Ecusta Paper Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 1204 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of ECUSTA PAPER CORPORATION, CHAMPAGNE PAPER
CORPORATION, ENDLESS BELT CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD Or PAPER MAKERS, A. F. or L.
Case No. 5-C-1812. -Decided dlareh, 27, 1946
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On June 12, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondents
had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondents and counsel for
the Board filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and counsel
for the Board filed a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case.
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner with the additions and modifications set forth
below.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that, by the conduct of their
officials and supervisory employees, the respondents have jointly and
severally interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
As described in the Intermediate Report, by their manner and
methods of warning and reprimanding employees for Union solicita-
tion on company time, the supervisory employees went beyond the
purely administrative functions of management and evidenced their
hostility towards the Union and the employees' organizational activi-
ties. We are satisfied and find that the supervisors, in thus warning
and reprimanding the employees concerning solicitation on company
time, were not truly concerned with maintaining plant discipline or
production, but under the guise of instructions from the respondents
sought to and did interfere with the employees in the exercise of their
66 N. L . R. B., No. 147.
1204
ECTJSTA PAPER CORPOR ATION 1205
statutory rights.' Moreover, the extension of the warnings against
solicitation to non-working time, in the absence of any evidence that
this was necessary to safeguard discipline or production, constituted
an unreasonable impediment to self-organization and thus a violation
of the Act.2 Further, on several occasions supervisory employees
interrogated employees as to whether they had joined the Union,
how many employees had joined the Union, what they were doing at
union meetings, or what they expected to gain by membership in the
Union.3 And, we find, in several instances supervisory employees
made statements indicating that the plant could or might be shut
down if the Union were to succeed in its organizational effort.
2. The Trial Examiner found that the record contains no substan-
tial evidence of espionage or surveillance by the respondents of union
meetings or activities and recommended that the complaint be dis-
missed in this respect. We disagree.
In concluding that the activities of the respondents' supervisors
and guards were not "out of their ordinary course of conduct," the
Trial Examiner relied on the following, among others, findings : That
the union hall is located near the main street corner in Brevard,
which is the general meeting place in the town; that Brevard, which
is the only town near the respondents' mills, is the center for shopping
and is regularly visited by the respondents' employees ; and that, being
a very small town, strangers in Brevard "are looked over and com-
mented on." Although these findings have support in the record, we
are of the opinion that they do not justify the Trial Examiner's con-
clusion, because other credible and more specific evidence clearly
establishes that the respondents' supervisory employees and guards
did, in fact, engage in surveillance of union meetings and activities.
Thus, Union Organizer Williams testified that on September 21, 1944,
the clay when he was assaulted in Brevard, lie was "trailed all after-
noon" by the respondents' policemen and employees, two of whom
were later identified as policeman Bryson and employee Ash. We
credit Williams' testimony, which was not contradicted 4 A day or
two after the assault on Williams, policeman Paxton, according to the
See Matter of Carl L Norden, Inc, 62 N L. R B 828, and cases there cited As
the Trial Examiner points out, the employees «eie not informed at any time that the
respondents maintained an attitude of neutrality respecting the employees' organizational
efforts or that any expressions by supervisors to the contrary were unauthorized.
2 See Matter of North American Ariat,on, Luc, 56 N L R B 959; Matter of Peyton
Packing Company, Inc, 49 N L R B 828, enf'd as mod 142 F (2d) 1009 (C. C. A. 5),
cert. den 323 IT. S 730; Matter of Republic Aviation Corporation, 51 N. L. R B. 1186,
enl'd 142 F (2d) 193 (C C. A 2), aff'd 324 U S 793, Matter of Le Tou,neau CompanI,
of Geofgie, 54 N L R B 1253, set aside 143 F (2(l) 67 (C C. A 5), rev'd 324 U S 79.;
8We have frequently held that interiogation of employees concerning their union nmenr
bership or activities contravenes the Act See, e g , 'tatter of Libhey-Owens-Ford Gla,
Company, 63 N L. R B 1, and cases therein cited
Neither Bryson nor Ash was called to testify
1206 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
undenied and credible testimony of employee Leroy Waldrop,5
pointed out the union organizers standing near the union hall, and
suggested that he and Waldrop get out of the automobile in which
they were sitting and "beat the hell out of them." When Waldrop
refused, Paxton added "I will see the law don't bother you." On
November 17, on three consecutive meeting nights thereafter, and on
practically every other meeting night, the respondents' policemen
Bryson and Paxton were observed sitting in an automobile parked
either in front of the entrance to the union hall or nearby, apparently
observing those entering or leaving the meeting hall.6 Similarly,
Chief of the respondents' policemen, McCall, was seen on the night
of November 17 and other meeting nights sitting in an automobile
parked near the entrance of the union hall. McCall admitted that lie
had parked in front of the union hall a number of times; he denied,
however, that he had been in town for the purpose of surveillance.
McCall explained that for the past 9 years "[he had] come to Brevard
probably 2 or 3 nights a week" and on those occasions sat and talked
with the sheriff or chief of the county police, or other law officers,
and that it was not unusual for them to sit in their cars at various
places. We are of the opinion that this fails adequately to explain
McCall's conduct; we are convinced that his frequent presence on
meeting nights near the entrance of the meeting hall, when considered
in the light of the other statements and activities of McCall and his
subordinates set forth herein, was for the purpose of observing those
who attended the meetings of the Union.
During an evening in August, Chief of Police McCall was seen on
three occasions driving by the home of employee Freck, at which a
union meeting was held. With respect to the incident, the Trial Exam-
iner had found that "there is nothing to indicate that ... [McCall]
was standing watch over the meeting." The record establishes, how-
ever, that on the next day, McCall told employee Jess McCall that
he knew that the latter was at the union meeting in the Frecks' house
the night before.7 We find that McCall drove by the Frecks' home
in order to observe those who attended the meeting. That the respond-
ents kept under observation the union activities and affiliation of their
employees appears also from the following testimony, which we
credit : In November, Chief of Police McCall told employee Comp-
We find , as did the Trial Examiner, that Leroy Waldrop was a credible witness.
Paxton did not testify.
"This finding is based upon the uncontradicted testimony of Union Organizer Williams,
which is corroborated by that of employee Brown.
4 McCall denied that he had the meeting under surveillance . He testified that he did
not recall driving by the Frecks' house in the middle of August, but that if he did so,
he was on that road in order to bring employee Ballard to the mill to repair the scale.
This does not explain why McCall drpve by the Frecks' home on three occasions that
evening. Upon the entire record, we do not accept McCall's denial that he engaged in
surveillance of this meeting.
ECUSTA PAPER- CORPORATION 1207
ton that "[we) keep a check on everybody who joins [the Union], and
we know"; and employee Charles Michael, whose testimony the Trial
Examiner credited in other respects as against that of Superintendent
Jordan, testified that on the morning after he was reinstated as a
member of the Union, Jordan asked him "what [he] was doing up
with that bunch last night."
In view of the specific and definite nature of the foregoing evidence;
the respondents' failurt to refute much of such evidence or to explain
such failure; the respondents' hostility toward the Union, evidenced
by their other unfair labor practices; and upon the entire record, we
find that the respondents engaged in surveillance of union meetings
and activities in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondents, Ecusta Paper Corporation,
Champagne Paper Corporation, Endless Belt Corporation, Pisgah
Forest, North Carolina, and each of them, and their officers, agents,
successors , and assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their membership or other
activities in or on behalf of International Brotherhood of Paper
Makers, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization ;
(b) Engaging in surveillance of the meetings or meeting places of
the above-named or any other labor organization, or of the activities
of their employees in or on behalf of the above-named or any other
labor organization;
(c) Restraining employees from engaging in solicitation of union
membership or other union or concerted activities during the employ-
ees' non-working time;
(d) Threatening employees with economic reprisal because of their
membership in or activities on behalf of the above-named or any other
labor organization ;
(e) In any other manner interfering with their employees in the
exercise of the right to self-organization, and to join or assist the
above-named or any other labor organization.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at their plants in Pisgah Forest, North Carolina, copies
of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region.
shall, after being duly signed by the representative of the respondents,
1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be posted by the respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and
maintained by them for sixty (60) consecutive days, in conspicuous
places in their respective plants at Pisgah Forest, North Carolina,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondents and each of them
to insure that such notices were not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this order, what steps the re-
spondents and each of them have taken to comply therewith.
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges, (1) that the respondents, or any of them,
discharged and refused to reinstate William D. Brevard because said
employee joined or assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activi-
ties with other employees of the respondents for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or that in any other
respect, the respondents, with reference to William D. Brevard, en-
gaged in any act which was an unfair labor practice within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (3) of the Act; and (2) that the respondents caused,
joined, supported, notified, and approved an anti-union newspaper
campaign by the Transylvania Citizens' Committee; and (3) that the
respondents threatened agents and representatives of the Union with
physical violence, and physically assaulted and beat union agents and
representatives in order to prevent organization of the respondents'
employees.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER
of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the
policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our
employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their
membership or other activities in or on behalf of International
Brotherhood of Paper Makers, A. F. of L., or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of the meetings or meet-
ing places of the above-named or any other labor organization, or
of the activities of our employees in or on behalf of the above-
named or any other organization.
WE WILL NOT restrain our employees from engaging in solici-
tation of union memberships or other union or concerted activities
during the employees' non-working time.
ECUSTA PAPER CORPORATION 1209
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with economic reprisal
because of their membership in or activities on behalf of the
above-named or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with our employ-
ees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, or to join or assist the above-named or any other
labor organization.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, A. F. of L., or any other
labor organization.
ECUS'r A PAPER CORPORATION,
CHAMPAGNE PAPER CORPORATION,
ENDLESS BELT CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated ................ By....................................
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof.
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
George L. Weasler, Esq., and Sidney A. Barban, Esq., of Baltimore, Md, for
the Board.
Kester Walton, Esq., of Asheville, N. C, Ralph H Ramsey, Esq., of Brevard,
N C, and Mr. Austin M. Fisher, 250 Park Ave., New York City, for the
respondents.
J. Griffin McKiernan, Esq., 30 Sheridan Ave, Albany, N. Y., and R. L. G aslb,
Esq., of Brevard, N. C., for the Union
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a second amended charge tiled on February 9, 1945, by International
Brotherhood of Paper Makers, A. F. of L., herein called the Union, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for
the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland), issued its complaint dated February
9, 1945, against Ecusta Paper Corporation, Champagne Paper Corporation, and
Endless Belt Corporation, and each of them, with plants located at Pisgah
Forest, North Carolina, herein called Respondents, alleging that Respondents,
and each of them, had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) and (3) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. Copies of the complaint accompanied by copies of the second amended
charge and a notice of hearing were duly served upon each of the Respondents
and upon the Union.
Concerning unfair labor practices , the complaint alleges, in substance, that
Respondents jointly and severally , by their of eers and agents, discharged
Lambert W . Baker on November 13, 1944 , and William D. Brevard on January
1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
9, 1945, and since those dates have refused or failed to reinstate said employees
to their former or substantially equivalent positions because said employees,
and each of them, joined or assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activi-
ties with other employees of the Respondents for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection ; and that Respondents , jointly
and severally, by their officers and agents, have, since January 1942 , down to
and including the date of the issuance of the complaint, interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, by, (a) urging, persuading, and warning their em-
ployees to refrain from becoming or remaining members of any labor organiza-
tion, especially the Union; (b) questioning their employees concerning their
membership in and activities on behalf of the Union; ( c) threatening their
employees with discharge or other reprisals if they joined, assisted, or remained
members of the Union; (d) making disparaging and derogatory remarks to
their employees about the Union, its members and representatives ; (e) keeping
under surveillance the activities of their employees and the meetings and meet-
ing places of said employees for the purposes of ascertaining the activities of
their employees in and on behalf of the Union; (f) threatening to cease their
operations if the Union succeeded in organizing their employees ; ( g) threathen-
ing agents and representatives of the Union with physical violence in order to
prevent organization of the Respondents' employees by the Union; (h) physi-
cally assaulting and beating union agents and representatives in order to pre-
vent organization of the Respondents' employees; (1) offering their employees
sums of money and other inducements to resign from the Union ; and (j)
causing, joining, supporting, ratifying, and approving an anti-union newspaper
campaign by the Transylvania Citizens' Committee aimed at causing their
employees to repudiate the Union and to induce public action against the
Union ; and that by the actions aforesaid Respondents and each of them, jointly
and severally have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act.
In their answer duly filed as a joint answer, the Respondents admit the
allegations of the complaint pertaining to the corporate structure, and the
character and extent of the business done by each of them, with minor excep-
tions, but deny all the other allegations of the complaint except as to William
D. Brevard, who, Respondents admit, was discharged on January 9, 1945, but
which discharge, they allege, was for good cause.
On March 13 to 20, 1945, pursuant to notice of hearing theretofore served
upon the parties and notices of postponement of such hearing likewise duly
served, a hearing was held at Brevard, North Carolina, before the undersigned,
R. N. Denham, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Exam-
iner. All parties were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing
where full opportunity was afforded them to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
At the commencement of the hearing, Respondents moved that the complaint
be severed as to each of the Respondents, and the issues tried separately with
respect to each of them, on the ground that they are independent and separate
corporations carrying on separate and independent businesses . The motion was
taken under advisement until sufficient testimony could be heard to develop
the facts with reference to the relations of the Respondents each to the other,
After hearing the testimony of Thomas N. Word, secretary- treasurer of each
of the Respondents, concerning the relations of the Respondents one to another,
the motion was denied.
At the close of the Board's case in chief, counsel for the Board moved that
ECUSTA PAPER CORPORATION 1211
the complaint be dismissed as to all matters pertaining to the alleged dis-
criminatory discharge of Lambert W. Baker . The motion was granted . There-
after, the following motions were made by counsel for Respondents ; that the
complaint be dismissed as to subparagraph (j) of Section 10 wherein it is
alleged that Respondents caused, joined, supported, ratified, and approved
an anti-union newspaper campaign by the Transylvania Citizens' Committee,
for failure of any proof or evidence in support of such allegation. The motion
was granted. Counsel for Respondents further moved to dismiss the complaint
as to Champagne Paper Corporation and Endless Belt Corporation on the
ground that no evidence had been adduced of any action on the part of either
of these corporations which was of the nature of an unfair labor practice.
The motion was denied. Counsel for the Respondents moved to dismiss sub-
paragraphs (g) and (h) of Section 10, wherein it is alleged that Respondents
threatened agents and representatives of the Union with physical violence,
and physically assaulted and beat union agents and representatives in order
to prevent organization of Respondents' employees, for the reason that there
is no substantial evidence that such assaults , if committed , were committed by
agents, officers, or representatives of Respondents or with Respondents' ap-
proval in any event, and that there is no evidence of any character of threats
of physical violence by any of the agents or representatives of Respondents.
The motion was granted. The motion of counsel for the Respondents to dismiss
the allegations of the complaint pertaining to the alleged discriminatory dis-
charge of William D. Brevard and the remaining subsections of paragraph 10
containing the allegations of other unfair labor practices was denied.'
At the conclusion of the taking of all testimony, counsel for the Board moved
to conform the complaint to the proof with respect to the correction of dates,
spelling of names , and other minor matters not going to the general and sub-
stantial issues. The motion was granted without objection and made applicable
to all pleadings . Counsel for Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint as
to the allegation concerning the discharge of William D. Brevard. The motion
was taken under advisement and is disposed of herein.
At the close of the hearing, oral argument to the Trial Examiner was waived.
Briefs have been received from counsel for the Board and for Respondents.
On the basis of the foregoing and on the entire record, after having heard
and observed the witnesses, and considered all the evidence offered and re-
ceived, the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS AND INTERRELATIONS OF RESPONDENTS
Ecusta Paper Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal office
and place of business in North Carolina, located at Pisgah Forest, North Caro-
lina, where it is engaged in the manufacture of cigarette paper, and other types
of paper. For the 6 months ending June 30, 1944, this company purchased raw
material valued at approximately $1,600,000, of which approximately 95 per-
cent was purchased and shipped from points outside the State of North Caro-
lina. During the same period , finished products were valued at $6,200,000, of
which approximately 50 percent was sold and shipped to points outside the
State of North Carolina . Ecusta Paper Corporation concedes that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
' The circumstances giving rise to the allegations of the complaint concerning which
motions to dismiss were granted, will be discussed in a sgbs quent part of this Report.
1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Champagne Paper Corporation is a North Carolina corporation with its prin-
cipal office and place of business located at Pisgah Forest, North Carolina,
where it is engaged in the processing of cigarette paper from paper and mate-
rials purchased mainly from Ecusta Paper Corporation. During the 6-month
period ending June 30, 1944, this company purchased raw material valued at
approximately $520,000, of which approximately 19 percent was purchased and
shipped to the plant at Pisgah Forest, North Carolina, from points outside the
State of North Carolina. During the same period, finished products were
valued at $900,000, of which approximately 61 percent was sold and shipped
to points outside the State of North Carolina. Champagne Paper Corporation
concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
Endless Belt Corporation is a North Carolina corporation with its principal
office and place of business located at Pisgah Forest, North Carolina , where it
is engaged in the manufacture of endless belts. For the 6-month period ending
June 30, 1944, this company purchased raw materials valued at approximately
$28,000, of which approximately 12 percent was purchased and shipped from
points outside the State of North Carolina. During the same period , finished
products manufactured by this corporation were valued at $173, 000, of which
approximately 75 percent was sold and shipped to points outside the State of
North Carolina. Endless Belt Corporation concedes that it is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
For the purposes of this Report, Ecusta Paper Corporation will hereinafter
be referred to as Ecusta, Champagne Paper Corporation as Champagne and
Endless Belt Corporation as Endless Belt. Ecusta is engaged in the business
of processing cigarette paper from the raw fibre material up to and through
the process of placing the paper on rolls, part of which It cuts into appropriate
widths for cigarette manufacture and rerolls on bobbins for use by the manu-
facturers of cigarettes. Other of its paper is purchased by Champagne, where
it is processed into booklets and folders for use in hand rolling cigarettes.
Endless Belt manufactures seamless canvas belts which, as the name implies,
are "endless." They are used on cigarette-making machines as tobacco
conveyors
The capital stock of these corporations is not freely distributed. The common
stock of Ecusta is owned 50 percent by Champagne Paper Corporation, 163
percent by Harry H. Straus, and 331/3 percent by a family group not associated
with the management. The common stock of Champagne is owned 66% per-
cent by Harry H. Straus, and 331/2 percent by the family group above referred
to. The common stock of Endless Belt is owned outright by Boucher Cork
Company, an inactive corporation in which the stock is owned in its entirety
by Harry H. Straus. Each of the Respondents has substantially the same
officers and directors. Harry H. Straus is the president and general manager
of each ; W. V. Landeck is vice president of each ; and T. N. Word is the
secretary and treasurer of each. Straus, Landeck, and Word are members of
the Board of Directors of all three corporations, no one of which had a board
of more than five persons. Straus, Landeck, and Word function , administra-
tively, in the same respect toward each of the three corporations. Straus dic-
tates the labor policy of the three corporations and personally passes on all
disciplinary measures involving major discipline such as discharge , demotions,
etc., of any of their employees. Physically the plants of the three corporations
constitute a single unit. They are located at Pisgah Forest, all enclosed within
one fence, in a compact mass, and are serviced by a single power plant, water
supply, police protection, fire protection, and general office force, the personnel
of which is all carried on the Ecusta pay roll . The premises occupied. by
ECUSTA PAPER CORPORATION 1213
Champagne and Endless Belt are leased by Champagne from Ecusta , and the
services above referred to are charged for in a bookkeeping arrangement be-
tween the three companies . The Endless Belt premises are subleased from
Champagne . The same man serves as director of personnel administration for
the three plants, and while technically their products are such as to fall into
different categories , the outlets for them are generally the same. Aside from
the inter-company charges and bookkeeping entries, and a meticulous obser-
vation of the requirements of separate corporate operations , financially and
record-wise, the three corporations constitute , in effect , a single organization
which is highly integrated in its general operations . It was on this basis that
the motion to sever the action was denied , despite the fact that each of the
corporations functions under the supervision of separate general superin-
tendents, all of them, however,, in turn, under the general management of
Harry H . Straus . Because of the foregoing, it is impossible to determine where,
so far as labor relations and the issues herein dealt with are concerned, one
corporation ends and the other begins. They must, therefore , be dealt with on
a joint and several basis.
IL THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, A. F. of L., is a labor organiza-
tion admitting to membership the employees of the Respondents at their plants
at Pisgah Forest, North Carolina.
111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint , and coercion
1. Respondents' operational background
The operations of the Respondents are carried on under a supervision hier-
archy beginning with the pulp-mill general superintendent , Raymond F
Bennett , who is responsible for the operations of all the departments in the
pulp mill having to do with the processing of raw material and the manufac-
ture of paper. His jurisdiction ends when the paper is delivered to the finish-
ing room where the rolls are cut into bobbins and otherwise processed. The
finishing-room department was and is under the jurisdiction of Robert F
Colwell. The maintenance and engineering department functions independently
under the supervision of William P. Jordan. Walter K. Straus is general super-
intendent of Champagne and Otto F. Goepfert is general superintendent of
Endless Belt. There are some other smaller divisions which are not concerned
in this case . Each of these general department heads has under him one or
more division superintendents , with foremen who supervise the conduct of
specific operations. Insofar as disciplinary matters are concerned , no general
superintendent , superintendent , or foreman attempts to extend his jurisdiction
beyond the particular department or division in which be is employed and over
which he has an assigned supervision , but, when matters arise within any such
department concerning an employee of another department , such employee's
immediate foreman or superintendent is notified and requested to take what-
ever corrective action he may deem necessary . In this manner , the autonomy
of the various departments and divisions is preserved . None of the general
superintendents , superintendents , or foremen have authority to discharge any
employee. The procedure is to report the dereliction of the employee to the
next higher supervisory official until the matter reaches the general superin-
tendent , who then makes an independent investigation , and upon the basis of
1214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
such investigation, reports the Incident and his findings to Harry S. Straus,
or in the absence of Straus, to Thomas N. Word, who takes the necessary and
final action, after himself conducting a further independent Investigation which
may or may not include an interview with the employee under consideration.
The plant protection is provided by a police department of which F. L.
(Buck) McCall is chief. This department consists of some 8 or 10 uniformed
and armed policemen who, while not militarized, are commissioned by the
Governor of North Carolina as industrial police, and a certain number of
watchmen, who perform the normal and ordinary functions of watchmen and
are unarmed. The members of the police force have no jurisdiction beyond
the confines of the plant, except to make arrests of persons who may have
committed depredations on the plant grounds In the presence of the officer
and have fled from them.
The business of the Respondents is a new one. The construction of the plant
was started in 1938 and was completed In 1939. Production began on Septem-
ber 2, 1939, and has continued since then at a progressively increasing rate
until, at the present time, the daily output of the plant is equivalent to ap-
proximately 1,000,000,000 cigarettes. Ecusta employs approximately 1,200 per-
sons, working 24 hours a day, 6 days a week. Champagne employs between
200 and 300 persons, and Endless Belt between 100 and 125 persons. In Ecusta,
the employees work on rotating shifts of 8 hours each. The Champagne and
Endless Belt employees generally work a single 8-hour shift.
2. The community background
So far as the record reveals, no effort was made to effect an organization of
the employees at the plants of Respondents until late 1941, or early 1942, when
the Union sent its representative, Denver Lambert, to Brevard, the nearest
town to the plants of Respondents. In February 1942, Frank C. Barnes, Jr.,
a representative of the International Brotherhood of Pulp , Sulphide & Paper
Mill Workers, arrived in Brevard, North Carolina, at the request of Lambert,
to assist the latter in his organizational activity. The extent of these organiza-
tional efforts was not disclosed, although it Is clear that sometime shortly after
the arrival of Barnes in Brevard, these efforts were suspended'
% Barnes testified that, shortly after his arrival in Brevard, he got in contact with
some of the employees of Ecusta, among whom was a young man named John Rhodes
who took him in his car to visit other employees ; that in the course of these visits
Rhodes parked In front of the Brevard post office and left Barnes sitting In the car
while he went across the street to talk with a friend ; that while Barnes was sitting
in the car, an older man came to the door of the car, opened it, and said to Barnes,
"This young fellow you are traveling around with is my brother, and I don't want him
messed up in the union" ; that Barnes tried to explain to the stranger they were only
trying to help the employees and benefit them through the union, whereupon, the
stranger hit him, knocked him over, and then with two or three other men dragged him
out of the car to the sidewalk, where he was further assaulted , until young Rhodes
intervened and threatened Barnes' assailants with his knife. Young Rhodes subsequently
identified the assailant to Barnes as his brother, Jack (James T.) Rhodes, and told
Barnes that his brother was a foreman in the millwright or maintenance crew at Ecusta.
Neither John Rhodes nor Jack Rhodes were produced as witnesses for either side, nor
was either of the men identified beyond such Identification as Is contained In the fore-
going statements. Counsel for the Respondents stated that Jack Rhodes had been dis-
charged by Respondents some 2 years previous to the hearing and at the time of the
heating was in the armed forces of the United States. Following this incident, further
effort at organization among the workers of the plants of Respondents was abandoned
Alter this assault, Barnes was approached by the Chief of Police and asked whetbei
lie desired to prefer charges against his assailant. He declined to do so. Subsequently,
in October and December of 1944, Barnes again visited Brevard but was not molested on
either occasion.
ECUSTA PAPER CORPORATION 1215
In July 1944, the Union again undertook an organizational campaign at the
plants of Respondents and stationed its representative, C. A. Atwood, in
Brevard, to conduct the activities.'
By September 20, 1944, Atwood's efforts had resulted in a sufficient number
of applicants for membership in the Union to justify the establishment of a
Local in Brevard , and on that day, L. P. Williams arrived in Brevard to relieve
Atwood and to install the Local, which he did on the night of his arrival.
September 20, 1944.4
The following day Williams spent in conferences with Atwood and with one
Malin, also a labor representative , and in the evening went to the local moving
picture show . On his return, as he was passing the opening of an alley about
a half block from the intersection of Main Street and Board Street, Williams
was assaulted by two persons , beat over the head and knocked down. He
eventually made his way to the hotel where he and Atwood were stopping
The identity of these assailants was never established nor any circumstances
developed which might reasonably point to their identity, or connection, if an. N,
with Respondents . On this failure to link Williams' assailants with Respond-
ents in any manner, the motion to dismiss that part of the complaint Pei tainiug
to it was granted.
In July 1944, the C. I. O. was engaged in a campaign to organize the leather
industry in and about Brevard and, as has been noted, the efforts of the Union
to organize the employees of the Respondent were renewed. As the C. 1. 0
activity began to assume substantial proportions, a movement was started
among some of the citizens of Brevard, led by C. M. Douglas, the former editor
of the weekly newspaper, to organize a Citizens' Committee whose primary
purpose would be to oppose the unionization of any of the industries in Transyl-
vania County . Many of the business men and other residents of Brevard and
the surrounding community were canvased for membership in the committee
and solicited for funds to carry on its work, with the result that in excess of
200 such persons made contributions which were turned over to Douglas. On
August 10, 1944, which it will be noted corresponds to the date of the election
at the Toxaway Tanning Company , the first of a series of paid advertisements,
inserted by the Transylvania Citizens' Committee, appeared in the local news-
paper, opposing employee organization in general. From time to time there-
after, other similar advertisements appeared, and beginning with about the
third such Insertion , the advertisements were directed against the organization
of the employees of Respondents. These advertisements precipitated an adver-
tising campaign in which the Union countered with similar advertisements and
'Brevard is the county seat of Transylvania County, North Carolina, and is about
6 or 8 miles from the Respondents ' plants. It is a town of about 3,000 people and
serves the surrounding community . The two main streets, Broad and Main Streets,
intersect at right angles and the intersection marks the center of most of the business
activity within the town . While many of the employees of the Respondents are re-
cruited from an area as much as 25 miles in diameter centering on the plant, Brevard
is a clearing point for most of their business and social activities. In addition to the
plants of Respondents , there are also , In the general neighborhood of Brevard, a tannery
operating four plants under the name of Sliversteen Industries ; Toxaway Tanning Com-
pany located about 9 miles from Brevard ; the Pisgah Mills which manufactures thread ;
the Wheeler Hosiery Mills which manufactures rayon hose, and several smaller industries
The approximate amount of employment supplied by these additional industries is not
revealed in the record . The records of the Board reflect that on August 10, 1944, in
Case No . 5-R-1608 , in the Matter of Toxaway Tanning Company, with 86 eligible voters,
the C. I. 0. Fur & Leather Workers was designated, in a consent election, by the votes
of 71 out of 76 valid ballots counted , and was, thereafter, certified by the Board
'This is now known as Brevard Local 48, of International Brotherhood of 1'apei
Makers, A. F. of L.
1216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
created a highly controversial situation in the county . The last advertisement
by either side appeared on October 19, 1944. Only fragmentary records appear
to have been kept by Douglas with reference to the membership of the Com-
mittee other than as to its executive officers, and the source of its fundk. How-
ever, such records as were available were submitted to counsel for the Board
for inspection, and were inspected during the course of the hearing. There is
nothing in the record to indicate that any of the officials, supervisory employees,
or other representatives of the Respondents either contributed to the Commit-
tee, participated in its operation, or were advised as to the contents of the
various advertisements until after they had been published and circulated. The
only testimony in any manner referring to any of the representatives of Re-
spondents was that of the present editor of the paper in which the advertise-
ments were published, who stated that after the advertisements began to
appear, he personally called on Harry H. Straus for comment as to the merits
of the controversy, and was advised by Straus that the Respondents had nothing
to say and no comment to make on it since they were prohibited by law from
doing so. Beyond this, there is no evidence of any connection between the
Respondents and the activities of the Citizens' Committee, nor is there any
evidence that any publicity indicating approval or even recognition of the
controversy by Respondents was ever engaged in. In view of these facts, it
was found that there is no actionable relationship between Respondents and the
Citizens' Committee, and on that basis the motion of Respondents to dismiss
that portion of the complaint was granted when made.
3. Reaction of Respondents to the Union's organization campaign
In support of the allegation that Respondents had engaged in a program of
disparagement and vilification against the Union, counsel for the Board offered
in evidence a copy of a letter, dated August 5, 1944, written and signed by
Captain Ralph L. Waldrop, a former employee of Respondents , who was a
shift foreman at the time he entered the armed services in November 1941.
Captain Waldrop appeared as a witness, testified that he has been In the
armed services continuously since November 1941; that Po August 1944, he
returned to Brevard on furlough, and that after observing the activities of the
Union, at his own expense had the letter in question printed and mailed to
some 300 of the approximately 500 former employees of Respondents who were
then in the armed services. The letter was not intemperate in tone, but was a
vigorous statement of opposition to the Union and urged all the recipients to
make known their opposition to the organization of Respondents ' employees.
Waldrop testified that he did not advise with any representative of Respond-
ents in getting out the letter; that he did not inform them that It was being
circulated ; and that so far as he knows none of them had seen a copy of It
until it was introduced as an exhibit at this hearing. The record contains
nothing to the contrary. Although Waldrop was a shift foreman , he signed
the letter "Ralph L Waldrop, Former Pulp Mill Employee."
Although Waldrop technically was still an employee of Respondents while in
the armed service, to the extent that he would be entitled to vote in an election
In an appropriate unit of which he should be a member, and is, under the
law, entitled to be restored to his employment upon his return from service,
it is to be noted that for approximately 3 years he had been out of the actual
employment of Respondents and away from their supervision or control. Since
it must be, and is, found that Waldrop's distribution of the letter to the former
employees of Respondents in the armed service was his own act, free from
ECUSTA PAPER CORPORATION 1217
inspiration , suggestion , or direction from the Respondents , and was signed,
not in his capacity of former shift foreman but only as a former employee,
this action Is construed as an exercise of the inalienable right of freedom of
speech, in no manner connected with the Respondents and for which Respond-
ents are In no respect responsible.
Almost from the beginning of the Union 's 1944 activities in the plants of
Respondents, the fact that such activities were under way was public knowledge
and recognized by the officials of Respondents as an existing fact . With little
delay, Straus took counsel with attorneys in Asheville and also retained the
services of a well known firm of industrial relations counselors whose head-
quarters are in New York City. Rester Walton, Esq., the Asheville attorney
who had been retained by Straus, promptly called a meeting of all the super-
visory employees, including the assistant foremen, and instructed them as to
his concept of their duties and responsibilities as supervisory employees, under
the provisions and administration of the National Labor Relations Act. They
were generally instructed to refrain from any act of intimidation, coercion, or
discrimination against any of the employees because of their union activity,
and were warned to see that all employees, regardless of their affiliations of
any nature, received an identical type of treatment, but that In the event any
of the men indulged In union activities on the job, the supervisor had the right
to reprimand the employee for so doing. It does not appear that the super-
visory staff was given any special instructions which prohibited them from
discussing the Union with any employee, and admittedly, although the super-
visors were instructed that they would be required to maintain a spirit of
neutrality, no notice of any kind was ever posted or otherwise conveyed to
the employees emphasizing the neutrality of the Respondents in the matter of
union organization.
4. The conduct of management
As in so many other similar cases , a determination of the existence or non-
existence of unfair labor practices in this case must turn on a consideration
of the congeries of the facts and circumstances surrounding the incidents
brought out in the course of the testimony.
In considering the over-all picture one is impressed with the fact that in the
community, which is Brevard and its neighboring communities and centers of
Industry, there is a general antipathy among the residents and business persons
to the organization of the employees of the neighboring plants into labor or-
ganizations under the aegis of any of the large and well known national and
internationt labor organizations . The circumstances developed In the testi-
mony 'here must be considered against that background and Its conscious or
subconscious influence upon the point of view and action of the employers and
their supervisory employees within that general area.
The record reveals a substantial number of incidents concerning conversa-
tions between Straus, Bennett, the general superintendent of the pulp mill,
Jordan, the manager of the maintenance and engineering department, and other
supervisory employees, and various of the employees who were or who were
thought to be interesting themselves in the Union's organizational campaign.
There is some real and much apparent conflict between the testimony of the
supervisors and the employees on the subject of these conversations. Except
where there is a categorical denial that the conversations referred to ever took
place, the conflict is more one pertaining to the language used than to substance
in the main, the testimony of the employees called by the Board purported to
686572-46--75
1218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
quote the statements made, in the rugged, profane, and sometimes vulgar ver•
nacular of the shop, while the supervisors and foremen, in testifying concern-
ing such conversations, attempted to translate them into narrative couched in
language of greater refinement a The unexpurgated recitals of most of the em-
ployee witnesses carried a clear picture of the conditions that existed and the
instances to which they referred, while much of the color and meaning was
lost in the translations provided by the supervisor witnesses. In evaluating
the testimony this has been a substantial factor, bearing in mind the natural
inclination of most witnesses to color their testimony to conform to their owl}
Interests and loyalties.
In almost every instance, the statements attributed to the supervisors op
which the claim of interference, restraint, or coercion is based, fall within that
technically protected area that pertains to admonishing employees against so-
licitation for the Union on company time. But like "free speech" and some of
our other protected rights, this protection has its limitations . The supervisory
staff had been instructed to refrain from discriminatory action against union
supporters. They also were told they could safely reprimand employees who
5 While Jordan, the manager of the maintenance and engineering department was
testifying, the following colloquy took place between the witness and the Trial Ex-
aminer :
Q. Now In your contacts with the men , there ; in your conversations with them-
which might have to do with the Union activities or their selling of Union.
as the expression Is--when you are talking with them do you talk with them in
the colloquial language of the community and time , or do you use the same
excellent English as you have since you have been on the stand?
A. When I took the job in the maintenance department I felt that it would , be
wiser if I talked as much like the' men themselves as possible and so thatmy
answer to that is that I probably use the-about the same language they used,
so far as I was able.
Q. You have been sitting here during this last week and heard the testimony of
these workmen . Some of it is very colorful.
A. Yes, sir ; it is.
Q. Is that a fair sample of what we would call the colloquial language of the plant,
when a foreman and a man are talking together about some subject such as is
concerned here?
A. I think that what we heard here on the stand from the man from the mainte-
nance department is not a fair sample of the colloquialisms that we use there.
There were some words that were used up here that I would say the great
majority of the men in the maintenance department do not use , as a general
rule.
Q. Well , cuss words and profanity of that sort is not unusual in the general lan-
guage of the plant among themselves . The plant men themselves , and among
some of the supervisory employees , when they are talking on subjects that might
raise blood pressures a little bit , are they?
A. I was going to say that I think cursing and swearing , a great number of the
men down there, Is an integral part of their conversation , of their speech, on
most any subject they talk about.
Q. Most of us have been around a bit and we realize that that is pretty generally
the rule and I am just wondering whether, if the language you have used in
telling about some of the conversations you have had with these men , represents
a quotation of what was said , or whether it is a sort of a translation into good
English, or what happened?
A. Do you mean on my part!
Q. On both sides ; yes, sir.
A. Well, I think that it's, you might call it a double translation . I have translated
some and I am positive, as I it here , that the men that testified here translated
very freely some of theirs.
Q. I am asking you these questions because I want to find some sort of a basis for
co-relating the testimony you have given with that which the men have given,
which is in an entirely different lingo, as,it were,
A. I can appreciate that ; yes, sir.
ECTISTA PAPER CORPORATION 1219
solicited on company time. The over-all picture of the record indicates that
most of the supervisory employees, and particularly those in the pulp mill and
in the maintenance and engineering departments, took full advantage of this
latter prerogative. Those non-supervisory employees who testified generally
admitted they were aware that as a matter of principle, they had no right to
solicit union membership or interest on company time, and that they had been
thus instructed by the union organizer; but the conclusion is inescapable that
many of the active union supporters paid little heed to this, and aggressively
advocated the Union on any occasion, in or out of work hours, when they could
get the ear of their fellow workers, singly or in groups. On the other hand
the supervisory employees were on the alert to prevent the union men "selling"
the Union on the job, or to reprimand them when reports were received that
they had been doing so. While warnings against and reprimands for soliciting
on company time, properly given, are an appropriate part of management's
functions in administering its affairs, such warnings and reprimands, im-
properly given, can readily go beyond the purely administrative functions of
management, and translate themselves into acts of interference, restraint, and
coercion. Such was the situation here. The approaches of the supervisors were
not made in an atmosphere of neutrality, and the employees had no way of
knowing that their superiors had been instructed t9 maintain such neutrality.
No notices evidencing the attitude of Respondents were posted or published
which would bring such knowledge home to the employees. In the absence
of some official statement by the Respondents of their neutral position, and
recognition of the rights of the employees to organize for purposes of collective
bargaining , the statements and actions of their supervisory representative must
be considered in the light of the reactions they normally would have upon
the employees, bearing in mind the antipathy then being publicly expressed
in the community at large against organizations of any character, and against
the organization of Respondents' employees in particular.
The record concerning the conduct of Respondents' supervisory employees
that Is alleged to constitute interference, restraint, or coercion, is an irrecon-
cilable mass of accusations, contradictions, and denials. No valuable purpose
would be served by attempting to detail all of them. Only a sampling of those
that serve to illustrate the situation in the plant will be dealt with :
Robert L. Merrill, a maintenance employee under the direct supervision of
Foreman Vassey and generally under Jordan, had been reported to Jordan by
Superintendent Bullock of the pulp mill, as having been interfering with the
pulp mill employees by talking to them about the Union during working hours.
Jordan and Vassey went in search of him and found him at work greasing a
conveyor chain in one of the pulp mill departments:-
Jordan: "Well, Merrill, you are pretty busy this morning, ain't you?"
Merrill : "Yes, I am by myself."
Jordan : "You haven't got time to sell this damn' Union then."
Merrill : "I am mot selling this damn ' Union, as you call it. What I have
to get out of it? I give it away."
This was followed by some accusations that Merrill had been soliciting a
certain application signature during working hours, which Merrill vigorously
denied. After the conversation, Jordan said : "There won't be no damn' union
in this place." "You can work from now to doom's day and they won't be
here." "Them damn up there in town in Brevard is getting your
money ." Merrill rejoined : "It's my money I am putting in there. I will put
it in the Union or where I damn ' please and it's none of your damn ' business."
1220 DICCISIO\S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Following this, Jordan gave Merrill orders not to talk to any of Bullock's
men.
As to this conversation there Is little substantial conflict between the tes-
timony of Merrill and Jordan. Merrill purported to quote the conversation.
Jordan testified in generalities as to what he meant. Merrill's statement, being
the one with definiteness, is accepted as substantially true. Here, while they
obviously were talking about solicitation on company time, antipathy toward
the Union was made unnecessarily obvious.
Charles L. Michael, also an employee in the maintenance department, testified
that he had been In the employ of Respondents from the time the mills were
being constructed ; that he had been a union man for many years, and in
December 1944 had reinstated himself in the Union here involved. According
to him, on the day after his reinstatement , Jordan came to his bench, and when
Michael asked him about some material he needed, the following took place:--
"Oh,-" he said-he didn't give me an answer about what I asked him
about. He said, "To hell with that." What am I doing up with that damn'
bunch last night?
* s * s s • s
Q. Will you go on from there?
A. And I said, "What damn' bunch?"
He said, "That damn' Union bunch."
I says, "Well , Bill, I am an old union man ." I said , " I was just rein-
stated last night and it 's the first time I have been up there ." I said,
"I didn 't know that they were going, until just recently and I was rein-
stated last night," and he says, "Well, don't you know it won't do you any
good around here?"
I says, "You can't tell me that."
And he asked me if I wasn 't satisfied , or if I had anything against the
Company, and I told him, "Not a thing."
He says, "Have you been treated right by Ecusta?"
I says, "I have, as far as Ecusta Is concerned , but some of the foremen."
He says, "Yes, Michael, I know you have had a damn' dirty deal, here "
He says, "I don't think that will exist any more."
And I told him I appreciated that, I didn 't have anything against them,
but I didn't see where the union would hurt. He says, "It would never
come in here."
Well, I says, "If it don't it would surprise me. I have never seen then,
fail yet, when conditions are like they are here."
He says, "Well, if it does, it will be twelve months anyway before they
are in here, and when it comes it will be an open shop."
I says, "It might be." And I said, "Open shop or closed shop, I am for
the union."
And he said, "Well, it seems like you are sticking to the union."
And I says, "Yes, sir, that's me."
He says, "I can't use you then on our side against the union."
And I says, "Not me. I am solid for the union."
Jordan remembered this incident but recalled little about it except that the
Union was discussed and that he told Michael he (Jordan) could not talk
about the Union. Between Michael's recital and Jordan's identification of the
incident, Michael's statement is accepted as substantially accurate. Jordan's
statement that he told Michael he could not talk with him about the Union
is rejected . His testimony Indicates that, at least on this occasion, he too
obviously disregarded any such prohibition.
A few weeks later, in January 1945, Michael was called to Jordan's office
ECUSTA PAPER CORPORATION 1 22 1
and accused of "selling the damn ' union around here." This arose from a
report by one of the employees to Vassey that Michael had solicited him in
the wash room . Then followed further colloquy between Michael and Jordan
along the same general lines as their previous conversation, and a request by
Jordan that Michael not make any trouble for the employee who had informed
on him.
Leroy Waldrop a chlorinator operator in the pulp mill, testified that in
November 1944, before he actually joined the Union, he discussed it generally
with four other men In the locker room while they were all there for a smoke ;
that he was called to Bullock's office shortly afterwards and told that five men
had reported that he "had been talking union talk on the job." According to
Waldrop, Bullock told him that he was warning him then and that the next
time such a thing occurred, he would be discharged.
On the other hand , Bullock testified that be called Waldrop to his office to
warn him about being absent from his place of work and about the unsatis-
factory character of his work. He stated that Waldrop injected the Union
into the conversation by asking whether the Union had anything to do with
his reprimand, and that he (Bullock) told Waldrop he knew nothing about his
union activities and that as a citizen he had a right to do as he pleased. These
totally divergent recitals of the same incident appear irreconcilable. Both
witnesses presented an appearance of credibility and frankness, but in view
of the preponderating evidence of supervisory anxiety to suppress the union
activity within the plant, Waldrop's version of the meeting appears the most
likely, especially in the light of Waldrop's subsequent promotion at a 17-cent
increase in his hourly rate.
James Baumgartner, a mason in the maintenance department, reported as
follows on a conversation with Jordan at the end of December 1944:
The conversation started by Mr. Jordan saying that t'You are going to
the Army, aren't you, Jim?". And I said , "Yes, if I get a call, I will."
"Well," he said, "You are going to get a call." He said, "I am sounding
you a warning at this time"-
He said , "I am sounding you a warning at this time that you are not
supposed to peddle the union inside the gate ." He said, "I have been
reported several times from different departments that you are selling
the union inside the gate house. You are not allowed. That is one thing
you can't do, is sell the union inside the gate."
And I said, "Well, did anybody tell you that I presented any union for
sale?" And he said no . He said , "You have presented arguments for the
union, but you haven't presented the union material."
"But," he said, "Do you expect to come back here after you are through
with this Army business?" I said, well, I hadn't thought so much about
it. He said, "You have to go somewhere, don't you?" I said , "Yes." He
said, "Well, if you expect to get back here, you will have to leave this
union off. We will not have any union inside the gate." He said, "Don't
let Mr. Williams and Malin pump you full of bull." He said, "Don't pay
them any more dues, because that won't do you any good anyway in the
Army."
Baumgartner also told of another meeting with Jordan as he was coming out
of one of the locker rooms.
A. And he said, "Didn't I warn you the other day about selling this
union?" I said "I haven 't sold any union." He said, "They tell me all
over this place you are peddling the union inside the gate . Didn't I tell
you you couldn't do that?"
I said , "I haven't been doing that. " He said, "Well , I am warning you
1222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
again the second time that If you are caught talking with anybody in this
refining room, any of Frank Patton' s men, on any kind of pastime conver-
sation," "Well," he said, "You expect to stay with us until you get In the
Army, don't you?"
Q. Was anything further said?
A. Yes. He said, he said, "You may talk to Cecil King.* You may
practice your sales talk on him, and he on you, but," he said, "Keep it
away from everybody else inside the gate."
On cross-examination, Baumgartner emphasized that Jordan's prohibition
applied "inside the gate" as distinguished from "on the job" and further quoted
Jordan as saying, "After you enter the highway you are on your own." Jordan
confirmed that he had conversations with Baumgartner on the two occasions
above indicated. The first, he stated, was prompted by complaints from Bullock
that, "Baumgartner had been taking his men off the job down there, getting
them in the locker room, back of tanks, back of ,equipment , and various other
little hidden nooks and crannies and otherwise holding up production in the
pulp mill and with the shortage of labor he had down there he would appre-
ciate it very much if I would go down and get Baumgartner away from his
men and keep him away from his men." He then looked for and found Baum-
gartner at his work and told him of Bullock 's complaint, but, he , testified, did
not tell him to stop paying dues to the Union. Concerning the second conver-
sation, Jordon stated that he had had a complaint from Patton (a pulp mill
foreman ) about Baumgartner "pulling them off their work and otherwise
interfering with production in the refining room"; that he told Baumgartner
he did not want to hear about it again but wanted him to keep on his job and
do his work ; that he forbade Baumgartner to talk to the production employees
in the mill and told him he would have to confine his conversation to the man
whom he served as a helper . In view of Jordan's substantial confirmation of
this incident, Baumgartner 's recital is found to correctly reflect what took place.
The record reflects other similar conversations with employees by Bullock,
the pulp mill superintendent, and some by Bennett, the general superintendent,
all reflecting the same eagerness to suppress union activities in the mill by
policing the employees during the hours they were on the premises.'
Baumgartner was King's helper . Both were known to be union members.
'That the supervisory officials had been instructed to restrain employees from solicit-
ing on the plant premises , regardless of whether they were working at the time or not,
is established by the following testimony of Jordan under redirect examination by coun-
sel for Respondent :
Q. (By Mr. Walton ) : Were any Instructions given to you with reference to what
employees might or might not do while they were not busy on the Job with
respect to this same subject?
A. They certainly were.
Q. I wish you would state what they were.
A. The Instructions which had been given to me , and which r passed on down to
my other foremen , were that a man's life was his own after be left the plant.
there , and he could or could not , as he so wished, without any-without any
coercion or Intimidation on our part, one way or another , do what he pleased.
Q. About what?
A. About the Union, or any other matter.
Q. Did you, in your conversation with Woodrow Ward and with Baumgartner or
anyone else, any other employee with whom you talked, tell them In substance
what you have just stated?
A. I always did, very strongly . What they did on the outside of the gate was
their own business and that anything they did, they had a right to do ; particu-
larly about the Union.
The impropriety of such a restriction when the employee Is in a rest period or ptber-
wise on his own time has recently been clearly established by the U . S. Sup +n g. Court.
Rep,ublka Aviation Co. v. N. L. R. B., 324 U. S. 793 ; N. V. R. B. v. LeTourneau i76sepany
of Aaeeritd, 324 U. S. 793.
ECUSTA PAPER CORPORATION 1223
In addition , there were several occasions when supervisory employees
addressed inquiries to certain employees as to whether they belonged to the
Union or how many members the Union had . Although some of these were
doubtless innocent inquiries that were incidental to casual conversations, they
are all technically prescribed under many decisions of the Board . Similarly,
several witnesses testified that their supervisors made statements to indicate
that the plant could or might be shut down if the Union were to succeed in
Its organizational effort . These statements were not specifically denied. The
absurdity of such a closing down is so obvious as to cast doubt on the state-
ments having ever been made , but since they stand undenied in the most part,
and the testimony has not been successfully impeached , it is found that some
statements of that general import were made by foremen and superintendents.
This finding is made in general terms for the reason that to detail each instance
would add nothing to the ultimate findings nor vary the recommendations
herein made.
Without pointing to any one thing or any well defined course of employee
treatment , the over-all picture of the record fail to Impress the writer with
the "neutrality" of the no-solicitation rule, or that discipline was as strictly
enforced for other derelictions that were no more disturbing to production.
Respondents' plants are especially well equipped , operated, and managed.
Efforts are made to keep to a high plane in employee -management relationships,
and Harry H. Straus, the president and general manager , is accessible to all
employees, day and night . Well known industrial relations counsel is retained
by the Respondents and competent local counsel was active in advising the
Respondents at all times on their industrial and labor relations . More than
the usual precautions appear to have been taken to insure adequate advice on
how to treat the on -coming union organizational campaign ; but notwithstand-
ing that , at no time was the well known procedure adopted, of advising the
employees of the Respondents ' indifference to their exercise of the right to
organize for purposes of collective bargaining , by the simple but effective
process of posting notices to that effect or otherwise bringing home to them,
that statement of position that would serve to , ( 1) advise employees against
soliciting on company time, but (2 ) at the same time, neutralize to a large
extent, if not entirely, the effect of otherwise unlawful expressions of anti-
union opinion by the supervisory employees . The employees were entitled to
be assured that the employers were in fact neutral and that contrary ex-
pressions by supervisors were unauthorized and would not be permitted, If
Respondents could hope to be relieved of responsibility for such conduct of
their representatives. '
As has been observed , those supervisors who sought to police the activities
of union members on company time were technically within their proper admin-
istrative domain , but by their manner and methods of so doing , they have
made it clearly appear to the employees that the union movement was highly
obnoxious.' That type of conduct cannot be protected under the guise of Its
being an administrative prerogative . It clearly is beyond the pale where it
extends to "company property" regardless of "company time."
From the foregoing , it'is' therefore found that by the conduct of their super-
visory employees above described , Respondents have jointly and severally
interfered with, restrained, andIcoerced their employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in 'Section 7 of the Act.
a Stress has been laid on the fact that Waldrop, notwithstanding he was a known
union proponent, was promoted to take the place of a discharged employee, whose case
is also considered herein. In that case, however, it must be observed that Waldrop was
next in Line for the promotion and failure to so promote him might well have raised a
sariooa tnestlon of discrimination.
1224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The case of Woodrow Ward, however, is unique in this general picture.
Ward is an assistant' carpenter foreman . On 5 days each week, he works witli
his tools as a first class carpenter . On the sixth day , when the regular fore-
man is off because of rotating shift changes , Ward acts as foreman and has the
same responsibilities and authority as the foreman . He serves in, a similar
capacity when the foreman is on vacation or absent for any other reason and
for several years has been carried on the personnel records as "assistant fore-
man." At the meeting of supervisors when they were instructed to avoid any
discrimination against union men, Ward was present . An attempt had been
made to obtain WLB approval of a pay increase for Ward as assistant fore-
man, and after considerable delay, it was obtained in December 1944. His
status is not questioned.
Ward joined the Union and became an active proponent . He advocated it
among his fellow workers , and, although he denied he had solicited during
working hours , there is sufficient testimony to the contrary to convincingly
show that he, like the other union men, discussed the Union with his associ-
ates at all convenient times in and out of working hours.
In the latter part of November 1944 , Ward was sent for by Jordan and repri-
manded for having affiliated with the Union while an assistant foreman. At
the same time Jordan accused him of disloyalty and of having broken faith
with the Company by attending the supervisors ' meeting . During that conver-
sation , he was also severely reprimanded for talking to the other carpenters
and interfering with their work, and some reference was made to a prospective
increase in pay for which Ward had disqualified himself, since he would not
be allowed to remain an assistant foreman and still belong to the Union.
A short time after this , Ward 's father, also a carpenter and carpenter con-
tractor who had worked on the construction of Respondents ' mills but then
was engaged elsewhere ,. came to Ward 's house and told him Harry H. Straus
had sent for him ; that in the resulting visit, Straus had complained of his
(Ward 's) union activities and had requested him to induce Ward to give up
the Union . Ward advised his father he would not do so.
About December 10, 1944, Straus sent for Ward, primarily to give him a
check for the approved pay increase that had been accumulating while the
WLB had the application for consideration . During this visit , Straus asked
Ward about his union membership and told him "That is your business."
However , Ward then told Straus of the visit from his father . Straus confirmed
he had had a talk with the senior Ward and asked Ward what his father had
said . When Ward told him that his father had advised him to leave the Union.
Straus' reply was , in part : "I think your father is right . He is a nice man,
well known and respected . I don 't think he would tell his own son wrong
and I think he advised you right." Straus testified that he had sent for Ward's
father because he had heard some criticism of Ward 's union activities and
had told the father , "That he ( Ward ) is a chip off the old block and try to
keep him in good graces with the company " ; that he asked the senior Ward
"in the interest of his son, if he would give him a little good talking."
Straus ' testimony , viewed in the light of Jordan 's reports to him concerning
Ward's activities among the carpenters , leaves no doubt that , in his talk with
Ward 's father , he was invoking parental pressure to induce Ward to drop the
Union. Certainly the senior Ward so regarded it, for he left Straus ' office and
went immediately to his son 's home where he urged the younger Ward to give
up his union membership.
It has been recognized that, to protect itself against charges of "assistance,"
or other illegal conduct that tends to interfere with the freedom of choice
ECUSTA PAPER CORPORATION 1225
guaranteed to employees in Section 7 of the Act, an employer may, without
violating the provisions of the Act, require that a foreman, active in promoting
a union among those under him, either stop his activities or submit to demo-
tion. In the leading instances, the alternative has been to leave the union or
the job. Alai-shall Field cE Company, 34 N. L. R B 1; General Atofo, s Sfiles
Corporation, 34 N. L. R. B. 1052; The Sheiwin-lVilliiuns Coatpann, 37
N. L R. B. 260, 282.
Whether Straus and Jordan were motivated by a desire to protect Respond-
ents against responsibility for Ward's conduct, or by a desire to restrict union
activities wherever they might be found, is a matter of inference to be drawn
from all the circumstances. Jordan's approach to Ward indicates that he was
prompted by his concept of the impropriety of a representative of manage-
ment actively promoting the Union. Straus, who took his information from
Jordan, must be presumed to have had the same idea. Ward had received
Respondents' instructions that the supervisors must remain neutral-and again
it is presumed the supervisors were advised, at the same time, of the responsi-
bility imposed on the employer for whatever they might do in violation of
such neutrality. In Boeing Airplane Corp., 46 N. L. R. B. 267, reversed 140 F.
(2d) 423, the court held the employer justified in discharging supervisors who
had engaged in pro-union activities among those working under them, after
being instructed to maintain strict neutrality. In the Sherivin-Williams case,
supra, the employer was sustained in requiring its foremen to either abandon
the union or give up their supervisory jobs. This case falls in much the same
category. While a direct approach to Ward by Straus would have been more
desirable, it cannot be said that, when the actions of Straus and Jordan are
viewed together, they were not justified in insisting that Ward stop his union
activities, even to the extent of getting out of the Union, so long as he was
the assistant carpenter foreman and a supervisor representing management'-
There is some evidence that on occasions, some of the foremen and members
of the armed guards were either sitting in automobiles or loitering on the
sidewalk in the vicinity of the union meeting hall before, during, and after
union meetings, and it is alleged that thereby the Respondents have engaged
in surveillance of union meetings. The entrance to the union hall is within
about 25 feet of the main street corner in Brevard. That corner is the general
meeting place in town. The entrance to the hall adjoins a barber shop and
a news and soft drink stand. In parking cars, the immediate vicinity of the
corner referred to is most desirable. Brevard is the only town near the mills.
It is the center for shopping and social activities and is regularly visited by
employees of the Respondents who are not actual residents of Brevard. There
is nothing unusual in finding foremen, guards, or other employees in the
vicinity of the corner in question any evening. Being a very small town,
strangers in Brevard are, as in almost all other such communities, "looked
over" and commented on, as are most of the local activities, but there is nothing
in this record to justify the inference that the meeting hall was under sur-
veillance by Respondents. The same is true of some testimony that Buck
McCall, Captain of the Guards, was seen to drive several times in front of
the house of one of the union members, on the night a meeting was being held
9 Thus finding is not inconsistent with the policy of the Board that recognizes the
right of supervisors to form or join labor organizations made up solely of employees in
the supervisory classification ; but it follows the general principle that supervisory
employees, except when long established trade customs are to the contrary, may not be
included in the same bargaining unit nor be active in the same labor organization that
embraces or admits to membership those who work under them. In the light of tlif.
above decisions, the reason is obvious.
1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
there. There is nothing to indicate that, if he actually was in the car referred
to, he was standing watch over the meeting. He did not stop and did not
have an opportunity to observe anyone, for the meeting was in progress inside
the house and no one came or went when he was supposed to have been driving
in front of the house. McCall did not recall the incident but denied he had
ever held this or any other union meeting under surveillance.
The circumscribed limits of any small town bring Its people into much closer
and intimate contact, and reveal more of their activities than in the larger
cities. The "grape vine" conveys rumor and gossip with almost instantaneous
speed and relative accuracy. There is no avoiding this. The foremen and
other supervisory employees cannot be denied the right to be in the town
merely because some union organizational activity is going on. The record
does not disclose that what these men did was out of their ordinary course
of conduct and such being the case, it is found that there is no substantial
evidence of espionage or surveillance.'0
B. The discharge of William D. Brevard
William D. Brevard began his employment with Ecusta in February 1942,
and was discharged on January 9, 1945. His last day at work was January 5,
1945. At the time of his discharge he was what is known as a chlorinator
operator at a pay rate of 88 cents per hour . During the 3 years of his employ-
ment, in accordance with the general rule of the Company, he received periodic
increases both in wages and in the character of the work he was called upon
to do, having advanced from a yardman in 1942 at 45 cents an hour. On
November 23, 1944, Brevard joined the Union. A day or two later, in a con-
versation with Bullock, superintendent of the pulp mill where he was employed,
the subject of his joining the Union was brought up. At that time Bullock
told him that it did not make any difference whether he had or had not joined
the Union because it would not Interfere with his employment in any manner.
Respondents admit they had knowledge of Brevard's union membership when
he was discharged.
In the chlorinator room where Brevard was employed at the time of his
discharge, chlorine gas, which is highly dangerous If it should escape, is used
In connection with the chlorinating operation that is a part of the preparation
of the fiber from which cigarette paper is made. To guard against escape of
gas or to effect quick stoppage of an escape if a break should occur, there is
a rule that one of the two chlorinators employed in the operation must always
be present in the room. These men are not permitted to go out for their
meals and both are supposed to stay on the floor except when required to leave
for good cause. Toilet facilities are provided for them on the floor. Each
man is equipped with a gas mask which he keeps constantly at hand, and is
under orders to sound a siren If a break in the chlorine pipe should occur, so
fiat the building can be quickly evacuated. The chlorinating operation is
carried on in huge tanks that are spherical In shape and, after being filled
with the appropriate amount of fiber and chlorine solution, together with other
10 Some testimony was offered that one of the foremen reimbursed one of the employees
(Hamilton) his $2.00 initiation fee in the Union in return for his promise to withdraw.
This was denied by the foreman in question. Hamilton's testimony is not of a character
K hich fits into the general picture as reflected by the over-all record . There is no other
offer of evidence that falls in the same category or even nearly approaches it. The
writer does not credit it and cannot accept it as substantial proof of the allegation in
the complaint that Respondents offered sums of money to their employees to Induce them
to withdraw from the Union.
ECUSTA PAPER CORPORATION 1227
chemicals , are slowly revolved for a given period of time to complete that phase
of the processing of the fiber . There are several such tanks in the room
attended by the two chlorinating men, and their loading, unloading , and opera-
tion normally occupy the full attention of the operators , with occasional periods
when they have little to do but watch the operations . On the occasion leading
to his discharge, Brevard was working on the "graveyard" shift. At about
5 o'clock a. m. there came one of the periodic lulls and Brevard left the room,
walked through another department and down a flight of stairs where he
entered a vacant room formerly used as the mill office , but then unoccupied
except for a large table, on which he laid down and went to sleep . The room
was ordinarily supposed to be locked since it led to a battery of electric meters
and other electrical devices which are supposed to be handled only by the
plant electricians. While Brevard was lying on the table, one of the pulp
mill foremen, Bangs, noticed the partly opened door, looked in, wakened
lsrevard, and told him to go back to his Job The next day Bangs reported the
incident through channels to Bennett, the general superintendent. When
Brevard reported for work the following night, he was told by the guard
that he would not be permitted to enter the plant and that he was to see the
personnel manager the next work day, which was Monday. On Monday he
reported to Wells, the personnel manager, who told him he still didn't know
exactly what the situation was but was investigating it. He instructed Brevard
to go home and that he would notify hint when to return. On Tuesday Wells
called Brevard into the office and took him into the office of Thomas N Word,
the vice president and secretary-treasurer, who was acting for Straus if) tile
latter's absence. Bennett and Bullock were also present. Word told Brevard
that he had been caught sleeping on the job, reviewed previous derelictions
of a similar character with which Brevard was charged, and discharged him
Brevard contended at the hearing that he was not asleep but that he was
merely resting with his eyes open. This statement is not credited. He had
a history of having gone to sleep on the job in the past and admitted that on
one occasion he had been awakened by one of the foremen and after a repri-
mand had promised not to sleep any more during working hours. Other credible
testimony of foremen who had observed Brevard was to the effect that on one
occasion he had been found asleep on top of some lockers in the locker room,
and on another occasion had been found asleep in one of the bins in the chlorin-
ating room. As a witness Brevard was wholly unconvincing. He professed not
to know that it was the duty of every one to be on the lookout for leaks in
the chlorine lines, and admitted that he was a frequent violator of the rule
against the chlorine operators visiting the locker room which was two or
three flights down and in another part of the building, to smoke or for ail
purpose other than to get required articles out of their clothing. He further
Made the statement that he did not know it was against the rule to sleep while
he was on the job. This statement alone is enough to discredit almost any of
the witness' testimony in defense of the circumstances which led to his dis-
charge. There is no evidence that Brevard was an active member of the Union
or that he solicited memberships in the plant or otherwise brought his member-
ship in the Union into conflict with the operations of Respondents. When
the discharge was reported to Bullock and by Bullock to Bennett, the hitter
made an investigation which disclosed most of the facts above recited, after
which he reported the matter to Word who in turn conducted a further investi-
gation and queried all those who knew anything about the incident, before
acting upon it. The record is devoid of any evidence that Bievard's member-
ship in the Union played any part in bringing about the decision to discharge
1228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him. In the past, numerous other men have been discharged for similar dere-
lictions and it is fairly well known throughout the plant that sleeping on the
job is one offense for which discharge is the inevitable penalty. It is found
that Brevard was discharged for a just and proper cause, and that his member-
ship in the Union played no part in bringing about the decision to terminate
his employment.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in Section III, A, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of Respondents described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce
between the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE RE:IIEDY
It having been found that Respondents jointly and severally have interfered
with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, it will be recommended that they
cease and desist from so doing and post appropriate notices in accordance with
the form hereto attached.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
herein, the undersigned arrives at the following :
CONCLUsIOSV or' LAw
1. International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, A F of I,., is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exer-
cise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondents and each
of them have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act
3. By discharging William D. Brevai d, on January 9, 1945, Respondents and
each of them have engaged in no unfair labor practice within the meaning of
the Act,
4 The unfair labor practices above described are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and
upon the entire record, the undersigned recommends that the Respondents and
each of them, their respective otiicers. superiisory representatives, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns shall:
I Cease and desist from interieruig with, restraining, and coercing their
or any of their employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to )oin or :[saint International Brotherhood of Paper
Makers, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
ECUSTA PAPER CORPORATION 1229
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at their plants in Pisgah Forest, North Carolina, copies of the
notice attached hereto as "Appendix A." Copies of said notices to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed by
the representative of Respondents , be posted by Respondents immediately upon
receipt thereof and maintained by them for sixty (60) consecutive days in
conspicuous places in their respective plants at Pisgah Forest, North Carolina,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondents and each of them to insure that
such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other. material;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing within ten
(10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps Respondents
and each of them have taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, Respondents notify said
Regional Director in writing that they and each of them will comply with the
foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an
order requiring Respondents and each of them to take the action aforesaid.
It is further recommended that, in addition to those portions heretofore
dismissed by the undersigned, the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges.
(1) that the Respondents or any of them have kept under surveillance the
activities of their employees, and meetings and meeting places of said
employees, for the purposes of ascertaining the activities of their employees
in and on behalf of the Union; and, (2) that the Respondents or either of
them discharged and refused to reinstate William D. Brevard because said
employee joined or assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities with
other employees of the Respondent for the purposes of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or that in any other respect, the Respondents.
with reference to William D. Brevard, engaged in any act which was an unfair
labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board-Series 3, as amended, effective July 12,
1944-any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from
the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant
to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board.
Rochambeau Building, Washington, D. C., an original and four copies of a
statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report
or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all
motions or objections ) as he relies upon, together with the original and four
collies of a brief in support thereof . Immediately upon the filing of such state-
ment of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the
same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the parties arid shall file a copy
with the Regional Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should
any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board , request therefor
must be made in writing to the Board within ten ( 10) days from the date
of the order transferring the case to the Board.
It. N. DENHAM,
Trial Examiner.
Dated June 12, 1945.
1230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALI, EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO RECOMMENDATIONS OF A
TRIAL EXAMINER
of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies
of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organiza-
t ions, to join or assist International Brotherhood of Paper Makers , A. F. L.,
or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or
any other labor organization.
ECUSTA PAPER CORPORATION , CHAMPAGNE PAPER
CORPORATION , ENDLESS BELT CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated ...................... By............................................
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must
not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.