Solo Cup Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 8, 1974

208 N.L.R.B. 976 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Solo Cup Company and International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America, Local No. 26. Case 38-CA-1697
February 8, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On October 15, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Benjamin K. Blackburn issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed a brief in opposition.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.'
ORDER
engage in surveillance of your union activities, we
hereby notify you that:
The National Labor Relations Act gives all
employees these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through a repre-
sentative of their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining
or other aid or protection
To refrain from any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT interrogate you about your union
activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close the plant, to
discharge you, or to end your benefits if you
organize for purposes of collective bargaining.
WE WILL NOT attempt to engage in surveillance
of your union activities.
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner,
interfere with you or restrain or coerce you in the
exercise of the above rights.
All our employees are free, if they choose, to join
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 26,
or any other labor organization, or to refrain from
doing so.
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Solo Cup Company, Urbana,
Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recommend-
ed Order, except that the attached notice is substitut-
ed for that of the Administrative Law Judge.
I
We find merit in the Respondent 's exception to the use by the
Administrative Law Judge of the term "spy" for "surveillance" in the notice
he attached to his Decision Love Box Co, Inc, v N L R B 422 F 2d 232
(C.A 10,1970); and N L R B Douglas & Lomason Company, 443 F 2d
291 (C.A. 8, 1971) We also find merit m the Respondent's further exception
that the notice should state that the employees have the right to refrain
from joining a labor organization as well as the right tojom one. Accord-
ingly, we substitute the attached notice reflecting these changes for the
notice drawn by the Administrative Law Judge In all other respects, how-
ever, we find no reason to change the notice
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having
found, after a trial, that we violated Federal law by
interrogating you, threatening you, and attempting to
208 NLRB No. 146
SOLO CUP COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Savings Center Tower, 10th Floor,
411 Hamilton Boulevard , Peoria, Illinois 61602,
Telephone 309-673-9283.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BENJAMIN K. BLACKBURN, Administrative Law Judge:
The charge in this case was filed on March 23, 1973,1 and
amended on April 16. The complaint was issued on April
20 and amended at the hearing. The hearing was held on
i Dates are 1973 unless otherwise indicated.
SOLO CUP COMPANY 977
May 14, 15, 16, and 17 and June 12, 13, and 14 in
Champaign-Urbana, Illinois.
The principal issue litigated was Respondent's motive for
discharging 13 employees on March 21. For the reasons set
forth below, I find that, while Respondent committed a
number of independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, its motive for
discharging the employees was economic rather than
discriminatory and, therefore, Respondent did not violate
Section 8(a)(3).
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in
Illinois and other States in the business of manufacturing
paper cups. During the year just prior to the issuance of the
complaint herein, it shipped products sold for more than
$50,000 directly to customers outside the State of Illinois
from its Illinois plants, including the one in Urbana which
is involved in this case.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
Respondent purchased a factory building in Urbana,
Illinois, from Magnavox Corporation in January 1972.
Magnavox had manufactured sophisticated electronic
military equipment in the building. Respondent planned to
manufacture paper cups. Consequently, Respondent had
to renovate the interior to make the space suitable for its
purposes. To that end, it began ripping out partitions,
raising the ceiling and lights, removing a vinyl tile floor
and refinishing the floor underneath it, and undertaking
myriad other necessary projects. Some of these projects
were contracted out. Others were assigned to persons
Respondent began hiring in early 1972 and classified as
building maintenance employees. When they were hired all
were told about various of Respondent's benefit programs,
including an all-expense trip for two anywhere in the world
after 25 years' service. None was told that he was being
hired only for a temporary job. At its peak, in late summer-
early fall 1972, the staff of building maintenance employ-
ees numbered more than 20.
Respondent plans eventually to have 100 cup forming
machines and associated equipment such as waxers and
packers in its Urbana plant. The first cup machine went
into production the last week in September 1972. By
March 1973, the crucial period in this case, there were nine
in operation. Respondent initially planned to move its
corporate machine shop from Chicago to Urbana. Conse-
quently, it also hired machinists in Urbana to man both a
plant and a corporate machine shop. (The corporate
machine shop, essentially, builds new machines for all of
Respondent's plants. Each plant, apparently, has a small
plant machine shop whose function is to make repair parts
for the machinery in that plant.) However, Respondent
changed its mind in the latter half of 1972 so that the
corporate machine shop was never actually located in the
Urbana plant. Respondent let its staff of machinists
dwindle through attrition. As the major projects required
to convert the plant to Respondent's needs began to be
completed, Respondent also let its staff of building
maintenance employees dwindle through attrition. By late
February 1973, when union activities began, there were
approximately 71 hourly paid employees at Respondent's
Urbana plant. Fourteen (including two electricians) were
building maintenance employees, three were machinists,
and one was a janitor. The rest were production employees.
For accounting purposes, building maintenance employ-
ees, machinists, and janitors are assigned to Dept. 817
(Machine Shop, Building Maintenance, and Stores). Dept.
817 costs are all considered indirect labor. Production
employees are assigned to Dept. 807 (Cold Drink Cups).
Dept 807 costs are split between direct and indirect labor
costs, depending on the duties of the individual employee.
In late 1972 and early 1973 Respondent's top management
became concerned about high indirect labor costs at the
Urbana plant. The facts with respect to this concern and
what Respondent did about it are set forth in detail in
section C below.
Union activities began on the evening of Friday,
February 23, 1973, when Patrick Lamanske, a building
maintenance man, met with two organizers for the
Charging Party and obtained a supply of authorization
cards from them. He carried the cards into the plant on
Monday morning, February 26, and began signing up
employees. Other employees, principally from the building
maintenance ranks, assisted him. Robert Tharp, for
instance, a probationary electrician on the third shift,
obtained approximately 15 cards. By Thursday, March 1,
almost all of the approximately 48 cards which the
Charging Party ultimately obtained had been signed. (Of
the 12 cards in evidence, only one, that of Orville Williams,
bears a date later than February 27. The cards in evidence
were all signed by alleged discriminatees, the other 11
being Lamanske, Tharp, Arnold (Spud) Allen, David
Bridwell, Mike Demlow, Dennis Elkins, Everett Fagner,
Samuel Francis, James Ruhnow, Richard Stahl, and
Arthur White. Ronald Frields, the 13th alleged discrimina-
tee named in the complaint, did not sign a card and did not
engage in any other union activities. He was on sick leave
during this period, returning to work in the machine shop
on the morning of March 21 only to be discharged, along
with the other 12, that afternoon.) None of the solicitations
was observed by Respondent's supervisors. On March 1,
the Charging Party mailed a letter to Respondent in which
it claimed to represent a majority of Respondent's hourly
paid employees and demanded recognition. On March 2 it
filed a petition in Case 38-RC-1329 for an election in a
production and maintenance unit.
Hans Schult, Respondent's director of manufacturing
and Urbana plant manager, received the Charging Party's
demand letter on the morning of Friday, March 2. This
was the first Respondent or any of its supervisors learned
of union activities in the Urbana plant. Schult relayed the
news to Leo Carter, Respondent's director of industrial
relations, in Chicago. Carter went to Urbana on the
morning of Saturday, March 3. A reply was mailed to the
978 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Charging Party over Schult's signature in which Respon-
dent expressed a doubt of the Charging Party's claimed
majority and declined recognition. A meeting of Urbana
plant supervisors was held at which they were told of the
Charging Party's letter and how to conduct themselves
with employees during the Charging Party's campaign to
organize the plant.
Respondent distributed letters presenting its views of the
campaign to its employees on March 5 and 6. A series of
incidents between supervisors and employees which are
alleged as independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act began on March 5. These are considered in detail in
section B below. Lamanske, Tharp, Francis, Bridwell,
Fagner, and Spud Allen formed themselves into an ad hoc
organizing committee. Respondent was not formally
notified of the existence or membership of this committee.
It met on Tuesday afternoons, March 6 and 13. Interested
employees were invited. A few attended. A general meeting
for all employees was held on Saturday, March 10.
Approximately 15 attended.
Robert Tharp had been transferred from the first to the
third shift as a probationary electrician around January 21
by Eugene Goebel, engineer at the Urbana plant. (Tharp
had recently acquired a city license as an electrician and
was anxious to be promoted from building maintenance
man to electrician, a higher payingjob in Dept. 817.) When
he returned home from the March 6 committee meeting, he
received a telephone call from Goebel. Goebel told him not
to report for the third shift that evening because he was
being transferred back to the first shift effective the next
morning.
Shortly after March 6, Samuel Francis, an electrician,
was taken off the job of troubleshooting electrical
breakdowns in machinery in the production area and
assigned to rewire a machine called a padlocker. The
padlocker was located in a fenced-in area near the machine
shop. Francis' foreman instructed other employees to leave
Francis alone while he worked.
On Wednesday morning, March 21, the Charging Party
began recognition picketing at each of the Urbana plant's
two entrances. (The picketing continued until March 30,
the second day of the hearing in Case 38-RC-1329.) That
afternoon, during the last hour of the first shift, Respon-
dent discharged 13 Dept. 817 employees. Ten (including
one electrician, Francis) were building maintenance
employees. Four (including one electrician, Clifford Allen)
building maintenance employees were retained. The four
men retained all had greater seniority than any of the 10
discharged. (Phil Snyder, the junior man retained, and
Lamanske, the senior man discharged. were hired on the
same day, March 13, 1972. However, Snyder had been
placed ahead of Lamanske at the time because Snyder had
been a building maintenance man for Magnavox while
Lamanske had been a forklift driver.) Three of the four
retained employees, including Snyder, had signed authori-
zation cards. Two machinists were discharged. The one
machinist retained, Byron Miller, had greater seniority
than either. Miller had not signed an authorization card.
(The General Counsel conceded that building maintenance
men were selected for discharge by seniority but disputed
this point with respect to machinists. He relied on the fact
that Ed Elison, who also did not sign an authorization
card, was hired after Mike Demlow, an apprentice
machinist and card signer who was discharged on March
21. While it is true that Elison did work for a time around
this period on the machines in the machine shop , it is clear
from Respondent's records that Elison was hired as and
classified throughout his employment as a maintenance
mechanic, a Dept. 807 job. Maintenance mechanics repair
the production machinery when it breaks down mechani-
cally. I credit Schult's explanation that, when he selected
the employees to be discharged on March 21, he did not
select Elison and retain Demlow, as the General Counsel
contends he should have done, because Elison's name
never came up.) The 13th Dept. 817 employee discharged
was Orville Williams, Respondent's lone janitor. (Respon-
dent contracted out itsjanitorial work on April 1.) Each of
the 13 was engaged on March 21 on a project which was
incomplete when he was discharged. Each was interviewed
separately. Each was told he was being discharged because
the work for which he had been hired had run out. Each
was given the pay which he would normally have received
on Friday, March 23, for the work he did during the week
ending Friday, March 16. Each was given the option of
picking up at the plant or receiving in the mail the check
for the days he had worked so far that week.
Two salaried employees were also discharged on March
21. One was a draftsman whose principal duty had been to
prepare plans and other drawings in connection with the
renovation of the building. The other was a toolcrib
attendant who was on sick leave. Neither is alleged as a
discriminatee in the complaint. Goebel, who had been
hired at a salary in excess of $20,000 a year principally to
oversee the renovation of the building, was terminated in
mid-April.
B. Section 8(a)(1)
1. The activities of Foreman Walker
Willard (Bud) Walker is foreman in charge of building
maintenance employees. The General Counsel has attribut-
ed more independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act to him than to any other supervisor, a natural
circumstance in view of the closeness of his relationship
with the employees discharged. Williams testified at length,
denying in each instance the particular aspect of his
accusers' testimony that might make his words illegal, thus
creating the only serious credibility conflict in the record.
Walker's testimony is difficult to pin down. He frankly
admitted some of the conversations attributed to him. For
instance, he conceded that he had argued with Patrick
Lamanske on several occasions about whether the plant
would close if the Union came in, then denied he had said
that it would. Other conversations like the one with Dennis
Elkins he could not remember at all, then conceded that he
had talked to someone about losing $6,000 in a strike at
one time in his working life. Because Walker , in effect,
almost but not quite corroborated the testimony of his
accusers , I have resolved these conflicts against him.
Therefore, with one exception, the findings of fact about
incidents involving Walker which follow are based on the
testimony of the other party or parties to the conversations,
SOLO CUP COMPANY 979
with one modification. The modification relates to what
Walker said to Lamanske and Robert Tharp on the picket
line on March 27. Because it does not appear in an
affidavit which he gave to a Board investigator on March
28 (Tharp 's affidavit contains no reference to the conversa-
tion at all), I have not credited Lamanske's testimony that
Walker said all the men had been discharged for union
activities but have found that the only specific reference
was to Francis, the discharged electrician , as Tharp
testified. While Lamanske was guilty, in this instance, of
embroidering his testimony to give it greater weight, I have
not discredited him generally.
On Monday, March 5, Walker said to Lamanske,
"Somebody's trying to scare up some trouble by bringing
in a union . Do you know anything about it?"
Lamanske said, "Before you go any further, I'm pro-
union."
Walker said he had belonged to five or six trade unions,
he had made more money outside the union than with it,
the plant would probably close down if a union came in,
and he would quit if a union came in there. I find Walker
coercively interrogated Lamanske about his union activi-
ties and the union activities of other employees in this
conversation and Respondent thereby violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. I also find that, by these words, Walker,
and thus Respondent threatened to close the Urbana plant,
another violation of Section 8(a)(1).
Also on March 5, Walker asked Elkins what he thought
about the company letter Elkins had just received. Elkins
said he really did not give it very much thought. Walker
said that would probably be best. Elkins asked what
Walker meant by that. Walker said it would be best if
Elkins did not give this union thing very much thought, it
was bad for him. Elkins asked why. Walker said the Union
could not sign Elkins' paycheck or give him vacations or
raises, only old man (i.e., L. J.) Hulseman (Respondent's
president) could do that. Elkins asked why, after being a
union man for several years, Walker had suddenly turned
against them. Walker said he went out on a strike for 6
months, lost $6,000, and got a 10-cent raise for his effort. I
find no violation of Section 8(a)(1) in this conversation.
Walker was merely exercising Respondent's 8(c) right of
free speech. There is nothing coercive under the circum-
stances in Walker's asking Elkins what he thought about
Respondent's letter. Neither did Walker make any promis-
es to Elkins or threaten him in any way.
Around March 5 Walker had a conversation with David
Bridwell and James Ruhnow. Walker first asked Bridwell
what he thought about the Union. Bridwell replied, "It
looks like a pretty good deal to me."
Walker said, "Do you know what you are getting into?"
When Bridwell said that he did, Walker went on, "Take it
from me. I been around unions all my life, and I know
what they are."
Walker then put the same question to Ruhnow. Ruhnow
replied, "Anything to better myself, really."
Walker then turned back to Bridwell and said, "Dave,
what about the initiation fee?" When Bridwell said there
was none, Walker went on, "You better get this in writing
because they'll say this but they don't mean it."
As Bridwell and Ruhnow started to walk away, Walker
said , "The old man could always close the plant down."
A couple of days later Walker had another conversation
with Bridwell . Walker asked Bridwell if he thought the
Union was coming into the plant . Bridwell said , "Yes, we
have a strong majority of people who want it."
Walker said, "You have to think about your jobs. And
what are you going to do if they close the plant down?"
Bridwell said , "I'll get another job."
I find no coercive interrogation in either of these
conversations. However, I do find an implied threat by
Walker that Respondent would close its Urbana plant
rather than bargain with the Charging Party, a violation by
Respondent of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act.
Around March 8 Walker had another conversation with
Lamanske . Robert Tharp was also present . Walker said
none of Respondent 's other plants was union and the old
man who owned it had so much money , if they tried to
bring a union into the Urbana plant , he would close the
doors. Lamanske said it was against the law to close a plant
for that reason . He argued that , even if the old man did
close the doors, he could only take a certain percentage of
his loss as a tax credit ; therefore , he could not make a great
amount of money by closing the doors . Once again, I find
in this conversation an implied threat by Respondent to
close its Urbana plant rather than bargain with the
Charging Party.
In mid-March Walker had a conversation with Orville
Williams. Walker said he would like to know what
Williams felt about the Union coming into the plant, he
was not supposed to ask but he would like to know what
Williams felt about it. Williams said , "We all need more
money but, either way, it is all right with me." I find
nothing coercive and, therefore , nothing illegal about this
conversation.
After March 21 the men who had been discharged joined
the Charging Party's picket line . Walker had conversations
with some of them on two occ -isions thereafter as they were
picketing . The conversations were substantially the same.
The first occurred on March 23, when Walker spoke to
Allen. The second occurred on March 27, when Walker
spoke to Lamanske and Tharp . Pleasantries were ex-
changed about how hard Walker had to work now that the
discharged employees were no longer in the plant and how
much the men missed their jobs. In this context, Walker
commented that Francis would probably have been
making $14 ,000 or $ 15,000 a year in a few years if he had
not gotten mixed up with the Union and lost hisjob. This
was a reference to a discussion Francis had had with
Goebel , the plant engineer, in February in which Goebel
had praised Francis' work and suggested Francis might
eventually be promoted to salaried status and given
managerial responsibilities in his field . (Clifford Allen, the
senior electrician who was retained when Francis was
discharged , was seriously ill at the time . He was in the
hospital during the May phase of the hearing in this case.
At that time , Respondent had offered to reemploy Francis
as his replacement . Allen died a few days before the
hearing resumed in June . By that time Francis had
returned to work for Respondent at his old wage rate and
with seniority dating from his original hire .) In the March
980 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
23 conversation with Allen, Walker also said Lamanske
would not have been discharged if he had not engaged in
union activities. I find in each of these conversations an
implied threat that Respondent would discharge employees
for engaging in union activities. Each, therefore, violates
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. The activities of Plant Engineer Goebel and
Personnel Manager McGrath
Eugene Goebel was engineer at the Urbana plant until
his termination in mid-April. John McGrath is the
personnel manager. There are some, although not many,
conflicts between their testimony as to the following events
and the testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses.
Where such conflicts exist, I have not credited Goebel or
McGrath.
On March 13 Tharp, the building maintenance man who
aspired to be an electrician, asked Goebel for a raise.
Goebel said he would set up a meeting to talk about it.
Later, Tharp met with Goebel, McGrath, and Walker, his
immediate supervisor. Tharp said he thought he was being
discriminated against because of his age. Walker said he
should be happy with the $3.10 an hour he was making,
Walker knew union guys who were only making $1.70 an
hour. Walker extolled the benefits granted to employees by
Respondent, citing the case of an employee in one of
Respondent's Chicago plants who had been retired when
he came down with some kind of disease. Goebel said the
old man had so much money, he could just write off the
Urbana plant as a tax loss. Tharp said he had not come to
talk about the Union but about his wages. Goebel said
Tharp should be satisfied with what he was getting. Goebel
said, "We are not getting anywhere, Bob. You'll just have
to wait out your time." Tharp left without getting a raise. I
find in Goebel's statement about writing off the Urbana
plant as a tax loss an implied threat that Respondent
would close the plant rather than bargain with the
Charging Party, a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Around March 16 Goebel had a conversation with
Lamanske. Lamanske went to see Goebel in his office.
Lamanske said he had not come to ask for a raise but,
since he had just finished his first year on the job, he
wanted to review his performance and find out what he
could do to better it. Goebel said Lamanske's work was all
right and suggested that Lamanske, like everyone else in
the plant, might become more safety conscious. Goebel
asked if Lamanske was aware that a union was trying to
come into the plant. Lamanske said he knew. Goebel asked
how Lamanske felt about it. Lamanske said he would go
along with the majority of the hourly people. Goebel said,
since he was a company man, he would have to be against
the Union. He said the old man was rather old and he and
his boys had already made their money. He said the old
man would just flat close the doors of the Urbana plant if a
union came in and he would hate to see this happen
because he was afraid he would have to relocate if it did.
Goebel said he liked the Urbana area, his friends and
family were there and he would like to stay there.
Lamanske said he would go along with the majority,
however the majority of the people felt. Once again, I find
a threat-to-close violation of Section 8(a)(1).
The day after Walker spoke to him about the Union,
Williams, the janitor , had separate conversations with
McGrath and Goebel. Each asked him how he felt about
the Union coming into the plant. He gave each the same
answer he had given Walker, i.e., the employees needed
more money but either way it went was all right with him.
McGrath said, "Orville, you better give it some thought
because it's going to affect all of us." I find nothing illegal
in either of these conversations.
3. The activities of Supervisor Cisna
Carl Cisna is assistant production control manager at
Respondent's Urbana plant. In March he had supervisory
responsibilities in the shipping and receiving area . The only
credibility conflict with respect to the following incidents
relates to whether he told Orville Williams Respondent had
or had not closed its Baltimore plant as a result of union
activities . Since the record indicates that the Baltimore
plant is still in operation and since I have no reason to
think that Cessna would misinform Williams, I have
credited Cisna rather than Williams. This has not caused
me to doubt Williams' testimony generally, however. I
assume that , in the heat of the discussion which was
apparently taking place at the time, Williams simply
misunderstood Cisna.
On the day after both Goebel and McGrath spoke to
Williams, Williams got into a discussion about the Union
with several rank-and-file employees in the plant cafeteria
during breaktime. Cessna, the immediate supervisor of the
other employees, was at the same table. When the question
of whether Respondent could or would close the plant, the
employees turned to Cisna and asked his views. He told
them there had been an attempt to organize the Baltimore
plant which had led to a strike. Respondent, Cisna said,
had continued in operation despite the strike and eventual-
ly the employees had voted the union out and gone back
with the Company. I find nothing illegal in this conversa-
tion.
On March 22 or 23, Cisna talked about the Union to an
employee named Andrew Vaughn who worked under him
in receiving . Cisna and Vaughn discussed the fact that
Lamanske had just had a fight with one of the employees
in the shipping department. Cisna asked Vaughn what he
thought of the Union now, i.e., had Vaughn changed his
previous favorable opinion in light of Lamanske's resort to
violence against an antiunion employee . Cisna said this
incident proved that the Charging Party would do anything
to get into the plant. He said the Union was not really
trying to better the Company, a point Vaughn had tried to
make in the prior discussion, and he really did not feel the
Union should be in . I find nothing illegal in this
conversation.
4. The activities of Foreman Hurst
Herman Hurst is production foreman on the first shift.
In the following incident , I have credited Donna Quinn
over him. Hurst denied that the Union was mentioned.
On April 18 Hurst instructed Miss Quinn, one of the
employees on his shift, to help fix some cartons that the
packing machine was failing to handle properly. Miss
SOLO CUP COMPANY 981
Quinn said she had been packing the cartons in larger
boxes that way all day. They got into a discussion about
the fact that no maintenance mechanic had been available
to fix the machine. Hurst said there was only one man and
he had not been able to get to that machine. Miss Quinn
said the Company should hire somebody if they did not
have enough people. Hurst said it could not find anybody
who wanted the work. Miss Quinn said, "How about those
guys that wanted to work and they fired them?"
Hurst said, "That was their fault."
Miss Quinn said, "How do you figure it was their fault?"
Hurst said, "It was their fault they got fired because they
wanted a union and the company didn't."
Miss Quinn said, "What kind of a reason is that? This is
supposed to be America."
Like Walker's comments to employees on the picket line
about Respondent's motive for discharging Francis and
Lamanske, this conversation contains an implied threat
that Respondent would discharge employees for engaging
in union activities. It, too, constitutes a violation of Section
8(a)(1).
5. The activities of Supervisor Kursella, Foreman
Munoz, Foreman Rewerts, and Supervisor Hollie
The following incidents have in common the fact that
Respondent adduced no evidence to contradict the
testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses. (Sal Munoz
had left Respondent's employ, and his whereabouts were
unknown at the time of the hearing. The others were still
working for Respondent.) My findings of fact are,
therefore, based in each instance on the testimony of the
other participant in the conversation.
Ed Kursella supervises both the machine shop and the
mechanics who maintain production machinery. On March
5 he asked Mike Demlow whether he had ever heard
anything about the Union. Demlow said he had heard
some rumors. Kursella asked what the rumors were.
Demlow, who had signed an authorization card on
February 26, said he had heard there were some guys
trying to get one started but that was about it. Around
March 6 Kursella asked Earl Burton, a maintenance
mechanic, if he had heard anything about a union and if he
had been approached to sign a card. Burton, who had
signed an authorization card on February 27, said he had
heard rumors but had not been approached directly.
Kursella said Respondent had never had a union and he
did not think the people in the Urbana plant would benefit
from one. He then asked Burton if he knew who was in
back of the union activities. Burton said he did not know. I
find in these conversations coercive interrogations about
the union activities of employees. They are, therefore,
violations of Section 8(a)(1).
On March 8 Kursella engaged Demlow in a conversation
about the Union. Among the disadvantages he listed were
the fact that the employees would have to work much
harder if the Union came into the plant and the fact that
Respondent would end its policies of sharing profits with
employees and reimbursing them for school expenses when
their educational efforts related to their work. He also told
Demlow about Respondent's Baltimore experience when a
union had gotten into the plant and the employees
ultimately voted it out. This conversation contains an
obvious threat that Respondent would take away benefits
already enjoyed by employees if the Charging Party got
into the plant. I find it violated Section 8(a)(1).
Sal Munoz was production foreman on the third shift.
Around March 7 he asked Sharon Miller, a third-shift
production employee, if she knew anything about the
Union. Mrs. Miller replied, "Some."
On March 9 he asked her if she knew anything about
unions. Mrs. Miller said she did not know very much
because she had never worked in a union plant. Munoz
said a union was trying to get into the plant but
Respondent was not going to let it come in because
nobody was going to tell Respondent what it was going to
do about employees' wages or anything else. If it came to a
union, Munoz said, the plant could close and Respondent
could move out. Munoz said, "I'm not saying they will
close down, but they could." Munoz also said employees
would lose their jobs. Mrs. Miller said she was not afraid of
losing her job because she was not the sole support of her
family. Munoz said, "Some people here are."
Later that night Munoz asked Mrs. Miller if she had
heard there was going to be a union meeting the next day.
She said she had. Munoz asked if she was going. Mrs.
Miller said she did not know because she did not know
whether she would have the family car. Still later, Munoz
asked if she would go to the meeting if she had a ride. Mrs.
Miller said she did not know. He told her to call him next
day if she wanted to go to the meeting and needed a ride.
He gave her a slip of paper with Respondent's telephone
number on it and told her that was where he could be
reached.
Mrs. Miller did not go to the March 10 meeting.
However, when Munoz asked her on March 12 whether
she had, she replied yes. He asked her what went on. She
told him nothing much. He asked if there was anyone there
she knew. She said there could have been. He asked if there
was anyone there from the third shift. She said no. He
asked if Phyllis Stucker was there. She said she was not
sure. He said she knew what Phyllis Stucker looked like.
Mrs. Miller said, "Yes, I do, but I'm not saying she was at
the meeting."
I find the following 8(a)(I) violations in Munoz's
conversations with Mrs. Miller: interrogation, threat to
close, and attempted surveillance of the union activities of
employees.
On March 7 Munoz initiated a conversation with Dennis
Williamson, another third-shift production employee. He
said, "As you probably know, there are some people in this
plant trying to get a union into it. There are a lot of things
the Union won't tell you. They won't tell you about the
dues or they won't tell you about the fees or they won't tell
you about the penalties. When you came to Solo Cup, you
came to us and we hired you. You didn't go to no union.
And we don't think you need a union to represent you. If
there is a union and they should go out on strike and the
plant is shut down, there is a very good possibility that the
plant will stay closed and you'll all be out of a job. What
do you think about the Union, Dennis?" Dennis' reply was
to hand Munoz a piece of union literature he had received
982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the March 6 meeting. I find nothing illegal in this
conversation.
Gerald Rewerts is production foreman on the second
shift. Around March 8 he had a conversation with Jackie
Sawyer, a second-shift production employee. Miss Sawyer
asked Rewerts about a promotion which was due her.
Rewerts replied he could not tell her anything because
there were going to be no promotions and no overtime due
to union activities. Once again, I find a threat-to-withhold-
benefits violation of Section 8(a)(1).
On March 12 Rewerts and Donna Quinn got into an
argument over whether Rewerts was a Teamster. Finally,
Rewerts said all he had to do was pay up his back dues and
he would be a Teamster. Miss Quinn said no, he would not.
He said, if the employees wanted a union, they should get a
union like the Machinists that was better suited for a plant
such as theirs. She said she had already had that shoe on
and did not like it, she wanted to try a new one. He said the
employees must have had a hot meeting on the previous
Saturday. She said she had talked the same way before the
Union ever came up. He said he could bring in six other
Teamsters who were truckdnvers and they would tell her
the same thing . She said she did not care, she was not a
truckdriver. Rewerts said, "There's two ways. You can
either work without a union or not work with one." I find,
in the last remark, another violative implied threat to close
the plant if the Union came in.
The record is unclear as to Jessie Hollie's exact role in
the Urbana plant. She apparently trains and supervises the
women who pack cups . In any event , in her case as well as
the cases of all other persons for whose activities the
General Counsel claims Respondent must bear the
responsibility, Respondent had admitted that she is a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act for purposes of
this case. The only allegation of the complaint in which she
is involved alleges that she "threatened unspecified
reprisals against employees if they voted in a Union." It is
based on a conversation she had with Miss Quinn around
March 11 . Miss Hollie said she had heard something about
the employees trying to get a union in. Miss Quinn said the
employees had gotten two letters from the Company about
it. Miss Hollie said they would probably get more. When
Miss Quinn did not respond, Miss Hollie said, "If the
employees of Solo Cup vote to get a union in here, they're
the ones that are going to suffer, they're the ones that will
be sorry." I find nothing illegal in this ambiguous remark.
C. Section 8(a)(3)
1. Facts
The facts which follow are, in my opinion, dispositive of
the central issue in this case; i.e., Respondent's motive for
discharging 13 Dept. 817 employees on March 21. They are
based on the credited testimony of Leo Carter, Respon-
dent's director of industrial relations, and Hans Schult,
manager of the Urbana plant. The General Counsel would
have me discredit Carter and Schult on the ground that
their story is inherently incredible. However, the General
Counsel has offered no evidence to controvert them. There
is nothing internally inconsistent in their story. Their
demeanor on the witness stand impressed me as that of
truthful men. Company records relating to high indirect
labor costs at the Urbana plant corroborate them. The
unsworn statement of Richard Pincus, Respondent's
attorney , about his role in connection with the R case and
the advice he gave when picketing began also corroborates
them . And, finally, I see nothing inherently incredible in a
plant dictatorially run by an absent owner who substitutes
taped for written reports and eschews written memoranda
of what he is doing and .why. Therefore , I find:
L. J. Hulseman , Respondent 's founder , sole owner, and
president , runs all of Solo Cup Company's seven plants
with an iron hand from his home in Los Angeles. His son,
John Hulseman , is Respondent 's vice president-manufac-
turing and makes his headquarters at Solo Cup Company's
plant in Baltimore . He has immediate high-level supervi-
sion over the Urbana plant.
As the major projects required to convert the Urbana
building from Magnavox 's production needs to Respon-
dent's began to be completed in the fall of 1972, L. J.
Hulseman began to question the large expenses for
employees classified as building maintenance . He raised
these concerns with Schult as early as November 1972 and
with Carter as early as December . Both Schult and Carter
also discussed the problem with John Hulseman during
this period . Schult managed to win more time by arguing
that there were sufficient odds and ends still to be cleaned
up to justify the large staff . At the same time , he tried, with
John Hulseman 's approval , to hurry up the process of
attrition among the ranks of building maintenance employ-
ees by posting available production jobs in the plant.
However , since , admittedly , Schult did not tell anyone,
even McGrath , the plant personnel director , or Goebel, the
plant engineer, that a mass reduction of the building
maintenance ranks might be in the offing, no building
maintenance employees asked for transfers to production
jobs because such transfers would have involved a cut in
pay. (Similarly, Schult, admittedly, made no announce-
ment to the employees when the plan to transfer the
corporate machine shop from Chicago to Urbana was
abandoned in the late summer or early fall of 1972.) In the
first half of February, L. J. Hulseman told Schult that the
high overhead for building maintenance could not go on.
John Hulseman visited Urbana on February 14 and 15 and
told him the same thing.
The matter finally came to a head when, on February 16,
January figures on the Urbana plant became available in
Chicago. They showed an operating loss of $57,276 for the
month and a "controllable variance" of $17,703 attributa-
ble to Dept . 817; i.e ., Dept . 817 had cost Respondent
$17,703 more in indirect labor costs in January than it
should have . This report was forwarded to L. J . Hulseman
in Los Angeles in the ordinary course of business.
Carter received a telephone call from L . J. Hulseman on
Friday, February 23. Hulseman ordered Carter to get
together with John Hulseman and do something about
Urbana. Carter called John on Monday, February 26, and
discussed the situation. John said he would go to Urbana
and deal with the problem . Schult also heard again from L.
J. Hulseman early that week about John 's impending visit
and the reason for it.
John Hulseman was in Urbana on February 28 and
SOLO CUP COMPANY 983
March 1. On the first day, John told Schutt that he had to
reduce Dept. 817 by a mass discharge . Schutt asked for a
chance to sleep on it . The next day he agreed. John decided
that he could retain four building maintenance employees
and one machinist . The discharges were to be carried out
at the end of the workweek the following afternoon,. March
2. John returned to Baltimore on March 1.
On the morning of March 2, Schutt received the
Charging Party's demand letter, as already found in section
A above. This was the first moment; also as already found,
that Respondent became aware of any union activities in
the Urbana plant . Schult telephoned Carter in Chicago. He
told Carter about the letter and the decision to discharge
13 employees that afternoon. Carter countermanded. the
order to discharge the employees . He immediately tele-
phoned Respondent's attorneys in Chicago and told them
what had happened. The attorneys advised him not to
discharge any employees in light of the receipt of the
demand letter . The attorneys gave Carter the wording of a
reply to the Charging Party's demand. Carter telephoned
John Hulseman in Baltimore and explained what had
happened. John concurred in the decision not to discharge
anyonethat day.
Carter went to Urbana on Saturday, March 3, as already
found in section A above. The reply to the Charging Party
dictated by Respondent 's attorneys was typed and mailed
and the supervisors ' meeting was held . The thrust of the
meeting was , first, to ask if any of the lower level
supervisors knew anything about the Union 's campaign
(all denied knowledge) and, second , to prepare them for
the pre-Board election campaign Respondent anticipated.
As expected, a copy of the Charging Party's petition in
Case 38-RC-1329 arrived at the Urbana plant from the
Board's Peoria office on Monday morning, March 5.
On March 5, Carter conferred again with Respondent's
attorneys and with John Hulseman. It was agreed to hold
the discharges in abeyance pending the outcome of the R
case. On March 6 , Carter conferred with Richard Pincus,
the member of the law firm who handled the matter for
Respondent from that point forward. In view of the fact
that only 9 of an anticipated 100 cup machines were in
operation in the Urbana plant , Pincus suggested a strategy
of seeking a quick administrative dismissal from the Board
on the ground of expanding unit . It was decided to follow
this course of action . Carter informed L. J. Hulseman of
the decisions reached. Hulseman reluctantly agreed to hold
the discharges in abeyance.
John Hulseman and Carter were in Urbana on Wednes-
day and Thursday, March 14 and 15. They and Schutt
discussed the entire situation , including the decision
reached on March 1 to discharge, 13 Dept. 817 employees.
They decided to offer production jobs to the men they
discharged in order of seniority as long as any production
jobs were available. They decided to further reduce
indirect labor costs by terminating the draftsman and
Goebel. They also decided that the janitorial work would
be contracted out. Pincus arrived in Urbana late on March
15. He worked with Schutt in preparing an affidavit to
support , a motion to dismiss the petition in Case
38-RC-1329. He handcarried motion and affidavit to
Peoria on the afternoon of Friday, March 16, and delivered
them to the Subregional Officer-in-Charge. The Subregion-
al Officer-in-Charge indicated; there was little likelihood of
the motion being granted . Pincus returned to Chicago and
telephoned Carter from his home in the late evening of
March 16. He told Carter of - his visit to the Peoria
Subregional ;Office and the dim prospect for a speedy
resolution of the R case.
Carter reported to John Hulseman on Monday, March
19, and to L. J. Hulseman on Tuesday, March 20, what he
had learned from Pincus on March 16. L. J. Hulseman
ordered him to carry out the decision to cut down indirect
labor costs by discharging Dept. 817 employees without
further delay. Carter telephoned Schutt on March 20 and
told Schutt he was ,coming to Urbana the next morning to
carry out L. J. Hulseman's orders.
Carter went to Urbana on the morning of Wednesday,
March 21, as arranged. When he arrived at the plant he
discovered the pickets who had appeared that morning for
the first time . He talked to Schutt about the' situation. He
called Respondent's attorneys in Chicago and John
Hulsernan in Baltimore to report what ' had happened.
(Later that morning Pincus advised Carter that, in view of
the fact a petition for an election had been filed , there was
little prospect of resolving Respondent 's problems speedily
by resorting to the provisions of Section 8(b)(7) of the Act.)
Finally,' he talked to L. J. Hulseman around 9 : 30 a.m. He
asked Hulseman to rescind his discharge ,:order and give
him more time to resolve the R case situation without
generating unfair labor practice charges . Hulseman flatly
refused. He ordered Carter to carry out the discharges
immediately.
Carter relayed L. J. Hulseman 's order to Schutt. Schutt
obtained a list of Dept. 817 employees. Following seniority
and John Hulseman's March 1 decision that four building
maintenance employees and one machinist would be
retained, he and Carter selected the 13" discriminatees
named in the complaint in -this case for discharge. They
decided to let them go near the end of their shift that
afternoon. They decided to reverse John Hulseman's and
Schutt's March 15 decision to offer available production
jobs to them in order of seniority because they were afraid
that the Charging Party's picketing might close or cripple
the plant. That afternoon, the 13 men were discharged in
the manner set forth in section A above.
2. Analysis and conclusions
The General Counsel's theory is that Respondent
discharged 13 employees on March 21 to counter 'the
Charging Party's organizing campaign. He explains the
singling out of Dept. 817 by the fact that the organizing
campaign started and had its greatest - support among the
building maintenance men. He explains the persons
selected and the fact that the selections were in order of
seniority on the theory that all persons junior to Patrick
Lamanske were ,terminated in order to reach Lamanske,
the leader of the campaign. He counters Respondent's
economic arguments with the fact that the discharges were
precipitate and in the middle of the workweek at a time
when much of the same type of .work the discharged
employees had been doing since they were hired remained
to be done. He finds the immediate explanation for the fact
984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the discharges occurred on March 21 in the fact that
picketing began that morning.
There is considerable support in the record for such a
theory. The campaign did start and have its greatest
support among the building maintenance men. Lamanske
was the leader . The' fact that no one in the plant below the
level of Hans Schult, the plant manager, knew anything
about the discharges until a few hours before they took
place-in the middle of a workweek is highly suspicious and,
when coupled with the fact that picketing began that day, a
strong indicium of discriminatory motivation. There was,
in fact, still work to be done . To take the most glaring
example out of the numerous items the parties haggled
over, a large part of the floor still needed to be refinished.
This was one project which the building maintenance men
had handled in .its entirety from, the beginning . When the
vinyl tiles which Magnavox had on the floor were removed,
a black mastic remained. This had to be removed with a
strong solvent and the floor resealed. The work was done a
section of the plant at ' a time in preparation for machinery
as it arrived. Since only a small percentage of the
machinery had arrived at the plant by March 21, the
building maintenance men had not yet gotten around to
refinishing large, areas which were still unoccupied. Other
renovation projects on' which the building maintenance
men had ' been working, while apparently less extensive
than this one, did still have varying amounts of work left to
be done. (Still others had been completed.) And, of course,
the routine repetitive chores which building maintenance
men normally do such as changing burned out light bulbs
and servicing such, equipment as the air-conditioning
system continued from day to day. (As to routine
maintenance, it seems to me, the General Counsel's
argument that the amount of this work would, but for rrthe
discriminatory motive, have caused Respondent to keep a
large staff of building maintenance men is self-defeating.
There is no evidence that such routine work has not been
done satisfactorily since March 21 by the men retained.
Although the point is somewhat unclear in the record,
apparently staffs comparable in size to the one retained at
the Urbana plant suffice for routine maintenance work at
Respondent's other, fully operative plants.)
There are other indicia of discriminatory motive. The
transfer of Samuel Francis to a job where he would have
little contact with other employees and the transfer of
Robert Tharp back to the first shift where he could not
solicit third-shift employees to support the Union shortly
after union activity began fall into this category. (Another
such item , relied on by .,the _ General Counsel does not.
Respondent does-not dispute that supervisors began taking
their coffeebreaks in the cafeteria rather than in the plant
office . around the time union activities began . However,
there is no evidence of any attempt to spy'on breaktime
union activities . And there is no evidence to counter
Respondent's explanation that it removed . the coffeepot
from the 'plant office at this time because of employee
complaints they were being discriminated against in that
they had to go all, the way to the mezzanine-level cafeteria
for coffee on their breaks while supervisors did not.) So do
the incidents as to which I have already found violations of
Section 8(axl) of the Act in which Foremen Walker and
Hurst told employees that the discharges were for union
activities. So does the fact. hat none of the men discharged
was told he was being hired for a temporary job. So does
the fact no production jobs were offered to them at the
time of their discharges even though the production part of
the unit was in an. =expanding phase . On the basis of ' all
these factors I would have . no hesitation in finding a
violation of Section 8(a)(3) if it were not for the testimony
of Carter and Schult as to the evolution and, especially, the
timing of the decision to discharge.
The point on which this case turns is the time at which
Respondent learned that union activities had begun in the
plant . Knowledge on the part of even the lowest level
supervisor would be sufficient to impute knowledge to
Respondent . However, there is absolutely no evidence in
the record , for example, testimony from an employee that
he was observed by a supervisor while signing up another
employee or even overheard by a supervisor while talking
about the Union, in the period from February 23, when
union activities began , to March 2, when, Respondent
received the Charging Party's demand letter. Therefore,
there is no finding possible but that Respondent, as it
claimed, had no knowledge of union activities prior to
March 2. Since, on the credited testimony of Carter and
Schult I have found final decisions with respect to. the
discharges, including the number and job classifications of
employees to be discharged, were made on March 1, it
follows that Respondent could not have been influenced in
any degree by, the : union activities of its employees in
reaching the decision to discharge. Since I have also
credited Carter and Schulz, as corroborated by company
records, as to why Respondent did decide on March 1 to
reduce Dept. 817 ' so drastically, it follows that the
discharges were for economic reasons and not for reasons
discriminatory within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
When the credited testimony of Carter and Schult is
thrown into the scales, the evidence which the General
Counsel relies on has little weight . As to the renovation
work still to be done, Respondent's explanation that it
decided to reduce indirect labor costs by discharging Dept.
817 employees reasonably explains why work was left
undone. As to the precipitate nature , of the discharges,
Carter's and Schult's explanation of how they deferred the
discharges from March 2 until March 21 in an effort to
avoid trouble only to be preemptorily overruled in the end
by L. J. Hulseman reasonably explains the course of
events. The nature of Hulseman's control of Respondent
reasonably explains the fact that the discharges came as a
surprise on March 21 even to persons in the -plant as high
as the - personnel director. By the same " token, the
statements of Walker and Hurst that the discharged men
would still be working if they had not engaged in union
activities have no significance . Both were at the lowest
supervisory level in the plant . Neither was privy to the
decision to discharge.; Respondent's explanation that it
changed its mind about offering production jobs to some
of the men because . it feared the effect of the Charging
Party's picketing is reasonable. I credit its explanation that
it took Francis off troubleshooting work and turned it over
to Clifford Allen because it wanted to be sure Allen, who
SOLO CUP COMPANY 985
had recently returned from sick leave and was under a
doctor's restrictions , could do the work satisfactorily and
because it wanted to use Francis' admittedly great skills as
an electrician on the difficult job of eiring the padlocker.
(I find especially significant in Respondent's favor the fact
that it followed seniority in selecting employees for
discharge even to the point of retaining Clifford Allen and
letting Francis go although Allen was, at the time,
terminally ill.) I credit Respondent's explanation that
Tharp was transferred back to the first shift because he was
not performing satisfactorily as an electrician on the third.
Finally, as to what was told the men when they were hired,
they were treated like persons being hired for permanent
jobs at that time because they were, in• fact, being hired.for
permanent jobs . Being hired for a permanent job, however,
does not carry with it a guarantee of lifetime employment
no matter how much ; the situation changes. Therefore, I
find the General Counsel has failed to sustain the burden
of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that
Respondent was motivated by the union activities of its
efployees when , on March 21, 1973, it discharged Arnold
Allen , David Bridwell , Mike Demlow , Dennis Elkins,
Everett Fagner, Samuel Francis , Ronald Frields, Patrick
Lamanske, James •Rlihnow, Richard Stahl , Robert Tharp,
Orville Williams, and Arthur White . Since Respondent was
economically and not discriminatorily motivated, it did not
violate Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Solo Cup Company is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America , Local No. 26, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By interrogating employees about their union activi-
ties, by threatening to close its plant, to discharge
employees, and to end their benefits if employees organize
for purposes of collective bargaining, and by attempting to
surveil employees engaged in union activities, Respondent
has violated Section 8(axl) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair' labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The allegations of the complaint that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act on March 21,
2 In the event no exceptions are filed, as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as :provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
iti findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
1973, by discharging Arnold Allen , David Bridwell, Mike
Demlow, Dennis Elkins , Everett Fagner, Samuel Francis,
Ronald Friolds , Patrick Lamanske, James Ruhnow, Rich-
ard Stahl, Robert Tharp , Orville.. Williams, and Arthur
White have not been sustained
'Upon the basis . of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record in thisproceed-
ing, and puisuant 'to` ection 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue
the following recommended:
ORDER2
Solo Cup Company, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees about their union activities.
(b) Threatening to close its plant, to discharge employ-
ees, and to end their benefits if employees organize for
purposes of collective bargaining,
(c) Attempting to surveil employees engaged in union
activities.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant in Urbana, Illinois, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." s Copies of said
notice, on forms ,provided by the Officer- in-Charge of
Subregion 38, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediate-
ly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places , includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(b) Notify the Officer-in-Charge of Subregion 38, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges Respondent violated Section 8(aX3)
and (1 ) of Act on March 21, 1973, by discharging Arnold
Allen, David Bridwell, Mike Demlow, Dennis Elkins,
Everett Fagner, Samuel Francis, Ronald Frields , Patrick
Lamanske, James Ruhnow, Richard Stahl, Robert Tharp,
Orville Williams, and Arthur White and insofar as it
alleges independent violations of Section 8(axl) of the Act
not specifically found herein.
3 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."