Solo Cup Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 12, 1963

144 N.L.R.B. 1481 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

SOLO CUP COMPANY 1481
Solo Cup Company and Grocery and Food Products , Food Proc-
essors, Food Canneries , Frozen Food Plants , Warehouses and
Related Office Employees Union , Local 738, I.B.T.
United Papermakers and Paperworkers , AFL-CIO and John
Morris. Cases Nos. 13-CA-4976, 13-CA-5324, and 13-CA-5475.
November 12, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 2, 1963, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. There-
after, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed a brief in support
of the Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the ruling of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, and the entire record in this case, including the
exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings and conclusions
of the Trial Examiner, except as modified below.
Although finding that the Respondent's no-solicitation rule was
unduly broad on its face, the Trial Examiner nevertheless concluded
that it was not unlawful because it was not intended to be, and was not
in fact, applied to prohibit union solicitations on nonworking time.
We do not agree with his conclusion. The rule prohibited all "un-
authorized" solicitation on company property, and the Respondent
claimed that "unauthorized" referred to working time and did not
mean that company approval was required before solicitations could
be made. A similar argument was presented to the Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, 289 F. 2d 181, where an employer attempted to
prove that a rule prohibiting all "outside business" on company
property was not a violation since union activities are part of the
employees' rights and are therefore not included in the legal defini-
tion of "outside business." This approach was rejected on the ground
that the reasonably foreseeable effects of the wording of the rule on
the conduct of the employees wi11 determine its legality, and that where
144 NLRB No. 153.
1482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the language is ambiguous and may be misinterpreted by the em-
ployees in such a way as to cause them to refrain from exercising
their statutory rights, then the rule is invalid even if interpreted
lawfully by the employer in practice. A number of Board cases have
also followed the view that the conduct of the employees is deemed
to be guided by the wording of the rule itself and not the unexpressed
limitations or interpretations that are given to it by the employer.
See, e.g., The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 123 NLRB
747, 753-754; Grand Central Aircraft Co., Inc., 103 NLRB 1114,
1149; J. H. Butter-flex Manufacturing Company, Inc., 86 NLRB 470,
472. We find accordingly that the rule violates Section 8(a) (1) of
the Act, and we shall enter an appropriate Order to remedy the
violation.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Solo Cup Com-
pany, Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from promulgating, maintaining, or enforcing a
rule prohibiting employees from soliciting membership in a labor
organization on company property on nonworking time, or in any
like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their right to self-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, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, or to refrain from any or gall such activities, except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment in con-
formity with Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act :
(a) Distribute to each employee, excluding all supervisory per-
sonnel, a written notice, over the name of the Respondent and signed
by its representative, advising them that the rule prohibiting all
unauthorized solicitations on company property during nonworking
time has been rescinded by order of the National Labor Relations
Board to the extent that it may relate to soliciting membership in a
labor organization, and that henceforth no company authorization
SOLO CUP COMPANY 1483
need be obtained for the solicitation of membership in any labor or-
ganization, on company property on nonworking time.
(b) Post in the Respondent's plants copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." I Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being duly
signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respond-
ent, immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT Is rUItTIIER ORDERED that those portions of the complaint dealing
with the discriminatory discharge and coercive interrogation of Re-
spondent's employees be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
1In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT promulgate, maintain, or enforce a rule prohibit-
ing our employees from soliciting membership in a labor organi-
zation on company property on non-working time.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
any labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment in conformity with Section 8(a) (3) of the
Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis-
closure Act of 1959.
1484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of any labor organization.
SOLO CUP COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Midland Building, 176 West Adams Street, Chicago 6, Illinois,
Telephone No. Central 6-9660, if they have any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed against Solo Cup Company, herein called the Company or the
Respondent, in Case 13-CA-4976 on June 27, 1962, by Food Products, Food
Processors, Food Canneries, Frozen Food Plants, Warehouses and Related Office
Employees Union, Local 738, I.B.T., herein called the Teamsters, and in Case No.
13-CA-5324 on December 20, 1962, by United Papermakers and Paperworkers,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Papermakers, and in Case No. 13-CA-5475 on March
11, 1963, by John Morris, an individual, the General Counsel issued an order
consolidating the cases and a complaint alleging that the Respondent engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
The answer of the Respondent denied certain material allegations of the com-
plaint and the commission of unfair labor practices.'
This proceeding, with the General Counsel and the Respondent represented, was
heard before Trial Examiner John F. Funke on May 1, 2, and 3 and June 4, 1963.
Briefs were received from the parties on June 25, 1963.
Upon the entire record in this case and my observation of the witnesses, I make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Delaware corporation maintaining offices and plants in Chicago,
Illinois, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of paper con-
tainers and related products. During the past calendar year it sold and shipped
from its Chicago plants finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points
outside the State of Illinois.
Respondent admits and I find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Teamsters and the Papermakers are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
M. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discharge of Guglielmi
Margaret Guglielmi was employed by Respondent as a cup packer from April
1960 to December 17, 1962, when she was discharged. Sometime in November
'A motion to dismiss Case No. 13-CA-4976 and to sever Cases Nos. 13-CA-5324 and
13-CA-5475 was denied before hearing and an amended motion to dismiss and sever was
denied at the hearing. A special appeal from the denial of Respondent's motion made at
the hearing was denied by the Board in an Order dated May 8, 1963.
SOLO CUP COMPANY 1485
1962 she talked to two organizers for the Paperworkers and was given authorization
cards which she distributed to other employees in the plant for signing. There is
no direct evidence that Respondent knew of her union activity although Guglielmi
testified that she discussed unions with Ann Grossfeld before Grossfeld became
a floorlady.2
According to Respondent, Guglielmi was discharged because of an argument she
had with another employee, Betty Borsos, on the evening of December 14 in which
Guglielmi was alleged to have used "vile language" and to have thrown a stack of
cups at Borsos.
Borsos, called by the Respondent, had serious difficulty with the language. In
substance she testified that prior to December 14 she had arguments with Guglielmi
and some of the other girls because they abused her and called her a "dirty DP."
Borsos testified that sometime during September she called Jessie Holly, supervisor
of women at the 96th Street plant, and protested Guglielmi's conduct toward her.
About 6:30 p.m. on the evening of December 14 (she and Guglielmi worked from
2 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.) she returned from the cafeteria. Without provocation Gug-
lielmi called her "dirty names" and threw a 50-cup stack at her which hit her in
the back of the head. Borsos told Tessie Streich, her relief girl, what had happened
and Streich told her to find Ann Grossfeld. Borsos found Grossfeld and Foreman
Smith and told them her story and Grossfeld talked to Guglielmi. Borsos was in
tears and Grossfeld sent her to the lockerroom to compose herself. The next day,
a Saturday, Borsos called Holly and told her what had happened and on the follow-
ing Monday morning she received a telephone call from Bob Burian, personnel
manager at 96th Street, and told him her story. This is about all that can be made
of the testimony of Borsos.
Borsos' testimony is corroborated by Grossfeld to the extent that she testified that
she was leaving the plant cafeteria on the evening of December 14 with Foreman
Smith and Borsos came to her in tears and told her that Guglielmi had called her
a "dirty name" and had hit her with a stack of paper cups. They took her back
to her machine and Grossfeld then told Guglielmi what Borsos had told her.
According to Grossfeld, Guglielmi denied both using obscene language and throwing
the cups.3 On the next day Grossfeld called Jessie Holly, informed her of the
incident as Borsos had reported it to her, and told her she thought something should
be done about it.
Jessie Holly testified that on Saturday, December 15, she received telephone calls
from Grossfeld and Borsos in which they related the incident to her as above set
forth On Monday, December 17, Holly told Burian the story as it had been related
to her. This was at 8:30 a.m. and subsequently she, Burian, Foreman Tatro, and
Vice President John Hulseman met in Hulseman's office for further discussion.
Hulseman agreed that Guglielmi should be questioned and, if Burian and Holly were
convinced she was guilty of the conduct charged, they could discharge her. At
2 p in. Holly met Guglielmi at the timeclock and took her to Burian's office. Accord-
ing to Holly, Burian recited the facts as they had been given to him and told
Guglielmi the company could not condone such conduct. Guglielmi asked if she
was being discharged for union activity and told Burian her husband worked in a
factory where they had a union and "didn't care for the union at all." Guglielmi
then asked to see Hulseman and was given permission After Guglielmi's discharge,
three other employees, Pat Mogan, Branka Velykovic and Tessie Streich, all of
whom worked in the immediate area of Borsos and Guglielmi, were called to the
personnel office, told that Guglielmi had been discharged, and warned about name-
calling, particularly with respect to Borsos.
Guglielmi testified that she had three disputes with Borsos. The first occurred
when she moved from the 74th Street plant to 96th Street in September and they
argued over which of them was to operate the gas unit The second was in December
when Guglielmi alleged that Borsos called her a no-rood citizen and the third was
on the evening of December 14. Guglielmi testified that at about 6.30 Tim.
Borsos came back from the cafeteria and started "hollering" at her in a mixture
of English and her own language and Guglielmi told her to shut up. Guglielmi
testified that Borsos then left her machine with cups falling all over the floor and
2 There is disnute between the parties as to the supervisory status of Grossfeld Gross-
feld helped and instructed the girls at the packing tables, inspected the cups, filled in for
any girl who was absent, and relayed the orders given by Foreman Smith Most of her
time was spent working and she received an hourly wage only slightly higher than the
other girls. I do not find that she Possessed sufficient authority over the girls to qualify
as a supervisor under Section 2(11) of the Act Grossfeld voted in the representation
election held by the Board without challenge
s Foreman Smith corroborated this testimony.
1486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
came back with Grossfeld and Smith. Grossfeld told Guglielmi that Borsos had
accused her of swinging at her and throwing cups at her and Guglielmi called Borsos
a "dog-gone liar." When Guglielmi reported shortly before 2 p.m. on the 17th
Holly met her and took her to the personnel office where Burian and Tatro were
present. Guglielmi quotes Burian as saying, "Margaret, you have gone against
company regulations and your job is terminated with the company as of now." She
asked him why and he said "for being an instigator, an agitator and a leader." He
told her he had talked to a few of the employees in the plant and they seemed to
think she was a troublemaker. She asked to confront the employees and was re-
fused. She then asked if the Union had anything to do with it and was told it did
not. She then saw Hulseman and was again told that she was a leader, an agitator,
an instigator, and a troublemaker. Hulseman told her there was trouble in her de-
partment and that he was going to get to the bottom of it if he had to weed out the
whole department. Later she went to 74th Street to get her check where she asked
Ann Fegus, personnel manager there, what to give as the reason for her discharge
when she filed for unemployment compensation and was told to say she was laid off
because the shop was moving. She did give this reason and the Respondent did
not dispute her claim.
In support of his allegation that Guglielmi was discharged in violation of the Act
the General Counsel offered the testimony of Pearl Jordan who stated that Guglielmi
was an advocate of the Papermakers and gave her an authorization card to sign.
Jordan also testified that Guglielmi got along well with the other girls in the cup-
packing department. Although Jordan worked close to Guglielmi and Borsos, her
testimony as to what happened on the evening of December 14 is inconclusive.
Jordan stated that some weeks after Guglielmi's discharge she had a conversation
with Grossfeld in which she told Grossfeld that another employee had told her that
Guglielmi was discharged because she was an organizer for the Papermakers and
Grossfeld remarked that "Hulseman seemed to think that somebody was [an
organizer]." 4
Lucille Huberdault testified 3 or 4 days after Guglielmi was discharged Burian
came out to the paper-cup department and asked the girls if Guglielmi was a
troublemaker.
Betty Velykovic, one of the girls called to personnel after the discharge of
Guglielmi on December 17, testified that she was asked by Burian if Guglielmi was a
company girl. Due to difficulties with the language most of Velykovic's testimony is
incomprehensible; in any event it sheds no light on the issues in the case.
B. The discharge of John Morris
John Morris was employed by Respondent on November 27, 1962, and discharged
on February 5, 1963. During his employment he operated the baler machine and
when he was discharged he was working from 3:30 p.m. until midnight. The baler
was operated on the day shift by Wilson Sims and Houston Sims. Morris testified
that in late December of 1962 Wilson Sims gave him five authorization cards of the
Teamsters Union for distribution. He filled out one for himself, gave one to a Jeep
operator, and three to another employee.
Morris testified that on the day he was hired his foreman, Edison Dyer, warned
him that he would be approached by union employees but that he should have nothing
to do with them because his chief job was to work and support his family. During
the second week in December Dyer told him and two Jeep operators that he had
been employed as supervisor at another company and that he did not see that the
employees had gained anything by belonging to the Union. Morris replied that he
had been shop steward and a member of the joint council at another company and
that there were a lot of benefits an employee could gain from a union. Later in
January Dyer told him he had heard that he (Morris) had been talking and that he
was being watched. Morris then asked him for help on the baler and Dyer told
him the Company was going to cut down on the job and that if he did not try to
do better he would be replaced and Morris told him that if there was a union on the
job Dyer would not talk to him like that. On February 5 he was discharged by Dyer.
Morris' version is as follows:
He [Dyer] came back to work that night. And so he started talking to
me, and he told me things was getting pretty tight. And that I was on a layoff
* I find this conversation in no way binding upon the Respondent nor can any inference
with respect to Guglielmi's discharge be drawn from it When an employer 's plant is being
organized the employer may reasonably be expected to believe that someone in the plant
is an organizer.
SOLO CUP COMPANY 1487
list. And I asked him why. He said, "Well, things are pretty tight." And
I said, "This is a busy season." And he said, "Yes, it is, but we have to cut
down on the bailer [ sic]." And he said Houston Sims was going to take my
place. So I asked him if anything was wrong with my work. He said that
my work was excellent. And I asked him for a transfer . I asked was it
possible for me to get a transfer to another department if my work was
excellent. He said "No." He didn't have anything to do with this. He
said, "Plus, I feel that you are not satisfied with the job. You complained
about your raises." And when he said this I right away, I said, "Who told
you this, Ron?" So he said "Yes." He said that Ron was the one who told him.
He said, "You should be careful who you talk to "
The next day Morris came in at 3 o'clock to pick up his check and talked to
Burian. He asked Burian for a transfer and told him that he had bid on two
jobs for operator No. 2 and Burian told him there were no jobs open . He again
called Burian and also Dyer for work but was not rehired.
Edison Dyer testified that his official title from November of 1962 until April
1963, was supervisor of scrap control. He interviewed Morris before hiring him
on November 27 to satisfy himself that Morris was qualified to operate heavy
machinery such as the baler. During the last week of January a conveyor belt was
installed on the baler which, according to Dyer, made the operation of the baler
easier. Prior to the installation of the conveyor the Company had three men
operating the baler, Houston and either Wilson or Conway Sims working the day
shift and Morris on the night shift. The conveyor eliminated the necessity for two
men on the day shift. Morris, who was junior to the Sims brothers in service
(Wilson and Houston had been with the Company about 6 years), was laid off,
Houston and Conway worked the two shifts alone and Wilson was transferred to
loading.
C. Violations of Section 8(a)(1)
Wilson Sims and Houston Sims, both balers, were called by the General Counsel.
Wilson Sims testified that Ed Dyer asked him on several occasions how he felt about
the Union and to report to him any employee who was a member of the Union 5
Houston Sims testified that on or about February 20 Dyer asked him how he felt
about the Union.
Dyer denied having any conversation with Morris regarding a union and specifi-
cally denied that allegation set forth above that he told Morris at the time of hiring
that he would be approached by union employees and to have nothing to do with
them because it was his job to work and take care of his family. I believe Dyer
was a truthful witness and I credit his denial based on my observation of him.
As to the rest of Morris' testimony I find nothing to suggest coercion or restraint in
any statement allegedly made by Dyer unless an abnormal construction is given the
English language .6
Dyer admitted that he had discussed the Union with both the Sims brothers but
stated that he only asked them how they thought the Union "was going" presumably
with reference to the election.
The General Counsel also urges that Respondent 's no-solicitation rule is unlawful.
The Respondent 's rules provide that:
An employee guilty of any of the following acts will be subject to disciplinary
action, including discharge: 6. Unauthorized solicitation on company property.
Jessie Holly testified that the rule was construed to mean, by the use of the word
"unauthorized," solicitation during working time and that it did not prohibit solicita-
tion in the lockerrooms or in the company cafeteria. There is no evidence to con-
tradict this interpretation of the rule.
Conclusions
I find the evidence insufficient to establish that either Guglielmi or Morris was
discharged in violation of the Act.
5 The Trial Examiner granted a motion to strike this latter testimony as not within the
scope of paragraph 8(a) of the complaint, which alleged interrogation of employees as to
their union and other concerted activities and did not allege the requested reporting of
other employees' union activity
6 The testimony of Morris, if credited, that he had been told by Dyer he (Morris) had
been talking and was being watched is meaningless
1488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As to Guglielmi there is no evidence that the Respondent was aware of her
union activity at the time of her discharge . While she testified that she had dis-
cussed the Union with Grossfeld , whom I have found was not a supervisor, there
is no evidence that Grossfeld, who agreed with her in regard to the Union, told
any of the supervisors that Guglielmi was an adherent or had engaged in any union
activity. Burian testified that he did not know of her union activity when he dis-
charged her and I would be unwilling to accept an inference of knowledge based
solely on the size of the plant against this sworn testimony in the absence of other
antiunion activity . There is, moreover , substantial evidence that Guglielmi was
discharged because Borsos reported her for misconduct on the night of December 14
and the Respondent accepted her report as against Guglielmi's blanket denial. I am
unwilling to believe that Borsos, whom I find a credible witness, concocted this story
and that the Respondent accepted it to rid itself of Guglielmi because she was a
union advocate .? There are too many conclusions to be reached by inference alone.
As to Miller, the record indicates that following the installation of the conveyor
belt on the baler the operators were reduced in number from three to two. Miller
was the junior operator so his termination raises no inference of discrimination. It
is true that Morris testified that he told Dyer he had been a shop steward for a union
at another plant but I cannot infer from this that Dyer terminated him because of
this fact rather than because he was the junior operator. Morris also testified that
Dyer at one time told him he had been talking and was being watched and that
Dyer told him at the time of discharge that he had been complaining about not
getting his raises.8 The first statement is too ambiguous for any finding and the
second, if made, does not relate to any protected concerted activity. The in-
sufficiency of the evidence offered by the General Counsel is so clear that little com-
ment can be made. Having found no evidence of discrimination in his termination
I cannot find that the failure to transfer him to other employment was discriminatory
based on the same evidence.
Finally, I find no violation in Dyer's interrogation of the Sims brothers regardless
of the form it took. Dyer was at best a minor supervisor (he supervised only the
three operators of the baler ) who had no responsibility in company policy. In
revising its thinking on interrogation in the Blue Flash case 9 the majority held that
isolated instances of interrogation by a minor supervisor should not result in a
cease-and-desist order. Even the dissenting members concurred in this for they
stated , page 597:
There are , of course , instances of interrogation which can be properly regarded
as isolated , casual and too inconsequential in their impact to constitute a viola-
tion of the Act or to warrant a Board remedy.
Certainly the interrogation here, which took place at coffee breaks and was void
of any context of coercion and restraint, fits the situation supposed by the minority.
As to the no-solicitation rule, admittedly it could have been written so as clearly
to comply with Board decisions but in view of the uncontradicted testimony that
it was not intended to be and was not applied to nonworking time, I find no violation.
The case is distinguishable from J . R. Simplot, 137 NLRB 1552, where solicitation
on nonworking time was permitted if authorized . Here no authorization was required
for solicitation on nonworking time. It is true that an examiner with a zeal for
indictment could find a violation°on the language used regardless of construction
and practice, however unrelated the rule was to the issues raised by the charges,
however technical the violation . I believe it is equally true that an examiner is
entitled to apply a rule of reason and that he may occasionally give a respondent
the benefit of genuine doubt, particularly where long, costly , and predictably un-
successful enforcement proceedings would ensue to vindicate a right impeached only,
if at all, by linguistics.
In view of my finding that Respondent did not engage in unfair labor practices
as alleged in the complaint in Cases Nos. 13-CA-5324 and 13-CA-5475 I find it
unnecessary to consider whether it committed unfair labor practices in Case No.
13-CA-4976 . There has been no subsequent breach of the settlement agreement
in that case and the agreement remains in full force and effect.
7 Supporting Borsos' testimony and Respondent's acceptance of it are Grossfeld's call to
Holly on December 15, not a working day, and Bnrian's telephone call to Borsos when the
incident was reported to him on December 17 All of these incidents would not have taken
place had the Respondent not believed there might be merit to what Borsos reported
9 Morris did not get a raise at the end of his 30-day period because Dyer was not satis-
fied with his work.
9 Blue Flash Express , Inc, 109 NLRB 591.
WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION LOCAL 6, ETC . 1489
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent , Solo Cup Company , is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
2. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the United Papermakers and
Paperworkers , AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
3. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a) (1) and ( 3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Warehousemen 's Union Local 6, International Longshoremen's
& Warehousemen 's Union and Puget Sound Tug & Barge
Company; Shipowners & Merchants Towboat Co., Ltd.; and
Bay Cities Transportation Company. Case No. 20-CD-992.
November 12, 1963
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act following
charges filed by Puget Sound Tug & Barge Company, herein called
Puget Sound, alleging that Warehousemen's Union Local 6, Inter-
national Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, herein called
Respondent or Local 6, had induced and encouraged employees to
strike for the purpose of forcing or requiring Puget Sound, Ship-
owners & Merchants Towboat Co., Ltd., herein called Shipowners,
and Bay Cities Transportation Company, herein called Bay Cities, to
assign particular work to members of Respondent rather than to
members of the Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific, affiliated with
the Seafarers' International Union of North America, herein called
the IBU. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before William F.
Roche, Hearing Officer, on March 25, April 29, and May 16, 1963, at
which all parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence
bearing on the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Thereafter, Respondent, IBU, and Puget Sound, et al., filed briefs
which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 1 makes the following
findings :
1. The business of the Employers
Puget Sound, a Washington corporation with its principal office in
Seattle and an office in San Francisco, is engaged in the business,
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Members Leedom , Fanning,
and Jenkins].
144 NLRB No. 132.