Palmer Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1970

180 N.L.R.B. 1008 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Palmer Paper Company and Teamsters, Local 745,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America. Case 16-CA-3634
January 30, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On November 5, 1969, Trial Examiner Lloyd S.
Greenidge issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommended dismissal of those allegations.
Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(cl of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Palmer Paper
Company, Dallas, Texas, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
In his Decision , the Trial Examiner occasionally referred to Weldon
Jennings as Weldon Johnson These inadvertent errors are hereby
corrected
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(I) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act.
Respondent's answer admits the procedural and
jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, but denies
generally the remaining allegations, including the
commission of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before me at
Dallas, Texas, on September 16 and 17, 1969. All parties
were represented by counsel, were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross examine
witnesses, to introduce evidence relevant and material to
the issues, to file briefs and proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Briefs were filed by the General
Counsel, Respondent, and the Charging Party.
Upon the entire record in the case, his resolution of
issues of credibility based upon the appearance and
demeanor of the witnesses, and the briefs, which have
been carefully considered, the Trial Examiner makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The complaint alleges, and Respondent's answer
admits, that, at all times material herein, Palmer Paper
Company, a division of Hammermill Paper Company and
Respondent herein, is and has been a Pennsylvania
corporation with offices and a warehouse in Dallas, Texas,
engaged in the wholesale distribution of paper products.
During the past 12 months, Respondent purchased and
received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
which were transported to its Dallas warehouse directly
from sources outside the State of Texas.
It is, therefore, found, upon the basis of the foregoing
and upon the entire record, that Respondent is now, and
at all times material herein has been, an employer
engaged in commerce and in a business affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) and 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Teamsters , Local 745, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, herein called the Union, is now,
and at all times material herein has been, a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction: The Issues
This case concerns warehousemen, truckdrivers and
helpers, shipping and receiving employees, order fillers,
and papercutters employed at the Company's Dallas,
warehouse. In March 1969, a substantial number of these
employees, dissatisfied with certain conditions of
employment, sought union assistance The leader in the
organizational effort was Joe Phillips who distributed and
obtained signed union authorization cards from six of
about eight or nine unit employees.
LLOYD S. GREENIDGE, Trial Examiner- In this
proceeding, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board issued a complaint' alleging that Palmer
Paper Company has engaged in unfair labor practices
'The complaint was issued on July 18, 1969 The original charge was
filed on May 27, 1969, and served on May 28, 1969, the first amended
charge was filed and served on July I. 1969. All dates hereafter mentioned
are 1969 , unless otherwise indicated
180 NLRB No. 156
PALMER PAPER CO. 1009
On March 21, the Union filed a representation petition
with the Board and on March 24 notice of filing was
received by the Company (Case 16-RC-5170). The
organizational campaign culminated in an election on
May 9 which the Union won. Charles B. Flud, employed
at the Dallas warehouse, was discharged on May 16
Most of the events with which we are here concerned
occurred between mid March and June. The branch
manager was Charles R. Flynt and the warehouse
superintendent was Charles B. Flud. The complaint
alleges, Respondent admitted at the hearing, and I find
that, at all times material herein, Flynt and Flud were
agents and supervisors of the Respondent within the
meaning of Section 2(13) and 2(11) of the Act,
respectively.
The issues litigated in this proceeding are (1) whether
Charles B. Flud and Charles R. Flynt engaged in acts of
interference, restraint, and coercion violative of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act and (2) whether Flud, a statutory
supervisor, was discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(l)
of the Act.
B. Interference, Restraint , and Coercion
1 Warehouse Superintendent Charles B. Flud
The complaint alleges that, on or about April 1, Flud
orally interrogated certain of Respondent's employees
about their union membership, activities, and desires. The
answer denies the allegation. At the hearing, Respondent
raised as a separate defense to the allegation the claim
that, on the date in question, Flud acted contrary to
specific instructions directing him to refrain from
inquiries, threats, or promises relating to union matters
and, as a consequence, Respondent can not be held
accountable for his conduct.
Sometime in early April, Flynt called Flud to his office
where, according to Flud, Flynt instructed him to find out
who initiated the union campaign. Flud immediately went
into the warehouse and, again accordingly to Flud,
questioned "all of the men." At some point during the
interrogation, Joe Phillips, a truckdriver, admitted to Flud
that he had obtained union authorization cards for the
employees. Flud then returned to the office and told Flynt
that Phillips was responsible for bringing the Union into
the warehouse. In his direct examination, Flud testified
that Flynt's response to the report was to issue
instructions to Flud to fire Phillips "for the least little
thing that I caught him doing wrong." On
cross-examination, however, Flud averred that, at the time
he approached Phillips, he told Phillips that Flynt had
directed Flud to find out who started the Union and to
fire him the first time Flud "found him doing something
wrong." At this juncture we are confronted with what
appears to be a conflict in Flud's testimony. Phillips
readily acknowledged that Flud interrogated him about his
organizational activities but there is no mention in
Phillips' testimony of any threat of,discharge by Flud.'
Further, although Flud testified that he interrogated all of
the employees in an effort to ascertain the identity of the
union leader only Phillips admitted having been asked this
question. Employees Bill F. Franklin, Virgil L.
Yarborough and H. L. Clinkscales specifically denied that
any such question was ever directed to them by Flud. In a
word, then, I credit only so much of Flud's testimony
concerning his questioning of employees as was
corroborated by Phillips.
With regard to Flynt's alleged instructions to Flud, at
first Flynt denied generally telling Flud to find out who
instigated the union campaign testifying that Flud
volunteered the information that Phillips was responsible
for the effort. On cross-examination, however, Flynt
withdrew somewhat from this position and allowed that he
might have asked Flud "who's all in it" and might have
"passed on some information." In view of Flynt's
ambivalence and uncertainty, I credit Flud's version in
this instance over Flynt's equivocal denial and find that
Flynt instructed Flud to ascertain the identity of the
union leader.
Respondent contends that Flud's statements to Phillips
are not binding on it for the reason that the questioning
was unauthorized and contrary to specific instructions to
Flud to remain neutral. The contention is devoid of merit.
The record shows that on two separate occasions the
first about 3 years ago, the second shortly after the
Respondent received notice of the filing of the petiion on
March 24 and before the interrogation of Phillips -
Hugh M. Smith, Respondent's attorney, directed Flud, in
the presence of Flynt, to refrain from questioning
employees concerning union matters, threatening them
with economic reprisal, or making any promise of benefit
to them in this regard. It is well settled, however, that
such instructions to supervisors do not relieve an employer
of responsibility for acts in violation thereof where, as
here, the instructions are not communicated to employees
and the supervisor's unlawful conduct subsequent thereto
is not disavowed by the employer.'
Phillips' organizational activities were not a legitimate
matter of concern to the Respondent and Flud
transgressed permissible limits when he elicited
information from Phillips on this subject. Accordingly, I
find that, by Flud's interrogation of Phillips concerning
his union activities, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1).
Sometime during the period immediately preceding the
election, Flud asked Bill F. Franklin, a truckdriver, if he
had signed "one of the cards," presumably a union
authorization card. Franklin replied, "no." Flud
continued: "You know you have to think about your own
welfare and you have a family to think about too," adding
something about "security."4 I do not find as an unlawful
interrogation Flud's inquiry of Franklin as to whether he
signed a union card. Flud's purpose was to be helpful by
pointing out some of the advantages of unionization. In
my view, Flud's conduct here, essentially sympathetic,
would not reasonably tend to coerce Franklin concerning
his union activities.'
2. Branch Manager Charles R. Flynt
The complaint alleges and the answer denies, that on or
about April 8, Respondent's Branch Manager Flynt
promised certain employees job security and other benefits
if they refrained from becoming or remaining members of
the Union. A couple of weeks following Flud's inquiry of
Phillips and before the election Flynt summoned Phillips
'Phillips was discharged in July, about 2 months after the termination of
Flud, assertedly for failure to report an accident
'Texas Electric Cooperatives , Inc, 160 NLRB 440, 454-455, Aladdin
Industries , Inc, 147 NLRB 1392, 1398, Standard Industries , Inc , 133
NLRB 320, 331-332; Solo Cup Company , 114 NLRB 121, enfd. 237 F 2d
521 (C.A 8)
'These findings are based on the credited and uncontroverted testimony
of Franklin.
'See Bourne , an individual d/b/a Bourne Co v N.L R B. 332 F 2d 47,
48 (C.A. 2), Cannon Electric Company, 151 NLRB 1465, 1470
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to his office to discuss a customer's complaint. During the
course of the conversation that ensued, Flynt told Phillips,
according to Phillips, that he would be a truckdriver the
rest of his life if the Union won the election but, if he
changed his attitude towards the Union, he could grow
with the Company. Flynt denied generally making the
statement charged to him by Phillips. Phillips was an
impressive witness testifying with careful regard for the
truth. I credit his testimony over Flynt's general denial
and find that Flynt's statement that Phillips could grow
with the Company if he forgot about the Union was a
promise of economic benefit, uttered to an employee
during a period of union activities, and violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.'
The complaint alleges , and the answer denies , that on
or about May 19, Branch Manager Flynt orally
threatened certain employees (i) with more onerous
working conditions and (ii) with discharge if, in each
instance, they remained members of the Union or gave
any assistance or support to it. Sometime shortly after
Flud's discharge on May 16, Flynt again called Phillips to
his office. On this occasion, according to Phillips, Flynt
told Phillips that, if he did not change his attitude towards
the Union, Flynt would start issuing warnings and he
would be fired after the second warning. Flynt denied
making the statements attributed to him by Phillips. Once
again we are confronted with a close credibility question. I
have previously credited Phillips over Flynt because of his
candor and frankness and I am inclined to do so again in
light of all the circumstances. But this is not to say that I
found Flynt unworthy of belief in all respects as will
appear clearer hereinafter.' Both were no longer employed
by the Respondent at the time of the hearing and,
presumably, both were disinterested witnesses. In my
judgment, however, Phillips' account is more plausible and
creditable. Flynt did not deny having summoned Phillips
to his office on this occasion and no explanation was
offered for his presence there. Flynt's statements that he
would issue warnings and ultimately discharge Phillips
were coercive and constituted a threat of reprisal if
Phillips continued his allegiance to the Union. As such,
they violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and I so find.
Phillips' credited account of this meeting with Flynt
continues: At some point, Flynt declared: "You are going
to be under pressure and I would not work under the
'Respondent argues that Phillips is not to be credited because of his
denial of certain statements allegedly made to two employees . In this
regard , the record shows that Darwin Wayne Morgan and David Ray
Morgan , brothers and cousins of Phillips, started to work for the
Respondent on May 23, 1969, and worked intermittently thereafter until
about June 20 . Flynt testified that , on or about May 27, either Darwin
Wayne or David Ray reported that Phillips had told him he would have to
join the Union and vote for it in order to continue in Respondent's
employ . According to Flynt, the unidentified brother went on to say that,
since he did not want to work in a union shop , he would look elsewhere for
employment . The argument is utterly without merit To begin with, the
Morgan brother who allegedly complained to Flynt was not called as a
witness and no explanation was offered by the Respondent for its failure to
call him . Secondly , assuming the accuracy of the report, it is unreasonable
to believe that , about 2 weeks after the election , Phillips, or any one else,
would have told the complainant he had to vote for the Union Finally,
assuming Phillips told the Morgan brother that he must join the Union to
continue working for the Company , the statement , standing alone, is
meaningless for it is entirely possible that it represents but a segment of
what Phillips really said. Further speculation is pointless . It will suffice to
say that, for the reasons set forth above , I reject this hearsay testimony of
Flynt.
'See N. L.R B v Universal Camera Corp. 179 F.2d 749, 754 (C.A. 2),
reversed on other grounds 340 U S 474.
pressure you will be under." Considered in context,
Flynt's statement had a coercive effect in that it suggested
surveillance and implied reprisal for support of the Union.
Thus, it was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
C. The Discharge of Charles B. Flud
Flud commenced his employment with the Respondent
in 1964 and, about 3 months later, was made warehouse
foreman or superintendent. Approximately 1 1/2 years
after this, Flud quit the Respondent's employ but, on or
about July 16, 1968, returned and was reinstated in his old
position, the job he held at the time of his discharge on
May 16.
Flud testified that when he was rehired Flynt told him
to let him know of any union activity in the warehouse
and to fire any employee found so engaged. Flynt denied
giving Flud any such instructions and credibly testified
that Flud told him at that time that he was a member of
the Teamsters but preferred to work for Palmer, a
nonunion employer. There is no evidence in the record of
any union activity at Respondent's warehouse in July 1968
and, therefore, no apparent reason for Flynt to have
instructed Flud, known to him to be an active or inactive
union member,' to report on union activity. Accordingly, I
do not accept this testimony of Flud.
As stated, on March 24, Flynt received notice of the
filing of the representation petition' and immediately
advised his superiors to this effect. After this, Flynt went
into the warehouse where he delivered a short speech to
the employees. In the course of the speech, Flynt stated
that he had been informed that the men wanted an
election, asked them to reconsider, suggested that whoever
started the campaign was not their friend, and finally
declared that the Company was opposed to the Union.
Following the speech, according to Flud, Flynt called
Flud into his office and told him to find out who was
responsible for bringing the Union into the warehouse
(discussed in Section III B. 1 above). About once a week
thereafter, Flynt asked Flud how the union campaign was
going and , on such occasions, Flud complained stating
that, being a supervisor, he had no protection and
preferred to stay out of it.10
Flud testified that, about 4 days before the election,
Flynt instructed him to load up the drivers heavy and send
them out on long hauls, adding, according to Flud, that
"maybe one of them wouldn't get back in time to vote"
and "that might throw the election." Flud went on to say
that he refused to follow these instructions and, on the
day of the election, Flynt dispatched the trucks himself.
While denying the accusation, Flynt acknowledged the
existence of a rumor that he would give the men long
hauls to keep them from voting. Flynt testified that, on
the morning of the election, Flud asked him what he was
going to do about drivers out on long runs. Flynt replied
that he wanted them to vote and, about 8:30 a.m. that
day, prepared and circulated a memorandum to all
employees. The memorandums' reads as follows:
'Flud testified that he held a "withdrawal" card from the Teamsters at
some unspecified period during his employment with Respondent and that
Flynt was aware of this The membership was reinstated after discharge.
'It is not clear from the record whether receipt of the notice of filing was
in addition to a notice from the Union as Flynt testified about the latter
and the parties stipulated as to former.
"These findings are based on the uncontroverted testimony of Flud.
"Resp . Exh. 3 . While the copy in evidence bears the signatures of only
three of the eight or nine eligible voters it appears , from the
uncontroverted testimony of Flynt, that all signed a similar memorandum
PALMER PAPER CO. 1011
May 9, 1969 1. Contentions, additional findings
MEMO TO TRUCK DRIVERS:
Any driver out on delivery this morning can leave his
run in sufficient time to return to the warehouse by
10.00 A.M.
Copy received
/sl Bill F. Franklin
/sl Wiley Patterson
/sl Joe Phillips
I credit Flynt's detailed and corroborative version of
this incident over the naked assertions of Flud and find
that there were no instructions from Flynt to keep the
men from voting.
About I week after the election, another rumor was
current in the warehouse, this one to the effect that the
Respondent's attorney was talking to employees on the
premises about Flud. Flud immediately confronted Flynt
and accused him of blaming Flud for the fact that the
Union had won the election. Flynt answered that he was
only trying to get a new election. Later the same week,
Flud again approached Flynt and this time asked if Flynt
was going to fire him over the election. Flynt replied that
he would not know until he had had an opportunity to
discuss the matter with his attorney." The following day,
May 16, Flynt summoned Flud to his office and, in the
presence of one Robert W. Woodside," told Flud that he
would have to let him go. Asked for a reason, Flynt said,
according to Flud, "the only reason I can give you is
`unloyalty' to the Company." Flynt then requested that
Flud not talk to the men. Flud replied that he had to call
his wife and Flynt repeated his request. After leaving the
office, Flud went into the warehouse where he made the
stated telephone call. As he was leaving the warehouse
area, Flud announced to employees Albert Sawyer and
Weldon Johnson that he had been discharged "for union
activities."'
A couple of days after the discharge Flynt addressed
the employees. He told them Flud had done a good job
and, in fact, was the best warehouse foreman he ever had.
Someone asked why Flud had been fired and Flynt
responded that, "it was just one of those things that had
to be done.""
and that all voted in the election scheduled for 10 am , except Bill
Franklin who did not return from an assignment in time although advised
that he was authorized to leave his run for this purpose.
"Actually, Flynt discussed the question of Flud's discharge with General
Manager Hirschman as well , In an affidavit to the Board Flynt stated that
the discussion with Hirschman preceded the election and at the hearing
declared that it followed. Flynt explained that the discussion followed the
receipt of a telephone call on the eve of the election with reference to Flud
(discussed below), that he knew from an earlier visit that Hirschman would
return to the warehouse about 3 or 4 days after the election , and that he
decided to wait until then before taking up the matter with him I am
convinced that Flynt' s statement in the affidavit was an unintentional error
and I accept his explanation.
"A salesman at the time but branch manager since the first week in
June when Flynt left Respondent 's employ.
'These findings are based on the uncontroverted and credited testimony
of Flud
"These findings are made on the basis of the credited and
uncontroverted testimony of Phillips.
The General Counsel argues that Flud was discharged
because of his refusal to cooperate with the Respondent in
a campaign to thwart the organizational efforts of the
employees by interference, restraint, and coercion. More,
specifically, it is argued that the discharge resulted from
Flud's failure to follow instructions to keep an eye on the
union campaign, to discharge the instigator of the
campaign "for the least little thing," and to send
employees out on long runs to keep them from voting.
The objective realities do not support the argument.
With regard to the first matter, Flud testified that he
balked at Flynt's instruction to engage in surveillance of
employees' organizational activities because he had no
protection and preferred not to get involved. The record
shows, however, that Flud was anything but neutral in the
Union's campaign. Franklin credibly testified that Flud
asked him if he had signed a union card and, when
Franklin responded in the negative, suggested that it
would be to his advantage to do so as union membership
would provide "security" for Franklin and his family. In a
like vein, Flud told employee Weldon Johnson, on two or
three different occasions and in response to inquiries from
Johnson, that the Union was a "good deal" and that the
employees would get a dental plan and more money if
they voted for the Union. It is evident enough that Flud's
prounion pronouncements belie his protestations of
neutrality.
With regard to the second matter, Phillips testified
credibly and without contradiction that a couple of weeks
after the Flud inquiry, related above, Flynt called him to
his office to discuss a customer complaint concerning
something Phillips had said "wrong" about a salesman.
Surely, if Flynt was intent on firing Phillips at the
slightest provocation this incident presented an excellent
opportunity for Flynt himself to have done so. Yet,
Phillips was not discharged on this occasion. Accordingly,
I do not credit the testimony of Flud (discussed in section
III B., l above) that he was instructed by Flynt to
discharge Phillips for "the least little thing ......
Concerning the alleged instruction to send employees
out on long hauls to keep them from voting, this
allegation has already been rejected and it has been found
that, on the morning of the election and before the
balloting, Flud circulated and obtained acknowledgments
to a notice advising all drivers that they were at liberty to
leave their runs in sufficient time to return to vote.
For its part, Respondent contends that the decision to
discharge Flud was made after receipt of reports from
three employees to the effect that Flud was engaged in
prounion activities and after consultations between
management representatives and its attorneys. The reports
were as follows:
About 1 month before the election, Mack Rhodes
informed Flynt by telephone that Flud was behind the
union campaign. Since Rhodes had recently been laid off,
Flynt discounted the report at the time, characterizing it
as "sour grapes."
A week before the election, Albert Sawyer, a
papercutter, informed Flynt that the union campaign
began as a joke. Sawyer explained that Flud wanted a pay
raise and told the men that if they started a union he
would go to Flynt and tell him he could stop it in
exchange for a raise.16
"Called by the Respondent, Sawyer testified that Flud told him he could
stop the Union if Flynt gave him a raise , that Flud instructed Sawyer to
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Finally, the night before the election, Flynt received a
telephone call from Weldon Jennings in which Jennings
stated that Flud had started the Union to get himself a
raise
About I week after the election, Respondent's attorneys
appeared in the warehouse for the purpose of conducting
an investigation in preparation for filing objections to the
election. In the course of the investigation, they received
information which allegedly confirmed the substance of
the reports previously filed with Flynt.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section 111,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent, described in section 1, 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.
2. Conclusion
A review of the findings heretofore made as well as the
credited testimony of Franklin and Jennings reveal that
Flud was actively engaged in advancing the interests of the
Union. It is true that Flynt discounted the first of the
three reports concerning Flud's prounion endeavors and
that he had no reasonable basis for believing the second.
However, it was not any one report standing alone but the
cumulative effect of all in addition to the findings of the
attorneys that prompted Flud's discharge. This was the
situation on May 16 when Flynt told Flud he was being
discharged for disloyalty to the Company meaning for
promoting the Union's cause. Flud must have realized this
to have been the true reason for within minutes of the exit
interview Flud told employees Sawyer and Johnson that
he had been discharged for union activities. It must be
noted that, at this critical moment, Flud did not attribute
the discharge to any failure or refusal on his part to
commit unfair labor practices at the behest of Flynt and I
am persuaded and find that the charge to this effect, now
raised, is at best an afterthought woven from thin cloth.
The Board has held that, "absent special circumstances,
a statutory supervisor does not enjoy a protected right to
engage in concerted activity in behalf of a labor
organization."" Such "circumstances" arise where
supervisors have failed or refused to commit unfair labor
practices and are discharged as a result thereof."
Except for the single instance when Flud was directed
to ascertain the identity of the union instigator and did,
there is no credible evidence in this record of any
instruction to Flud to violate the law. In short, there were
no special circumstances surrounding the discharge. On
the contrary, I find that Flud was discharged for the
reason assigned by the Respondent, namely, engaging in
union activity As a statutory supervisor, Flud has no
protected right to so engage . Accordingly, rejecting the
General Counsel's contentions, I further find and conclude
that Flud's discharge for this reason was not a violation of
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act." I shall, therefore, recommend
dismissal of this allegation of the complaint.
request a raise for Flud, and that he complied with Flud 's Instructions.
However , Sawyer also testified that Flud did not mention the Union at the
time he directed Sawyer to request a raise for him Further , Sawyer
admitted that certain statements of his in sworn affidavits to the Board
and Respondent were falsely induced by a desire for personal gain in the
form of a pay raise and additonal vacation In the light of this
self-contradictory testimony, the apparent lack of any comprehension by
the witness of the sanctity of an oath, as well as demeanor , I regard
Sawyer 's testimony as generally unworthy of reliability and I do not credit
it
"National Freight , Inc. 154 NLRB 621, 622
"Talladega Cotton Factory , Inc., 106 NLRB 295, enfd . 213 F 2d 208
(C.A. 5); Ozark Motor Lines , 164 NLRB No. 41; Jackson Tile
Manufacturing Company, 122 NLRB 764, 767.
"See cases cited in fns. 17 and 18 , above N . L R.B v Brookside
Industries , Inc. 308 F . 2d 224 (C.A. 4), enfg . as modified 133 NLRB 842
and 135 NLRB 16, relied on by the Charging Party, is readily
V. THE REMEDY
I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and desist
from the unfair labor practices found above, or from
infringing upon the rights guaranteed to its employees in
Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Palmer Paper Company, the Respondent herein, is,
and at all times material has been, an employer engaged
in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act, and
the jurisdictional standards of the Board.
2. Teamsters, Local 745, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, is, and at all times material
herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interrogating Joe Phillips, in early April 1969, as
to whether he instigated the union campaign, by orally
promising Phillips, in about mid April 1969, promotion,
job security and other economic benefits if he refrained
from becoming or remaining a member of the Union, and
by threatening Phillips, on or about May 19, 1969, with
discharge and by suggesting surveillance and implying
reprisal if he remained a member of the Union, thereby
interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
4. The above-described unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The evidence does not preponderate in the form of a
finding that, by discharging Charles B. Flud, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1).
Accordingly, upon the foregoing finding of facts and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case,
I make the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Palmer Paper Company, Dallas, Texas, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union membership, activities, or desires.
(b) Promising promotions, job security or other
economic benefits to induce employees to refrain from
distinguishable in that the reason for the discharge of the supervisor there
was a failure to report information obtained from her husband concerning
employees' organizational activities.
PALMER PAPER CO.
becoming or remaining members of Teamsters, Local 745,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
(c) Threatening employees with discharge or other
economic reprisals if they remained members of the
above-named Union.
(d) Implying to employees that the Company will
impose more onerous working conditions if they remained
members of the above-named Union.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its Dallas, Texas, warehouse copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."30 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 16, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent, shall be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 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 Region 16, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint herein
be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not
specifically found herein.
"In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 .48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 16 , in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
1013
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations
Board an agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees
concerning their union membership, activities, or
desires.
WE WILL NOT promise promotions, job security or
other economic benefits to induce employees to refrain
from becoming or remaining members of Teamsters,
Local 745, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge or
other economic reprisal if they remained members of
the above-named Union.
WE WILL NOT imply to employees that we will
impose more onerous working conditions if they
remained members of the above-named Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of the right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any
other union, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any and all such
activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment, in
conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Dated By
PALMER PAPER COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office,
8A24 Federal Office Building, 819 Taylor Street, Fort
Worth, Texas_76102, Telephone 817-334-2921.