Port Gibson Veneer & Box Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 319 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of PORT GiBSON VENEER & Box COMPANY Ind INTER-
NATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE CON-
GRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. 15-C-1020.-Decided August 06, 1946
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Y
On January 30, 1946, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair 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 respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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 iffirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the respondent's exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following
exceptions and modifications :
1. We do >iiot agree with the Trial Examiner that, the so-called
"contract of employment," which the respondent demanded that each
employee sign, was itself violative of the Act. The provisions of the
proposed contract themselves, more fully set forth in the Intermediate
Report, were not in derogation of the Act, nor did execution of such
a contract preclude future collective bargaining.' However, under
' The Trial Examiner also found that the respondent had not discriminated against
Charles Marshall , Viola Noble , Canary Jackson , E. M Howard , and Evan Doss , within the
meaning of Sectioyi 8 (3) of the Act. Inasmuch as neither counsel for the Board nor the
Union filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner ' s recommendations that the complaint be
dismissed as to those employees , we shall adopt such recommendations without setting forth
the evidence with respect to their cases.
7 J. I. Case v . N. L. R. B., 321 U . S. 332 While, as a matter of law, execution of the
individual employment contract would not preclude future collective bargaining even during
the terns of an individual contract, we are of the opinion, as hereinafter in substance found,
that the respondent intended to use the individual contracts as a deterrent to future col-
lective bargaining and that the employees reasonably believed, although mistakenly, that
execution of such contracts would have the effect of precluding future collective bargaining.
70 N. L R. B , No. 33.
319
320 DECISION S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
all the circumstances, and particularly in view of the timing of the
respondent's demand that the employees execute such individual
contracts in the midst of the Union's known organizational campaign
and in the face of the pendency before the Board of a proceeding
locking toward the designation of representatives for the purpose of
collective bargaining, and in view of the respondent's resistance to
the Union, as set forth in the Intermediate Report, we find that the
respondent demanded execution of the individual contracts of employ-
ment for the purpose of deterring employees from joining or adhering
to the Union and that the demand had such effect upon the employees.
By this conduct, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (1) thereof.
2. We find it unnecessary to determine whether the respondent's
conduct in refusing to allow the employees to continue at work on
October 23, 1944, unless they signed individual contracts of employ-
ment, constituted a lock-out, as the Trial Examiner characterized the
respondent's conduct. We find that by such conduct the respondent
discriminated as to hire or tenure of employment, within the meaning
of Section 8 (3) and (1) of the Act, because the respondent thereby
denied work to the employees as a penalty for noncompliance with a
condition promulgated by the respondent for an unlawful purpose.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Port Gibson Veneer & Box
Company, Port Gibson, Mississippi, and its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Woodworkers of
America, CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees, by
discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment- or any
term or condition of employment of its employees ;
(b) Giving effect to the individual contracts of employment- de-
scribed in the Intermediate Report attached hereto, or any modifica-
tion, continuation, extension, or renewal thereof, to forestall collective
bargaining or to deter self-organization, or entering into any similar
,form of contract with its employees for any period subsequent to the
date hereof for such purpose or with such effect;
(c) In any other manner' interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Woodworkers of
America, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
PORT GIBSON VENEER & BOX COMPANY 321
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Make whole the employees listed in Appendix A, II, of the
Intermediate Report for any loss of pay that they may have suffered
as a result of the respondent's discrimination against them, in the
manner provided in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Make whole Pearline Brown, Alice Carter, and Annie Brown
for any loss of pay that they may have suffered as a result of the re-
spondent's discrimination against them by payment to each of them
of a sum of money equal to the amount which each normally would
have earned as wages from October 23, 1944, to the respective dates of
their reinstatement in the manner provided in the section of the
Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy";
(c) Give separate written notice to each of its employees who signed
an individual contract of employment, as described in the Intermediate
Report, or any modification, continuation, extension, or renewal there-
of, or any similar form of contract for any period subsequent to the
date hereof : (1) that such contract will not in any manner be enforced
or attempted to be enforced to forestall collective bargaining or to deter
self-organization; (2) that the employee is not required or expected
by virtue of such contract to deal with the respondent individually in
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other condi-
tions of employment; and (3) that such discontinuance of the contract
is without prejudice to the assertion of any legal rights the employee
may have acquired under such contract or to any defenses thereto by
the employer;
(d) Post at its plant in Port Gibson, Mississippi, copies of the
notice attached to the Intermediate Report, marked "Appendix A." 3
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Fourteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's
representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees 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;
' 1'h.,, notice, however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking front the first para.
graph thereof the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner " and substituting
in lieu thereof the words, "A Decision and Order."
322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth, Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT' IS FURTHER ORDERED that the c^,inplaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that the respondent discriminated in regard
to the hire and tenure of employment of Charles Marshall, Viola
Noble, Canary Jackson, E. M. Howard, and Evan Doss.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I am constrained to dissent from that portion of the foregoing deci-
sion of my colleagues concerning the alleged lock-out of the respond-
ent's employees for refusal to sign the "contract of employment."
It is my opinion that the majority has erred in its interpretation of
the decision of the Supreme Court concerning J. I. Case v. N . L. R. B.1
The issue posed by that case eras whether or not the terms and condi-
tions of the' individual contract should yield to a collective agreement
to the extent that they were at variance. The Board held that the
collective agreement was controlling and that in§istence upon the terms
of the individual contracts by the employer was a violation of the Act.
Although my colleagues have found that the contract was "not. in
derogation of the Act nor did execution of [the] contract preclude
future collective bargaining," they have nonetheless found that the
requirement that the contracts be signed was violative of the Act.
They have further found that the respondent's refusal to permit its
employees to continue at work until the requirement was met consti-
tuted a violation of the Act. With these conclusions I cannot agree.
The majority has rested its ultimate findings upon all of the "cir-
cumstances" in the case, including the fact of the Union's organiza-
tional campaign and the pendency of a proceeding looking to the desig-
nation of a representative by the employees. The Supreme Court in its
J. I. Case decision specifically considered certain conditions under
which individual contracts would not be held violative of the Act.
Among these conditions were : expiration of a collective agreement ;
deadlock of negotiations; non-existence of a legally demonstrated ma-
jority; and other similar conditions. It is apparent therefore that
the timing of the respondent's demand and the pendency of representa-
tion proceedings do not suffice to bring this contract and the demand
for its signature within areas proscribed by the Act.
It is my opinion that as these contracts were not in themselves viola-
tive of the Act, and as the respondent's employees were not, and could
not be, required to sign away aiiy of their rights under the Act, the re-
quirement that the contracts be signed was a valid condition of employ-
ment. The alleged lock-out by the respondent, when viewed in this
light, becomes in effect a strike by the employees involved and they are
4 321 U. S 332
PORT GIBSON VENEER & BOX COMPAN Y 323
not entitled to be made whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered
as a consequence.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Stanley D. Kane, Esq, for the Board.
Dent, Robinson , and Ward, by R. L Dent, Esq , of Vicksburg , Miss, and Henley.
Jones and Woodli ff, by W S. Henley , Esq, of Hazlehurst , Miss., for the Re-
spondent.
George Bentley, Esq, of Memphis, Tenn. , for the Union
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a third amended charge duly filed on November 9, 1945, by the Inter-
national Woodworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Boaid, by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region
(New Orleans, Louisiana), issued its complaint dated November 9, 1945, and_
an amended complaint dated November 21, 1945, against the Port Gibson Veneer &
Box Company, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce-
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of
the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the Re-
spondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the amended complaint, as further
amended at the hearing, alleges in substance: (1) that the Respondent locked
out and constructively discharged its production and maintenance employees,
on October 23 through October 30, 1944, for the reason that they joined and as-
sisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities with other employees for
the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection, (2),
that the Respondent constructively discharged Pearline Brown, Viola Noble,
Anna Brown, Canary Jackson, and Alice Carter because they joined and as-
sisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities with other employees for
the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection; (3)
that the Respondent discharged Evan Doss on or about February 16, 1945,
E 1I Howard on or about November 25, 1944, and Charles Marshall on or about
November 18, 1944, for the reason that they joined and assisted the Union and;
engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining and other mutual aid an protection and (4) that the Respond-
ent,"'while engaged in the operation of the Plant . . . from on or about Oc-
tober 14, 1944, and at various times thereafter, up to and including the date
of issuance of this Complaint, did advise, urge, and warn its employees against
affiliation with, or activities on behalf of, the Union; did advise, urge and warn
its employees to refrain from engaging in concerted activity for the purpose
of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection ; did make threats,
that the Respondent would cease operations at the Plant and transfer , equip-_
ment and raw materials elsewhere if the Union became the bargaining agent
for its employees, or if its employees joined or assisted , or voted for the Union
at an election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board on November
22, 1944; did question employees about their union affiliations and activities;
did publish and announce threats of retaliation against employees who engaged
in union activities ; did on or about October 18, 1944, and at various times
thereafter, nip to and including (November 21, 1945), tender to all of its em-
712344-47-vol. 70-22
324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees unilateral agreements and contracts of employment and did attempt
to require and did require its employees to execute said agreements and con-
tracts as a condition of employment and did threaten to and did, on or about
October 18, 1944, constructively discharge, lay off, lock out and terminate the
employment of all of its employees because they refused to execute said agree-
ments and contracts, all for the purpose of forestalling collective bargaining
and deterring self-organization of its employees, and did by statements and
conversations discourage activity on the part of its employees for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, and did discourage
membership and activity in the Union among said employees," thereby interfer-
ing with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On November 19, 1945, the Respondent filed its answer in which it admits-the
allegations of the complaint as to its corporate organization, the nature of its
business, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that
the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act However, the
Respondent denies the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Port Gibson, Mississippi, on Novem-
ber 26, 27, and 28, 1945, before the undersigned, Charles E Persons, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the
Respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by one of its officials.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence was afforded all parties On the first day of the hearing, the
Board moved to amend the complaint by striking the names of Luevenia Edwards
and Ruth Buck from the paragraphs in the complaint which allege discriminatory
discharge. This motion was granted without ohj='ctron At this tune the Board
further moved to amend the complaint b.N adding an allegation that Charles
Marshall had been discriminatorily discharged as set forth above. This motion
NN as granted over the objection of the Respondent, with the proviso that if it
found itself surprised by the nature of the Board's evunence, a request for an
adjournment would be sympathetically considered by the undersigned No such
request was thereafter proffered by the Respondent. luring the hearing the
Respondent moved to strike testimony given by employee Eleanor Shaw and
testimony relative to a speech made by M J. Wilson. These motions were de-
nied. The Respondent renewed these motions at the close of the hearing at which
time the undersigned reserved ruling. They rue'now denied. At the close of the
hearing the Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint and each separate para-
graph thereof for failure of proof and for other reasons stated. These motions
were taken under advisement and are now alter consideration of the full record
granted in part and denied in part to the extent indicated by the conclusions, 'find-
ings and recommendations set forth in this Intermediate Report. At the close
of the hearing the Board also moved to conform the complaint to the proof as to
minor and immaterial variances found in the record This motion was granted
over the objection of the Respondent. At the conclusion of the presentation of
testimony the Board presented oral argument before the undersigned. The
parties were duly advised that they had the privilege of presenting briefs for the
consideration of the Trial Examiner. A brief has been received from the Re-
spondent.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
PORT GIBSON VENEER & BOX COMPANY
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT 1
325
Port Gibson Veneer & Box Company is a Mississippi corporation with its princi-
pal office and place of business at Port Gibson, Mississippi , where it is engaged
in the manufacture of wooden containers used in the shipment of frozen poultry,
fruits, , and vegetables . During the period from 1942 to the middle of 1945, the
Respondent manufactured ammunition boxes to Government order. During the
12-month period immediately preceding the hearing in the instant proceeding, the
Respondent shipped 90 percent of its finished products, amounting in value to
over $450,000 , to consumers located outside the State of Mississippi. The
Respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
IL THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Woodworkers of America , affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations , is a labor organization admitting to its membership employees
of the Respondent.
A. Background
The Port Gibson plant was operated before March 1, 1941, by the Southern
Package Company, herein called Southern. Officials of Southern with whom this
proceeding is concerned were: President H. J. Wilson and as Treasurer, his son,
Alex Wilson. While Southern operated the plant, H. J. Wilson was manager
and Alex Wilson assistant manager. Southern owns lands, timber, and plants
but at present does not operate plants. Those under its ownership, including the
Port Gibson plant, are leased. Southern owns both the buildings and the equip-
ment, and under wartime conditions had responsibility for the placement of
machinery allocated by the War Production Board to the plants where its use
most effectively supported the war effort. The Respondent company was organ-
ized in February 1941, and, on the first of the following month, took over the Port
Gibson plant. Alex Wilson become president of the new organization ; John C.
Wheeless was its secretary and treasurer. Both Alex, Wilson and Wheeless were
members of the Board of Directors. Wheeless was general manager of the plant.
Wilson was normally at the plant only 2 or 3 days a week. While present he
exercised general supervision of operations z
The Union began its organizational efforts among the employees of Respond-
ent's plant in August 1944. On September 25, 1944, the Union requested the
company to recognize it as the exclusive bargaining agent of its employees. This
request the Respondent on September 30, 1944, refused "until such time as the
Union could prove its claim to a majority." 3 Upon a petition duly filed by the
Union on or about October 6, 1944, the Board ordered that a hearing be held on
October 27, 1944. Thereafter the Board, on November 14, 1944, issued its Deci-
sion and Direction of Election.' An election was held on November 22,'1944, in
I These findings are based on a stipulation between the parties made a part of the record,
on allegations in the complaint admitted by the Respondent in its answer and on testimony
which is uncontroverted
1 H. J. Wilson's first name is Hardy. He was frequently referred to by employee wit-
nesses as "Mr. Hardy." Alex Wilson's given name is frequently spelled "Aleck" in the
transcript of testimony. Wheeless' name frequently appears as "Wheeles."
3 Quoted from the Board's decision in the representation proceeding.
" In Case No. 15-R-1241, 59 N. L R. B. 270.
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
which of approximately 277 eligible voters, 218 cast valid votes. Of these 199
were for the Union, 19 against, and 18 votes were challenged Accordingly on
December 1, 1944, the Board certified the Union as the exclusive representative
of the employees within the determined appropriate unit.
About 95 percent of the Respondent's employees are Negroes Under normal
conditions only 20 percent were females. Due to the operation of the draft and
other wartime conditions, this proportion has gradually changed until more
than half of the employees are women Most of the employees have little educa-
tion ; some are illiterate. Wartime conditions are also responsible for a great
increase in the rate of turn-over. Alex Wilson's credited testimony was that
under normal conditions the plant had a steady pay roll of about 350 employees:
During 1942, 1943, and 1944, however, the pay rolls annually listed from 900
to 1,250 names.
B. The lock-out on October 23, 191,4
In 1941 when the Respondent leased the Port Gibson plant and began opera-
tions, it required its employees to undergo a physical examination and to fill
out and sign an application form.' Officials of the Respondent stated at the
hearing that the reason for requiring the physical examination was that the
United States Public Health Service advised it as a health precaution. The
packages produced are used in packing frozen poultry and fresh fruit and vege-
tables. As a further reason for the examination the Respondent explained that
it was a necessary safety measure.'
The application required answers to questions as to color or race, dependents,
use of alcoholic stimulants or drugs, illnesses , previous employment and closed
with the following paragraph :
I do hereby make application for employment in the services of [Respond-
ent] and accept all the conditions under which this application is made,
and if employment is obtained I agree to assume all the risks and dangers
incident thereto and to abide by the rules of the said Company and that my
wages or salary shall be payable only upon the pay days and at the office
of the Company and shall not by my voluntary act be assignable in whole
or in part, or in any manner, without the written consent of said Company
endorsed upon every assignment. I agree that my employment is not for
any fixed time and that the Company shall have the right to dismiss me
at any time with or without cause, and in the event I am dismissed I shall
hold the Company responsible only for wages earned up to the date of my
actual dismissal, calculated on the basis of a daily wage. I further warrant
the truth of the statement hereinbefore made by me and agree that the same
together with the Surgeon's report shall be a part of my contract of employ-
ment made with me by the Company.
Following this paragraph the blank form of application contained spaces for
the date and for the signatures of the applicant and a witness.
Such applications were filed by all production employees of the Respondent
in the period from March to September 1941. The required physical examina-
' Alex Wilson gave credited testimony that he had adopted an application form used
by the Illinois Central Railroad and had used it since 1937 in plants over which he exercised
supervision. -
6 Alex Wilson, president of the corporation and general manager of the plant, cited the
case of an employee who was found as a result of his physjcal examination to have a blood
pressuie of 280 This employee had been piling lumber and frequently worked at 2 consid-
erable distance above the ground. After this disclosure he was given work on the ground
level.
PORT GIBSON VENEER & BOX COMPANY 327
tions were taken without untoward incident. These requirements were not
enforced from that time until October 1944. Wilson explained that this lapse
in the requirement was due to the greatly increased turn-over of employees under
wartime conditions and to the difficulty of handling the increased volume of
physical examinations. One of Port Gibson's three doctors had (lied and another
had entered the Armed Services. Wilson admitted, however, under cross-exam-
ination, that there was still but one doctor available when the requirement for a
physical examination was revived in October 1944.
It was Wilson's testimony that the decision to renew the requirements for the
filing of application blanks and taking a physical examination was made in
July 1944 and that it resulted directly from difficulty experienced in locating
dependents of an employee who had been killed in the summer of 1944 in an
accident. The only source of the necessary information was the application filed
by the deceased employee in 1941. The printing of a new supply of blanks
delayed the execution of the decision until Monday, October 2, 1944. Between
October 3 and 22, 45 ° out of about 300 production employees took the required
physical examinations -and turned in application forms duly filled out and signed.
Wilson kept check on the progress made. On October 16, 1944, being disturbed
by the small number of applications in hand, he called in two employees from each
department and questioned them in the presence of J. C. Wheeless, general man-
ager of the plant, and Foreman Howard Anions regarding the reluctance of the
employees to comply with his instructions. Wilson's testimony as to this con-
ference reads:
After we talked there, discussed it back and forth, the only conclusion I
could get to; the only reason that any of them gave me was that they didn't
like a certain clause in there ; if they worked out there on the job and got
hurt they couldn't get any compensation for it. If they signed'that they
signed away all their rights.
Wilson stated that he told the employee group regarding the laws of the State of
Mississippi:
There would be no way I could sign a contract with them that would stand
up in Court if it was illegal. And if they thought it was illegal or taking
away their rights, they could take that blank and go talk to the highest men
of the legal profession in Claiborne Comity; their best friends; any business
man, and get their advice about it. If,any man told them it was an illegal
contract or an illegal application to sign, why I would gladly throw it away.
'Employee E M. Howard gave testimony about the conference reading as follows :
So, he [Alex Wilson] said there wasn't anything wrong with the contract,
the same paper that we had signed here before. . . . So, he said, "Well
these papers concern you You will all have to sign them papers if you want
to work in this mill." He said, "Because these papers got to be signed, and
I will give you until Monday to think over in your minds whether you are
going to sign them. or not." He said, "all that don't sign them, you ain't got
no job."
He said, "Whoever advised you-I don't know what it is ... But what-
ever it is, he say something wrong ; whatever it is I don't know." He said
"but so far as the mill is concerned, this is my mill, and if whoever work at
this mill, you are going to work and abide by my rules . . . If anybody else
want to take this mill over . . . Take my labor and pay them off just like I
This number includes two employees of supervisory status.
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
would do, and I would be glad to give it to them. So far as I am running
[it] . . . it is going to be run just like I said " 8 '
Both Wilson and-Howard testified, and the undersigned finds, that no mention
was made of the Union at this conference.
'Following the conference Wilson caused a notice to be posted on the plant
bulletin board on October 17 or 18, stating that the physical examination must
be taken, and the signed applications, with the required information filed by
October 23, 1944. He further instructed his supervisors, as his credited testimony
reads, "If they hadn't had that by the 23rd, well, lay them off until they do
get it."
On Monday, October 23, at 8 a. in, when the day shift employees reported for
work, the foremen met them at the plant entrance Such employees as had taken
physical examinations and signed applications acceptably filled out were allowed
to enter. Others were excluded.' A few employees had duties which required
them to report early. They were not excluded on reporting but were questioned
later and those who had not met the Respondent's requirement were sent home.
General Manager Wilson testified that operation during the week of October 23
was 10 to 20 percent of normal. The pay roll for this week shows that a total
of 65 employees were present. Of these 9 were supervisory" and 3 were watch-
men 11 Among the 53 employees remaining, who were included in the appropri-
ate unit, were 33 of the 43 non-supervisory employees who had signed the appli-
cation forms. Six of the twenty employees who remained at work although they
had not signed the application form were paid either 50 or 60 cents an hour.
The great majority of the employees had a wage rate of 40 cents an hour
Employees called as witnesses by the Board gave various reasons for refusing
to sign the applications Most frequently they expressed objections to the re-
quirement. that they "assume all, the risks and dangers incident" to their em-
ployment" They also objected to the provision that dismissal might be "with
or without cause " They had been advised by representatives of the Union that
signing would "take all rights away from them," and that the intention of the
Respondent in requiring employees to sign "was to bust up the Union." The
testimony of Board witnesses was frequently a reflection of this advice" The
testimony of certain witnesses indicated that their refusal was motivated by
intent to join the concerted movement against signing these individual contracts"
The witnesses were often uneducated ; some were illiterate. They had difficulty in
8 Evan Doss gave testimony which substantially corroborated Howard's account This
testimony is credited by the undersigned.
9 Members of the afternoon crew who had not signed applications, on learning of ,the
action taken by the Respondent in the morning did not report for work.
10 This includes Leader Major Ross, a supervisor in the boiler room • He was designated
as a leader by Superintendent J. A. Gallman, whose desgription of Ross' duties and authority
clearly brings Ross within the coverage of the Board 's standard definition of supervisors.
11 The Board excluded watchmen from the appropriate unit.
12 For example, Minnie Jenkins testified :
` If I signed that paper , I signed all my rights away , which one was if I got hurt
or anything, the Company wouldn't be entitled to give me nothing by law ; try to sue
for something ; would sign my rights away , couldn ' t be made to give me nothing.
19 Employee Joseph Anderson 's testimony reads : "Well , some of them say-stated that if
you got enough of those papers signed , Union will be thrown plump out. * • •" Em-
ployee Sandy Moses ( or Mosell ) testified , "I figured if I signed that application , that would
kill my- C. I. O. card I was trying to better my condition."
14 Thus employee Johnny Clinton on being advised by Buie that the employees were not
going to sign , stated, as Clinton testified , "I said I wasn't going to sign 'if you all don't
sign " Similarly employee Viola Noble on being instructed to sign by Leader Willie
Landers, replied as her testimony reads, "I told him I wasn't going to sign. Everybody
else not going to sign, I wasn't going to sign one of them."
PORT GIBSON VENEER & BOX COMPANY 329
stating clearly and exactly their motivation in refusing to sign the applications.
Without pressing the implication of their testimony overmuch, it is clear that
their refusals were often based on advice received from the Union and were in-
fluenced by fears that signing would adversely affect the Union. It is also clear
that when asked to sign individual contracts they resisted the Respondent's
demand, defied its coercive threats and concertedly refused to yield in the face
of a threatened lock-out
Wilson's credited testimony as to his next move reads as follows :
I immediately began inquiries then why 200 or more people would leave
gainful employment because of some situation. Through various reports
that I got, I found out it was on the Union's advice that they were told not
to sign those blanks; that there was something wrong about it. That was
about Thursday that I finally got enough information to believe it.
Wilson had recently read in the local paper the names of the officers elected
by the Union. On October 26, 1944, he sent for Luther Buie, president, Leonard
Nash, vice-president and E. M. Howard, financial treasurer and secretary. Only
Buie was available. Wilson talked to him in the presence of Wheeless. After
inquiring if Buie was president of the Union and receiving an affirmative answer,
Wilson told him as Wilson's credited testimony reads:
"Luther there has been it lot of confusion here and a lot of bad advice on
somebody's part, either ours or the Union's. If it is a question of that that
is keeping these men from work, we are going to waive all our requests and
demands for this application ; going to get the Union settled down ; a
recognized proposition. We will have to go back because we have to have
the information and we have to have this physical examination."
I said, "Now you get out here, and you bring them back if that is the
reason that they quit," and he left saying that lie would. The next morning
I got over here and thought maybe I would see the plant in operation. It
wasn't 16
It appears from the record that Buie fulfilled his promise and the employees
were generally well informed of the Respondent's unconditional offer to reopen
the plant on Friday, October 27, 19441e None of the witnesses who appeared at
the hearing in the instant proceeding failed to receive this information. They
gave various reasons for their failure to report. Some were absent from Port
Gibson on personal business ; some found it not worthwhile to report for a single
day's work in the week ; while others feared that returning to work on Friday
might be unlucky. The Board hearing in the representation proceeding, as
stated above, occurred on this date. Their desire to attend the hearing induced
some employees not to return to their employment.
There was a full attendance however on Saturday, the regular pay day. Wilson
took advantage of this gathering to address the employees. He summarized his
remarks as follows :
Well, * * * I am not a speech maker, but I did get up there Saturday
afternoon and wanted to know from the crowd whether or not they were
coming back to work ; and explained to them before I asked that question
that there had been a lot of confusion. Maybe the Company was at fault.
Maybe the others were at fault ; but I wanted them to know that the plant
was out there for their benefit and not for ours and it was for their benefit
and we could close down anytime we saw fit, and we wouldn't have to
11 Buie gave testimony in substantial accord with the account by Wilson . Concluding:
[Wilson said .] "We'll forget all about it; so we won't sign blanks. you forget about the
blanks altogether ; won't sign any blanks until we get straight with _the Union."
11 The record reflects that Nash took some part in notifying employees of Wilson's desires.
330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
look for a job We didn't want to close it down. We brought it over
here and rebuilt it after the fire.'?
Having in mind information furnished for use at the Board hearing, which
showed as of October 21, 1944, 293 employees within the unit claimed to be
appropriate by the Union, of whom 128 were union members, Wilson stated
to the assembled employees, as his testimony reads :
that evidently a lot of them didn't belong to the Union ; and that I wanted
to assure them that there was a job there at that plant whether or not
they belonged to the Union. That I didn't care whether-as some of the
boys testified-I didn't care whether they belonged to the Methodist, Baptist,
Christian, Masonic Lodge or Union, that that was not a requirement for
working in the plant.
* * * and any able-bodied man that wanted to work in that plant, was
willing to work there, could find a job these. I said, "We are going to run
the plant, and I would like to see as many as 50 of you here Monday morning."
And about two or three of them spoke up and said, "We will all be here.
We will see you Monday mornings 18
Operations resumed on October 30 with practically a full crew. Some em-
ployees did not return until Tuesday. - Others remained away for a week or
longer before returning.
Concluding findings
Certain clauses in the "contract of employment" which the Respondent de-
manded that the employees sign are incompatible with their prior request for
collective bargaining. They justify the fear expressed by employee witnesses that
signing these contracts would obstruct their movement toward concerted action.
The blanket requirement that employees ;`abide by the rules" of Respondent,
whether or not they were effective at the time when the contract was signed.
would restrict the subjects open to collective bargaining. The provision that the
employees might not assign any part of wages earned "without the written con-
sent of [the Respondent] endorsed upon every assignment" if it became effective
would give the Respondent a veto on any attempt by the Union to arrange the
check-off of union dues." Agreement to dismissal "with or without cause," liter-
ally construed, is in derogation of the Act's provision that employees may not
be dismissed for union membership and activity. Limiting the Respondent's
responsibility to wages earned up to the date of dismissal would override the
employees' right to back pay in the case of discriminatory lay-off or discharge as
provided by the Act. The undersigned finds that. taken at face value, these in-
dividual contracts have the obvious effect of restraining the employees in the exer-
cise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
17 The reference was to a fire occurring on January 12, 1944, which destroyed all the
box making and lumber part of the mill. Rebuilding was completed and operation resumed
about June 1944.
28 Wilson 's account of his speech generally agrees in substance with the testimony, frag-
mentary and inexact, of Board witnesses The undersigned find Wilson 's testimony to be
correct. It is subject , however, to the addition set forth in the following footnote.
19 Employee Evan Doss gave the following testimony relative to Wilson 's speech on
October 28, 1944:
And be said he learnt that the Union had a checkoff and it was $10, and lie wasn't
going to check - off nothing out of the labor's money for no unions.
Wilson heard Doss' testimony . He did not deny making the statement . Accordingly the
undersigned credits this testimony by Doss.
PORT GIBSON 17ENEER & BOX COMPANY 331
The Respondent undertook to establish these contract provisions, at a time
when it had been put on notice of the Union's organizational activities and claims
to be the statutory representative of the employees. It was also informed that
the Board's orderly representation procedure had been initiated. The Respon-
dent had received notice about October 20, 1944, of a Board hearing which was
held during the lock-out. Under these conditions the action of the Respondent in
taking unilateral action to require the signing of individual contracts 20 including
matters which are'properly considered in collective bargaining contravened the
letter and the spirit of the Act. It directly led to a labor dispute affecting com-
merce which the Board's administrative procedure is designed to prevent.21
That individual contracts must yield to collective bargaining has been defin-
itively decided by the United States Supreme Court 22 It follows that the Respon-
dent's attempt to coerce its employees into signing individual contracts which
limited the field of collective bargaining was an unfair labor practice. The lock-
out on Octobei 23,1P44, was a penalt} imposed by the Respondent upon its employ-
ees for their concerted action in refusing to sign these individual contracts. On
October 26, 1944, the Respondent made an unconditional offer to reinstate the
employees excluded. Time lost thereafter was the employees' own responsibility.
By such lock-out the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Further,
the Respondent by this action discriminated between those signing and those
who refused to sign, as to the hire and tenure of their employment and the terms
and conditions of their employment By so doing the Respondent discouraged
membership in the Union.
C The disci tntienatoi y dischai yes
Annie Brown, Alice Carter, and Pearline Brown were employees on the after-
noon shift. On October 18, they were instructed by Foreman Offie Wilson, acting
under Alex Wilson's instructions, that they must take physical examinations and
fill out and sign the application forms before October 23, 1944. They responded,
as they testified and as Foreman Wilson in effect admitted, that if they were re-
quired to do this by Monday, they might as well go home that evening 22 They
had reported at 4: 30 p. in and their shift closed at 12: 30 a. as. When opera-
tions were interrupted at 6 p. in for supper, those employees and others,24 went
home and did not return.
21 The Respondent , in effect, admits that the signed application forms were individual
contracts : Testimony of President and General Manager Alex Wilson reads :
So far as the Company has been concerned , after they got the information they filed
it for reference only. As far as the employee is concerned , I imagine he forgot it ; that
we even had his signature to a contract , because they walked off or quit , or got fired
or saw fit. ( sic) From then on, the contract, as it was written, was for primarily
the information only.
21 See Matter of Midwest Piping and Supply Co , Inc, 63 N. L. R B 1060.
22 J. I. Case v. N. L. R . B., 321 U. S. 332 . Cf. N. L. R. B v. Bear Brand Hosiery Co.,
131 F. ( 2d) 731 (C. C A. 7), and N. L. R. B. v. Superior Tanning Co ., 117 F. (2d) 881
(C C A. 7), cert denied 313 U. S. 559
28 It was Annie Brown 's testimony that she told Wilson, "If we wouldn 't have no job
that Monday , we could go home that evening." Carter gave similar testimony and added
the statement that Wilson 's rejoinder, with reverence to leaving that evening was it was
up to [Carter ]." Pearline Brown testified to a similar remark by Wilson. Wilson was
asked whether he recalled anyone saying , "It's got to be done by Monday, I might as well
go home today," and answered, "Seems like I did. Said something about going home, but
they didn ' t tell me they was going "
24 The pay roll for this period indicates that Frank Devine , Mary Glues, and Pauline
Woods also failed to return after the supper hour on October 18. Devine , however,- worked
the two following afternoon shifts.
'332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
These employees made repeated applications 'for reemployment. Their tesii-
mony with reference to these occurrences was not assailed and is credited by
The undersigned Since they were on the afternoon shift and were informed of
the exclusion of employees who had not signed application forms, neither Annie
Brown, Carter nor Pearline Brown reported on Monday, October 23. However,
they reported on October 30 for the afternoon shift 2' Foreman Wilson did not
allow them to enter the plant, telling them they would have to sign applications
before they could be rehired. Annie Brown applied again in November 1944,
at which time Foreman Wilson told her, as her testimony reads: "He told me
'I wouldn't hire you.' Said we walked off one time and maybe walk off again."
On January 5, 1945, she applied again. At this time Wilson repeated his state-
ment that signing the application form would be a necessary prerequisite for re-
employment. On May 5, 1945, Brown earned a clay's pay in another department
and under another foreman On October 23, 1945, she was reemployed.
Carter visited the plant in December 1944 and was told by the guard at the
entrance that Foreman Wilson was willing that she return. When she applied
to Wilson, however, he told her that it would be necessary that she sign the appli-
cation form before being rehired. She was rehired, however, on October 23, 1945,
without having signed.
Pearline Brown was informed on January4, 1945, by the operator of the ma-
chine on which she had previously worked that Foreman Wilson was willing for
her to return. She reported next day and saw Foreman Wilson Her testimony
at this point read as follows :
He told me that he would have let me go to work that Friday but-I would
have to go to the office and get one of those application blanks and have them
filled out, and I would have time to go-I could go that Saturday, and be there
Monday.
Despite the fact that Brown persisted in her refusal to sign, she was reemployed
as of January 5, 1945.28 -
In this state of the record the undersigned finds that the action of employees
Annie and Pearline Brown, Carter and others in quitting their employment at
6 p. m. on October 18, 1944, was concerted action within the meaning of the Act.
As stated above, the demand that they sign individual contracts as a prerequisite
to continued employment was an unfair labor practice. Their status from October
18 to October 23, 1944, was that of strikers. Since they were excluded when they
reported on October 30, 1944, it is a justified inference that they would not have
been allowed to work if they had reported Friday, October 27, 1944, when the
Respondent invited the employees generally to return. It is found that they were
locked out and constructively discharged on October 23, 1944, and were thereafter
refused reinstatement"
Since it is clear that Annie and Pearline Brown and Carter were under con-
tinuous discriminatory treatment from October 23, 1944, until their respective
dates of reemployment, and that this discrimination resulted from their con-
certed activity in opposition to the Respondent's unfair labor practices, the under-
signed finds that the'Respondent by refusing them employment from October 23,
25 Each of them so testified.
1A Offie Wilson's testimony supports that of these witnesses as to his continued demand
for the filing of the application form His Lestimony, in part, reads :
Q. Well, now when they came back for their work, what did you do?
A. I asked them if they got the medical examination and they said No, I told them
to take it, come back and I would put them to work.
Wilson positively denied, however, that he had stated to these employees that they must
sign the applications.
21 See Matter of Indiana Desk Company, 58 N. L. R. B. 78, 79.
PORT GIBSON VENEER & BOX COMPANY 333
1944, to their respective dates of reemployment has discriminated in regard to
their hire and tenure of employment, has thereby discouraged membership in a
labor union, and has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
D. Further acts of interference , restraint , and coercion
In the week preceding October 23, 1944, employee Eddie Thomas was told by
Superintendent Gallman, as Thomas' credited testimony reads :
The way things [ are] going around here, you boys are going to be out
of jobs about six months.
I says, "Yes, sir. Anything to prevent that, the Union coming in?" He
said, "Getting up these people to sign those papers."
On a date not exactly fixed in the record but prior to October 30, 1944, em-
ployee Joseph Anderson while at work was approached by Gallman. Anderson's
undenied, and credited testimony regarding the occurrence reads as follows:
Well, we was standing up at the table one morning, and my brther-in-law
and I was working together, and he [Gallman] came up to the table and
asked one of the boys, "You're trying to get a damn Union in the plant."
and one of the boys denied it. He said he didn't know anything about it. So
the engineer . . . came up and said to him, "I know these damn Negroes
are trying to get their Union in" He said they meet in-over yonder in
the Church house across the bridge.
Somewhat later Anderson attended a union meeting at the Church designated
He observed Plant Manager John Wheeless standing on the opposite side of t i
street beside his car and looking toward the Church. Wheeless was accompa:lied
by Sheriff Montgomery of Claiborne County. Montgomery came to the door of
the Church while the union meeting was in progress The incident has added
significance since Montgomery had previously approached Union Agent Thomas
during a union meeting held at a ball park It was Thomas' credited testimony
that Montgomery then said:
You're just stirring these people up with the intention of getting their
money, and you fellows will be gone You're just distuibing good people
for nothing . . . Go ahead with your meeting. If I had my way I would
run you out of town.
By these remarks of Gallman to employees Thomas and Anderson; by the sur-
veillance of a union meeting by Wheeless accompanied by Sheriff Montgomery
whose anti-union attitude had been made manifest to the employees ; by the
various attempts made by Respondent's officers, agents, and supervisors to secure
the signatures of employees to individual contracts of employment at a time
when the Respondent had been notified of the Union's claim to majority repre-
sentation and its intent to negotiate a collective bargain ; by the various similar
attempts to secure the assent of employees Pearline Brown, Alice Carter, and
Annie Brown to these individual contracts as a condition either of employment
or of reinstatement in their positions; and by the discharge of these employees,
the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
E. Alleged discriminatory discharges
Charles Marshall was employed by the Respondent something less than a year.
His employment terminated October 2, 1944. His job required him to push trucks
loaded with veneer from the lathes to the warehouse. Marshall joined the Union
on a date not fixed and attended meetings but, so far as the record, shows, took
334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
no further part in union activities. On Saturday, September 30, 1944, Mr.
Hardy J. Wilson, president of the Southern Package Company and tathe>;of
Alex Wilson, manager for the Respondent, made a speech in the plant warehouse
to the employees who were assembled for pay da3.28 H J Wilson did not
appear as a witness and his remarks can only be reconstructed from the recol-
lection-often vague-of auditors who appeared as witnesses It appears that
he first presented a creed written by Booker T. Washington which suggested
that colored employees should be industrious, regular in attendance, contented„
and soft spoken and improve every opportunity to learn and increase their skill.
The testimony is in conflict as to whether he said anything directly about the
Union 29 but seemingly Wilson made some reference to the unrest in the plant and
suggested that the employees would not benefit by the organizational movement
which would alienate the "white folks." There was reference also to Southern's
plant in Hazlehurst, and to a discussion between the speaker and Alex Wilson
as to whether two machines should be sent there in preference to the Port Gibson
plant since unrest had arisen among the Respondent's employees. It will be re-
membered that Southern, as the lessor of the plants, controlled the distribution
among them of available machines.
At the conclusion of Wilson's remarks Marshall spoke in answer, expressing
appreciation for Wilson's good will toward the colored employees but raising
practical questions as to the adequacy of earnings. Marshall's testimony con-
tains the following account of his remarks :
Well, of course, I said how we appreciated what'Mr. Wilson said about
us, the race, and appreciated the machinery he was putting in there for us
Then I tried to show that wasn't very much help for us, you see, on account
of the wages we were getting. I tried to show we I-ad the same struggle on
hand regardless of the new machinery he was putting in. And I mentioned
some things we had to buy and how much it cost us, and I said at the end of
every two weeks, which was pay day, I said if we didn't mind, we would
have to be borrowing some, and just so on like that. I talked to the man
like that.
On the following Monday, Marshall worked as usual On that evening his
sister arrived in Port Gibson from New Orleans for the purpose of making legal
settlement of their mother's estate. Marshall sent word to Superintendent Gall-
man by employee Joe Smiley that he would not be able to work that day. He was
absent the remainder of the week When he appeared on Monday, October 9,
1944, Gallman informed him that he was discharged, saying as Marshall testified
and the undersigned finds, "Yes, you got up there and talked behind Mr. Wilson
the other day and I tell you he didn't like it so well." Marshall thereupon pro-
cured a letter from the lawyer who had assisted him and his sister with legal
matters pertaining to settling their mother's estate. This letter was dated
October 9, 1944, and certified that Marshall "consumed the greater part of Satur-
day, October 7, 1944, in his effort to take out letters of administration with the
will annexed in the matter of the Estate of Frances Marshall, who was his mother
and now deceased." Marshall showed this letter to Wheeless who pointed out
that it did not explain the full period of absence.
2s The record is difficult to interpret as to the dates involved in Marshall's discharge.
Respondent 's work records show that Marshall 's last day of employment was Monday,
October 2, 1944 He testified that H J. Wilson's speech was made on the Saturday pre-
ceding. The letter from Marshall 's lawyer , as set forth below, is dated October 9, 1944,
and Marshall 's testimony indicates that he procured it immediately after he was notified
that he was discharged on the day that he returned to the plant.
29 Superintendent Gallman was present. He testified that he could not recall that the
word union was mentioned by H. J . Wilson.
PORT GIBSON VENEER & BOX COMPANY 335
On October 30, Marshall appeared at the plant entrance with the other em-
ployees. Watchman C. C. Ainsworth told Marshall that the invitation issued
to the employees to return (lid not include him and suggested that he see Gall-
nman When Marshall did so Gallman confirmed Ainsworth and declined to let
Marshall enter the plant.
In justifying the discharge of Marshall, the Respondent points to his attendance
record showing absences covering 4 weeks in July 1944; on Friday and Saturday,
August 11 and 12, on Sept 9, as well as the week in October. There was nothing
offered to controvert Marshall's testimony that he had never been absent without
permission. The Respondent stated further that Marshall was not able because
of infirmities connected with his age to do the heavy work required in pushing
the loaded veneer trucks. Marshall was 67 and his own testimony supports this
contention of the Respondent. An excerpt reads :
Well, I pushed them tractors around for the hardest job out there. Some-
how or other it didn't seem my age counted anything. They were taking
my size, just thought all the time I could . . because I was a big man "
Gallman assumed responsibility for Marshall's discharge He testified that
his decision which he stated resulted from an "accumulation of occasions" was
based on Marshall's absenteeism and his physical incapacity to do the work
involved in his job Marshall was replaced by a "big woman" who together
with a Mexican man was able to do the work that 3 or 4 had clone while Marshall
was employed. '
The undersigned does not find in the recorded accounts of H. J Wilson's speech
and of Marshall's reply any substantial evidence upon which to base a finding
that Marshall's discharge was for union membership and activity.' Wilson's
speech was hortatoty in character with slight and remote reference to union
activities in the plant. Marshall was unable to recall that Wilson had mentioned
the Union Nor was Marshall's reply, as his testimony reflects it, distinctly
Union in character. He said what substantially every employed person feels,
that'the employees found their earnings inadequate. It is not shown that
Marshall's membership in the Union antedated Wilson's speech. He was not an
officer in the Union and had no authority to voice its demands. He spoke as an
individual employee
Accepting Marshall's testimony that Gallman stated that H J Wilson was
displeased with Marshall's reply to his remarks, and that this fact affected the
decision to discharge Marshall, the undersigned does not find that the Board
has sustained the burden of proof and shown that the Respondent had knowledge
on October 9th of Marshall 's union membership and activity nor that his dis-
charge was based thereon. It will therefore be recommended that this allegation
of the complaint be dismissed.
Viola Noble was hired by the Respondent in May 1944. She worked on the day
shift in the wire bound department under Foreman Howard Anions"' and Leader
Willie Landers. Noble was a union member and attended one union meeting.
During the week before October 23, 1944, Landers asked her to sign the application
form. Her unassailed and credited testimony reads "I told him I wasn't going
to sign. Everybody else not going to sign; I wasn't going to sign." The pay roll
in evidence shows that Noble worked the full 2-week period preceding October 23
as an assistant to Employee E M Howard operating the printing or stamping
machine. -
30.N ^irshall testified that his weight stayed around 190 pounds
"Anions was known to the eniplo3 ees as "iii Howard ' and is frequently so identified
in the transciipt of testimony.
336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On Monday morning October 23, 1944, when Noble reported for work, Amons
asked several employees standing before the plant entrance whether they intended
to sign the application forms. Some replied in the negative but Noble said
nothing.
On October 30, Noble reported to her station at the printing machine. She
had worked but 5 or 10 minutes when Amons notified her that she was laid off
Noble inquired when she should return but received no reply. About the first
of November Noble went to the plant and asked Landers whether she was to be
given work. Landers replied that he did not know.
Noble testified that Amons, on notifying her that she was laid off, had replaced
her with a female employee who had accompanied him to the machine. Landers
testified that he did not remember who had replaced Noble ; Anions, that he had
placed a female employee of longer service, whose name he did not remember,
in her place. However, the pay rolls in evidence show that one Matthew
Burke, who had worked the 2 weeks preceding October 23, 1944, as an operator
on box machine #3, replaced Noble during the week of October 30, 1944.32 ' It is
further in evidence that preceding November 25, 1944, this position was filled by
employee Lizzie Mae Ellis 33 Neither Burke nor Ellis signed application forms
and neither worked during the week of October 23, 1944.
In February or March 1945, Noble was hired by Supervisor Ben Gray and con-
tinued in employment until June 26, 1945. She then left voluntarily because of
illness. At the time of the hearing she was employed as a domestic o
Amons denied any knowledge of Noble's union affiliation and expressed will-
ingness to rehire her. He testified that he laid Noble off on October 30 because
"I just didn't need her. She didn't work for me 'very much and I had somebody
else to put in her place that had been working for me." It appears that the
plant saw mill was shut down because no logs were available for some months
after October 23, 1944. The employees thus displaced were transferred to other
positions. Noble was an employee of short service. Her union activities were
very slight. Neither of the employees who later filled the positions was shown to
be non-union. Such evidence as is available, as well as the fact that an over-
whelming majority for the Union was cast on November 22, 1944, supports a
contrary inference.
In this state of the record the undersigned concludes and finds that the record
does not support the Board's contention that Viola Noble was laid off or dis-
chargea because she joined and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective -bargaining and other mutual aid and
protection. It will accordingly be recommended that this allegation . of the
complaint be dismissed.
Canary Jackson was hired by the Respondent in June 1944, and in the pay-roll
period preceding October 21, 1944, worked on the day shift in a group designated
"Stack and Trash." °She joined the Union and attended union meetings She
was asked to sign an application form by Foreman Anions and refused to do so.
As a result she was' excluded from the plant during "the week following October
23, 1944. On October 30 she reported to her usual job but Amons replaced her
with another employee and instructed her to return on the following day. When
3' Amons testified that a man named Burks "was the extra man on the press" and had
operated the second press when two were in use. This employee replaced Howard when the
press was operated during 1945 . "Burks" is evidently an error for employee Matthew
Burke
sa This may be an error in transcription ., Levada Ellis , clock number 265, worked during
the pay-roll period preceding October 21 , 1944, in a group designated "Clean Up." In
the week following that of October 23 she also worked a full week. She neither signed
an application card nor worked in the week of October 23.
PORT GIBSON VENEER & BOX COMPANY 337."
she did so Anions told her he had nothing for her to do. Thereafter, she made
no further applications."
Jackson testified that an employee named Bea Jenkins had been given, her
place. No employee by that name appears on the pay rolls in evidence covering
the period October 9 to November 4,, 1944, nor is she listed among those who.
signed the application form The group in which Jackson is listed on the pay
roll for the 2 weeks ending October 21, 1944, was greatly changed for the following,
2 weeks The earliest list contained 15 names. Only 6 of them w ere repeated om
the following pay roll which contained-11 names. One of these employees worked.
but one day during the 2-week period.
Both Anions and Landers, under whose supervision Jackson worked, positively
denied knowledge of Jackson's union affiliation Landers expressed willingness
that she be rehired if work was available. Anions specifically denied that she
was laid off because of her union activities.
After consideration of the full record the undersigned credits this testimony-
of Landers and Anions. Jackson was an employee of brief service. Her lay-off
occurred at a time when reorganization was necessitated by the shut-down of
the saw mill and related activities. The undersigned notes that 8 other female
employees were dropped from the group of 15 employees in which Jackson is,
listed on the pay roll of October 21, 1944. Three of these employees signed appli-
cation forms. Only one of the three, however, worked during the week of Octo-
ber 23 35 Of five employees newly listed in the succeeding pay roll, one had
signed an application form, four had not.' Since 45 employees signed the form,
while roughly five times as many did not, neither in the relative numbers dropped
nor in those added does it appear that the employees who had concertedly refused,
to sign individual contracts were discriminatorily treated.
The undersigned finds that the Board's allegation that Canary Jackson was
discriminatorily laid off or discharged is not proven It will be recommended,
that so much of the complaint as so alleges be dismissed.
Emanuel M. Howai d was first hired by the Respondent on August 30, 1937.
After a period of work as a lumber grader and planing mill operator, Howard,
late in 1938, became operator of the printing or stamping machine which prints
legends to the customers' orders on boxes purchased At intervals when the
stamper was shut down, Howard repaired culls or "tied boxes " No criticism
was voiced at the hearing as .to Howard's work His foreman, Howard Anions
testified that his services were satisfactory and further stated "After he learned
to do the job, he done fairly good work." Alex Wilson stated, as a Respondent
witness, that Howard's work "was absolutely satisfactory."
Howard had signed an application form in 1941 on the occasion when the
Respondent began operating the plant He testified that on this occassion he,
had not read the document. When the use of the application form was resumed_
,in October 1944, Howard was asked by Anions to sign He testified that he had
been advised at a union meeting that "it was a phoney paper" and should not be
signed He therefore told Anions that he did not intend to sign. Howard
reported to the plant on the morning of October 23 but, with others present,
was excluded by Anions.
94 These findings are based on Jackson 's uncontroverted and credited testimony. Botl?
Anions and Landers professed inability to remember anything about Jackson 's lay off
35 Ora James , Addle Coleman , Sally Lewis, Mayliza Washington, Daisy Brown, Flora
McDuffie , Carry Christian , and Jennie Twine. The last three signed application forms.
Carry Christian worked during the week of October 23, 1944.
s" Leola Braxton signed , Alex Williams, Early Lucas , S. Y. Franklin , and Henry-
Kedricks did not.
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Howard joined the Union and attended meetings He was elected financial
secretary and treasurer about October 22, 1944 Wilson sent for him together
with Lane and Buie, as set forth above, in order to request them to notify the
employees to return on October 27, 1944 At the Board election on November 22,
1944, Howard served as union observer. /It is thus clear, and the Respondent
admits, that it had knowledge of Howard's union membership and activity
Under regulations of the Office of Price Administration the Respondent was
forbidden to print boxes to its customers' orders An exception was made for
government orders, on which priorities were given to purchase dyes and ink in
order that legends might be affixed describing the contents of boxes produced.
The government orders in hand were finished late in November 1914 Howard
was instructed by Anions to clean up the machine and place it in the warehouse.
This work was completed on November 25, 1944 Anions thereupon told Howard
that he was laid off and that he would let Howard know when he was needed
again.3P After waiting 2 or 3 weeks Howaid inquired of Anions, through his
fellow employee Joe Smiley, when he would-be put to work Smiley reported that
Amons again said, "I will let him know I will send for hun
In February 1945 Howard went to Kansas :and was employed there. Howard
did not notify the Respondent of his departure nor of his new address. He did
not return to Port Gibson until about August 1, 1945 At the time of the hearing
he had not thereafter applied for employment with the Respondent
The printing machine was not used from Novembei 25, 1944, until May 1945
when the Respondent was awarded an order for 100,000 ;oven nnnent boxes.
These were delivered by the first week in July and the printing work then ceased
and had not been resumed at the time of the hearing in the instant proceeding.
In May when printing was to he resumed Anions wquiied tdr Howard and was
told by his assistant, Willie Landeis, that he had left Port Gibson and would
not be available
It was Anions' testimony that he was ready to rehire Howard either as opera-
tor of the printing machine or in his subsidiary operation in tying boxes
at any time when Howard was ready to work and such positions were avail-
able. Both of Howard's helpers, who were women, had been promptly rehired
after November 25, 1944, on their application in person. They had also failed
or refused to sign an application form and had not worked during the week
of October 23.'9 Alex Wilson in his testimony cprroborated Anions His perti-
nent testimony reads :
Q. Was anything said to you with respect to the disposition of the crew
on the printing press when the press closed down?
A. Except they wanted to know what to do with then. I said, "If you din''
use-if you got a full crew-there is nothing to do but lay them off " They,
said, "How about hiring them back?" . I said, "Certainly hire them back if
you can use them."
Wilson stated further that there was no intention on the part of the Respondent
that "Howard should be permanently laid off or discharged;" and that he
ui ould personally be glad to have Howard reinstated "because his work was
absolutely satisfactory."
31 Both Howard and Amons so testified in substance.
38 Smiley did not testify. This quotation is from Howard 's testimony . Anions' testi-
nion^ confirms that of Howard.
11 It was Anions' credited testimony that one assistant, Lizzie May Ellis, was employed
"on the next day" and the other , Lottie Watson, " in about 2 weeks."
PORT GIBSON VENEER & BOX COMPANY 339
After consideration of the record and the demeanor of the witnesses involved,
the undersigned is convinced and finds that Howard was laid off on November
25, 1944, for legitimate business reasons not conditioned by his union activi-
ties and membership.4° The later failure to reinstate Howard is found to
have been due to Howard's failure to apply in person, relying overmuch on
Anions' promise to recall him. The record indicates that the prevailing prac-
tice was to fill available jobs from applications made at the plant. It will
be recommended that the Board's allegation that Howard was discriminatorily
discharged be dismissed.
Evan Doss had worked for the Respondent about 3 years. At the time of his
discharge in February 1945, he was a member of a four man crew which cut
logs into lengths suitable for cutting veneer and rolled the blocks into steam
vats. Doss was the junior member of the crew. His duty was to roll the blocks
from the conveyor chains into the steam vats. William Kilcrease aided in
filling the vats and had charge of the engine which -furnished power for the
dragsaw. Steve IJiggins operated the saw. Oliver (Honey) Brown measured
the blocks and marked the logs. He was also "leader" on the operation and
in general charge in the absence of Superintendent J. A. Gallman, who super-
vised the operation of the veneer mill.
Late in February 1945, Gallman decided about 3 p in. that it would be neces-
sary for the block cutting crew to work an hour overtime in order that enough
blocks be in the vats to keep abreast of the veneer cutting next day. He testi-
fled that he instructed Brown to inform the other members of the crew and
that he had himself afterwards "walked out there and told them we would
have to make some overtime." Gallman's announcement was made as he testi-
fied, from a position midway between the log deck and the drag saw.
Brown testified that when instructed to inform the men about, overtime he
immediately told Doss that overtime was to be worked. He did not state that
this was Gallman's orders. Brown testified that Doss said, "Not me." Brown
did not notify Kilcrease. He explained that it was his expectation that Doss _
would tell Kilerease. Nor did Brown at the time tell Liggins. When the whistle
blew at 5 p. in., as they severally testified and the undersigned finds, Doss laid
down his hook and "struck out" for home. Kilcrease shut off the engine and
followed Doss. Liggins "let clown the saw" preparatory to knocking off for
the day. However, Brown almost at once notified him that "the boss [Gallman]
wanted us to work another hour" and Liggins resumed work. Brown whistled
at Doss and Kilcrease in an effort to recall them. Gallman came up at this junc-
ture and called to them. As he testified "I hollered at them. Screamed as loud
as I could." Neither Doss nor Kilcrease gave any evidence of hearing either
Brown or Gallman. The latter, however, followed them as far as the store
located across the street from the plant. There he found Kilcrease who ex.
plained that he had not been notified to work overtime. Kilcrease returned and
worked an hour longer. He incurred no disciplinary action beyond a mild
reproof.91
J The Board contended in oral argument that the operators on the night shift continued
to operate the stamping machine for a week after Howard was laid off. The undersigned
finds no merit in this contention . Although the night shift operators were carried on the
pay roll for the following week it is clear that the stamping machine had been cleaned
up and stored in the warehouse on November 25, 1944 , when Howard was laid off.41 Gallman testified,
Well I bawled him out more or less . . . I told him that he was putting us in a
mighty bad position not staying loading vats We had to get them loaded and he
knew it
712344-47-vol. 70-23
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Next morning when Doss reported for work Gallman met him and demanded
an explanation for his failure to work overtime. What then transpired was
stated in Doss' uncontroverted and credited testimony as follows :
When I went back to work he [Gallman] met me up there where I
worked at. And he say, "Evan?" I said, "Sir?" He said, "Didn't Honey
Brown tell you that I said work overtime?" I said, "No, sir; he did not."
He said, "Well, I believe he told you." I say, "He did not tell." And I said,
'I stand right face to face and toe to toe to you and Honey Brown both,
and tell you both that neither one of you didn't tell,"
Gallman did not dispute this version of their interview However, he testified,
evidently with reference to Doss' stoutly maintained assertion that he had not
been told of the plan to work overtime, that Doss was, "More or less impudent
and insolent." Gallman further testified, "it was my opinion and still is that he
heard it [the overtime announcement] . . . and I told him [Doss] that
I didn't believe [his denial] I thought he was just plain lying.,""Z Both Gallman
and Brown testified that on Gallman's inquiry, Brown declared he had notified
Doss. Brown was a union member and did not sign the application form and
did not work the week of October 23, 1944. Brown testified that he and Doss
were very friendly. Immediately after his interview with Gallman, Doss was
discharged.
Alex Wilson testified that it was the Respondent's policy to request deferments
by the local draft board "for every man that we could get deferred." On Novem-
ber 25, 1944, on representations made by the Respondent, Doss was given a
deferred classification effective until February 25, 1945.
Doss had joined the Union and his wife was also a member.. He was unable
to give the date of his joining The record reflects no other union activity on
his part The Board relies on two incidents to establish proof that the Respond-
ent had knowledge of Doss' union activity. Tommy Williams, an employee in
the boiler room, testified that on an occasion, stated to have been prior to the
-Board election held November 22, 1944, Gallman found Doss in the boiler room
conversing with Williams. Gallman asked Doss what lie was doing there and
as Williams testified Doss replied, "I just came down to see Tommy a minute."
It was Williams' further testimony that Gallman then said, "Go home and sleep
with Tommy and stay with him . . . Your damn Union is going to get
all you Negroes fired and you [Williams] too." Gallman testified that he had
found Doss 150 feet away from his proper station, "having a conference" with
Williams. Gallman's further testimony reads,
Well, I broke it up and told them to get back to the job. And after [Doss}
left, I told Tommy that that caucus was going to get them fired.
Gallman testified positively that the word union was not mentioned and that
he had not overheard the conversation of Doss and Williams. He stated that
he had had chronic trouble with conferences, or "caucuses," throughout the 30
years of his experience as a supervisor in veneer mills. Such trouble had been
especially frequent during-the period when the Union's organizational campaign
was active.
The second instance relied on by the Board was presented in testimony by
employee Eleanor Shaw relative to a conversation on November 25, 1945, with,
leader Major Ross," reading in part, as follows:
'3 Gallman also testified with reference to his own announcement of overtime, "I told
them all. Evan could have heard if he had been so minded."
43 The record shows that Ross was head fireman or leader and that his recommendations
as to both hiring and discharging employees were'given full consideration by Gallman_
The undersigned finds that he was of supervisory status.
PORT GIBSON VENEER & BOX COMPANY 341
He [Ross] said that Evan Doss at one particular time out there he was
working at the veneer mill, and they sent word to him to work over-
time, . . . Evan didn't get the word and Evan went home . . . the next
morning his foreman . . . told him, "Then I don't want you. I cant use
you." He [Ross] said then . . . the reason he didn't want to use him,
woudn't let him work, that he was connected with this C I. 0. Union and
wanted to get rid of Doss anyway because he was connected with the C. I. 0.
He said Gallman said he wanted to get rid of him because was was
one of the heads of the C I. 0. Union
Ross, as a witness for the Respondent, specifically denied this testimony by
Shaw stating that he had never told her or anybody else that Gallman fired
Evan Doss because he belonged to the Union Ross further stated relative to
his conversation with Shaw, "We didn't talk about nothing about Evan Doss
or Unions ; nothing like that."
In resolving these conflicts of testimony the undersigned notes the Board's
failure to elicit corroboratory testimony from Doss as to the Williams' incident.
After consideration of the full record, the undersigned credits the version of this
incident given by Gallman. It is noted also-that the incident occurred over 3
months before Doss was discharged. As to the second incident the undersigned
notes that Shaw had recently been laid off Her testimony was hesitating and
unconvincing. After consideration of the whole record and the demeanor of the
witnesses concerned, the undersigned accepts Ross' denial of the alleged
conversation.
Brown said of Doss' capacity as a workman, "He was a good workem, worked
good." He further stated that he had a difficult job and had always previously
worked overtime when it was desired that he do so. Gallman brought forward
no other criticism of Doss' performance beyond his failure to work overtime,on
February 26, 1945. However, Gallman was stoutly of the opinion that Doss had
been properly notified on that occasion, and it is clear that Brown assured him
he had told Doss of the intention to work overtime. It was Gallman's position
that "if [Doss'] attitude was that he couldn't work overtime, we would have to
get somebody that was willing to work overtime." It is clear that the vats were
under direct observation by Doss and the other members of the block cutting crew.
Both Doss and Kilcrease indicated in their testimony that they did not feel bound
to work overtime unless directly notified by Gallman or at least in his name.
The undersigned finds it doubtful that Brown so notified Doss. Brown signed
an affidavit on February 25, 1945, in which he stated that he told Doss, "We may
have to work overtime" and that Doss responded, "Not me." Doss when asked,
"In other words, it was your job-if you were asked to do overtime, did you do
overtime?" answered, "If the foreman asks me to do overtime, why, sure ; I work
overtime."
While the penalty exacted from Doss was harsh, especially when compared to
the mild reproof applied to Kilcrease, the undersigned finds on the record made
that the basis of Doss' discharge was Gallman's belief that he had dmscbeyed
notice given to work overtime, rather than his union membership and activity.
Accordingly, it will be recommended that this allegation of the complaint be
dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
It is found that the activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Sec-
tion I, above, have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the
undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take
certain affirmative action found necessary in order to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent locked-out the employees listed in
Appendix A on October 23, 24, 25, and 26, 1944; because they refused to sign
individual contracts, thereby unlawfully discriminating in regard to their hire
and tenure of employment. It will accordingly be recommended that the Re-
spondent make these employees whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered
by reason of the Respondent's discriminatory action, by payment to each of them
of a sum of money equal to the amount he or she normally would have earned
as wages during the period October 23 through October 20, 1944, less their net
earnings during said period .44
Since it has been found that the Respondent further violated the Act by requir-
ing its employees to execute individual contracts of employment, it will be recom-
meiided that the Respondent cease and desist from requiring its employees to
execute the individual contracts of employment described above, or any similar
instruments, and from maintaining such instruments in force or operating under
them."
Since it has been found that the Respondent locked out and constructively dis-
charged Pearline Brown, Alice Carter, and Annie Brown on October 23, 1944,
because of their refusal to sign individual contracts, and did not thereafter rehire
Pearline Brown until January 4, 1945, Alice Carter and Annie Brown' until
October 23, 1945, it will be recommended that the Respondent make each of these
employees whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the
Respondent's discriminatory action, by payment to each of them of a sum of
money equal to the amount she normally would have earned as wages from the
date of the Respondent's discriminatory discharge of these employees on October
23, 1944, to the respective dates of reinstatement stated above, less their net
earnings during said period.46
The undersigned has found that the Respondent by various acts and statements
has violated Section 8 (1) of the Act, and that by locking out the production and
maintenance employees and by its discharge and refusals to rehire the employees it
has violated Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act. It will be recommended that the
Board, under the policy established in its prior decisions,' order the Respondent
to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
" By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N. L. R. B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon
Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be considered as
earnings See Republic Steel Corporation v. N L. R B , 311 U S 7
45 Nothing herein, however, is to be so construed as to prohibit the respondent from
individually contracting for the exclusive use of an employee's unique or specialized serv-
ices foi a definite period of time, or to prevent disclosure of trade or business secrets
d6 See footnote 44 supra
47 See Matter of Washington National Insurance Co., 64 N. L. R. B. 929; Matter of C. D.
Beck •,t Company, 63 N L. R B. 1426, Matter of Caroline Mills, Inc, 64 N. L. R B. 200
PORT GIBSON VENEER & BOX -C0111IPANY 343
Since it has been found that the allegations of the.complaint relative to the
discriminatory discharge of Charles Marshall, Viola Noble, Canary Jackson, E. M.
Howard, and Evan Doss are not sustained by the record, it will be recommended
that as much of the complaint as pertains to these allegations be dismissed.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Woodworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment and the
terms and conditions of employment of the employees listed in Appendix A, II,
and of Pearline Brown, Alice Carter, and Annie Brown, the Respondent has err-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
S (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of
the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Charles Marshall, Viola Noble, Canary Jackson, E. M. Howard,
and Evan Doss.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the Respondent Port Gibson Veneer & Box Company, and
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Woodworkers of America,
affiliated with the Congress of Industiial Organizations, or any other labor
organization, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment
or any terms or conditions of employment of its employees ;
(b) Giving effect to the individual contracts of employment described herein,
or any modification, continuation, extension, or renewal thereof to forestall col-
lective bargaining or deter self-organization, or entering into any similar form
of contract with its employees for any period subsequent to the date hereof for
such purpose or with such effect;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist Inter-
national Woodworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2 Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole the employees listed in Appendix A II for any loss of. wages
they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them
by payment to them of a sum of money equal to the amount which they normally
344 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL `LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would have earned as wages during the peroid from October 23 through October 26,
1944, less their net earnings during said period ; 48
,(b) Make whole Pearline Brown, Alice Carter, and Annie Brown for any loss'
of pay they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against
them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which
she normally would have earned as wages from October 23, 1944„ the date of
their discriminatory discharge by the Respondent, to the respective 'dates of their
reinstatement as set forth herein less their net earnings during such period; 49
(c) Give separate written notice to each of its employees who signed an individ-
ual contract of employment as described herein of any modification, continuation,
extension, or renewal' thereof, or any similar form of contract for any period
,subsequent to the date hereof, that such contract will not in any manner be
enforced or attempted to be enforced to forestall collective bargaining or deter
self-organization, that the employee is not required or expected by virtue of such
contract to deal with Respondent individually in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and that such discontin-
uance of the contract is without prejudice to the assertion of any legal rights the
employee may have acquired under such contract or to any defenses thereto by
the employer ;
(d) Post at its plant in Port Gibson, Mississippi, copies of the notice attached
hereto marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, after being signed by the Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon the receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous 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.
It is recommended that so much of the complaint as alleges the discriminatory
discharges of Charles Marshall, Viola Noble, Canary Jackson, E. M. Howard and
Evan Doss, be dismissed.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the re-
ceipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies said Regional Director
in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the
action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 27,
1945, any party or counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the
date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to
Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board,
Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a
statement in writing, setting forth such exceptions as to the Intermediate Report
or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all
motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four
copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such state-
ment of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the
same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a
copy with the Regional Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should
any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor
4$ See footnote 44 supra.
49 See footnote 44 supra.
PORT GIBSON VENEER & BOX COMPANY 345
must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the
order transferring the case to the Board.
CHARLES E. PERSONS,
Trial Examiner.
Dated January 30, 1946.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES'
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner 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 in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist International Woodworkers of America, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection.
We will not give effect to the individual contracts of employment we sub-
mitted to our employees on or after October 2, 1944, or any modification,
continuation, extension, or renewal thereof to forestall collective bargaining
or deter self-organization, and we will not enter into any form of contract
with our employees for any period subsequent to the date hereof for such
purpose or with such effect.
We will make whole the employees named below for any loss of pay suffered
as a result of the discrimination.
1. Annie Brown
Alice Carter
Pearline Brown
II. 488 Elvin Allen
778 Simon Alexander
308 Joseph Anderson
256 Richard Anderson
724 Annie Laurie Barnes a
59 Cabe Bonds
Lewis Bradford
Jesse Bradley
714 Margaret Bradley
O'Neil Brandon
Howard Bridges
Joe Bridges
907 Bailey Brown
153 Oliver Brown
770 Beatrice Bruce
855 Sol Bruce
751 Joe Buck
204 John Buck, Sr.
759 Millie, Belle Buck
Luther Buie
612 Matthew Burks
776 Thelma Burton
561 John Butler
107 Carrie Cameron
474 Andrew Carroll
662 Mollie Kate Carroll
749 Martin Chambers
-581 Annie Chines
415 Henrietta Christian
399 Leroy Claiborne
206 John Clinton
645 Marie Clinton
665 Alberta Coleman
740 Jesse Coleman
936 Kathleen Coleman
727 Mary Coleman
750 Martin Coleman
296 Parker Coleman
Donald Collins
420 L. T. Colvin
948 Martin Cotton
61 Willie Cox
Ollie Cox
275 Joe Davis
64 John Davis
124 Willie Dee
793 Frank Devine
583 Georgia Devine
748 Willie Devine -
346 DECISIONS OF
189 Charles Dorsey
Josephine Dorsey
237 Evans Doss
315 Letha Doss
946 Mary B . Downing
820 Henry Dunn, Jr.
188'Adell Edwards
108 Amy May Edwards
225 Mary Lee Edwards
142 Elise Ellis
265 Levada Ellis
373 Feby Flanders
149 Booker T. Gaines
229. Irene Gaines
486 Lewis Gaines
95 Bennie Garrison
33 Willie Gibson
148 William Gibson
190 Malinda Giles
796 Gertrude Gines
837 Mary Gines
298 Leroy Goings
853 Joe Goings
933 Allen Good
791 Elijah Green
112 Lillie Mae Gusta
699 Beulah Hall
325 Arthur Hammond
126 Henderson Hands
57 Clyde Harvey
241 Alphonse Haynes
289 Will Hayney
6,51 Abe Henry
725 Daisy Hicks
331 Ed Hicks
765 Willie Hicks
572 Bernice Hill
514 David Hill
609 E M. Howard
391 Josephine Hunt
543 Alvin Jackson
389 Arthur Jackson
357 Fred Jackson
398 Canary Jackson
523 Geneva Jackson
183 Phillip Jackson
247 Willie Jackson
922 Ora James
707 Minnie Jenkins
783 Richard Jenkins
257 Arthur Johnson
563 James Johnson
745 Leon Johnson
Mary Lee Johnson
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
891 Willie Johnson
Beulah Jones
114 Ernest. Jones
59 Clyde Karney
621 Henry Kedricks
George Kelly
479 S K Kilcrease
234 William Kilcrease
874 Amanda King
634 Essie King
469 Hilliard King
243 Vernell King
729 Henry Kirklin
705 Beatrice Lacy
87 Eugene Langston
Leroy Laws
313 Clotile Liggins
76 Edward Lewis Liggins
350 Fred Liggins-
618 Florianna Liggins
25 Jesse Liggins
152 Steve Liggins
96 Mose Lindsay
141 A. C Louisville
683 Lottie Mae Louisville
606 Nora Louisville
908 Ella Mae McBender
140 Tom McCray
642 Etter McGee
681 Lucile McGee
44 Willie Miller
889 Andrew Moore
- Eliza Moore
249 James Moore
465 Lewis Morgan
155 €andy Mosell [Moses]
110 Inez Nash
242 Leonard Nash
931 Margaret Nash
810 Lonnie Newsome
836 Lizzie Noble
Allen Nobles
100 Viola Nobles
292 Bertha Osborne
531, Georgia Paige
586 Herman Patterson
199 Robert Permelia
756 Harriet Polk
231 Willie Richardson
201 Teemie or [T. M.] Ricks
Annie Maria Robinson
180 Mann Robinson
937 Nelson Ross
252 Jim Rowan
PORT GIBSON VENEER & BOX COMPANY ' 347
147 Amy Lee Sayles 912 Robert Trevillian
138 Sylvester Scott 202 Theodore Truett
1 72 J. C. Shannon 432 Charles Wade
286 Willie Shaw 934 Frank Wade
20 Bob Short 121 William Wade
Emanuel Shoulder 489 Joe Ward
6 Sarah Slater 163 Charles Warner
883 Wes Slater Mayliza Washington
646 Belle Tora Slayton 610 Lottie Watson
928 Jake Smith 56 Frank Weathers
549 Savannah Smith 51 John Weathers
78 Roosevelt Spiller 722 T. J. White
213 C. M. Stamps 636 Robert Whitney
Gracie Starks 680 Annie Lee Williams
307 Charles Strawberry 240 J. D. Williams
650 Titus Sullivan 632 Lillie May Williams
579 Allen Tarleton 439 Sam Williams °
576 Lee Tarleton 354 Evan Wilson
333 Mary Tarleton 582 Frances Wilson
932 Hester Thomas 86 Gabe Wilson
186 Iva Thomas 55 George Wilson
378 Maud Thomas 930 Juliette Wilson
10 Nathaniel Thomas 574 Thelma Wilson
123 Leroy Thompson 452 L. E Windon
233 Richard Thompson 53 John Woods
60 Nathan Tolliver 795 Pauline Woods
26 Willie Tolliver
158 Spencer Turner
George Wyatt
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
PORT GIBSON VENEER & Box COMPANY,
Employer.
By -----------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated--------------------
NOTE -Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed forces
of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in accord-
ance with the selective service act after discharge from the armed forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.