked that
she attend a union meeting as his spy and report back to him. Although Bullock at-
tended the meeting she failed to make any report thereon. Later, when Rhian in-
quired if she had gone to the meeting, Bullock asserted she had not. Rhian there-
upon called her a liar, for he had heard she had attended the meeting. Bullock, who
Syracuse Color Press , Inc., 103 NLRB 377, enfd . 209 F. 2d 596 (C.A. 2).
1588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was dissatisfied with her job, then decided Rhian was no friend of hers and signed
up for the Union because it could be no worse than Rhian . Rhian testified Bullock
volunteered to spy on the Union and when she did not call him , as she had promised,
he mentioned this to her. When Bullock stated she had not attended the meeting,
Rhian said he had heard otherwise . I am satisfied Bullock's testimony was colored
by animosity toward Rhian and her account of the spy incident is not at all con-
vincing. Accordingly, I accept Rhian's testimony and find he did not request her to
engage in any spy activities.
The second incident centers on statements by Rhian at the October meeting with
Liverett and Creel. During the meeting Creel said Rhian warned that rather than
have the Union he would give the business to his son and take to his yacht or burn
down the plant . Rhian denied these threats. Liverett made no mention of any
threats or warnings by Rhian at this meeting. In fact he quoted Rhian as telling them
he had to be careful what he said to them. In view of the conflicting , if not contra-
dictory, testimony of Liverett and Creel, plus Rhian' s denial , I find Rhian did not
utter any threats or warnings at the meeting as claimed by Creel.
It is undisputed that before the election the Company printed cards designed to
reveal whether the employees had signed union cards and requesting withdrawal if
they had , which were distributed among the employees by supervisors with the re-
quest that they sign the same. Most of the General Counsel's witnesses signed the
cards, although nothing happened to the two or three who refused to sign up.
Granting this action constituted an illegal polling of the employees as to their
union membership , the policies of the Act would not be effectuated by a remedial
order directed to this single violation , particularly since the Union has been certi-
fied as the statutory representative of the employees involved.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of the Respondent occur in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the
complaint , as amended , within the meaning of Section 8 ( a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Thomas S. San Giacomo, Inc., and Cornwall Paper Mills Com-
pany and Local Union No. 863, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America. Case No. 22-CA-703. March 27, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 13, 1960, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
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 brief, and the entire record in this
130 NLRB No. 153.