Evans Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 25, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 1423 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

HARBOR PLYWOOD DIV., EVANS PRODUCTS CO., ETC. 1423
10. All press service production employees , including the employees set forth in
paragraph 7 of the Complaint , work in the production area and are engaged in per-
forming the work set forth in Joint Exhibit entitled "Sequence of Press Service
Operations."
11. All the press service production employees , including the employees set
forth in paragraph 7 of the Complaint, use the same washrooms, locker facilities
and punch the same time clock.
12. This stipulation shall be part of the record in the hearing in this case and
findings may be made therein on the basis of this stipulation and the facts herein set
forth.
13. This stipulation is based on facts not necessarily within the knowledge of
each party and is made without prejudice to the right of any party to introduce
additional evidence material to the issues in this case, whether or not such issues
are dealt with or otherwise touched upon by the stipulation, and without prejudice
to the right of objection as to relevancy or materiality of any of the foregoing.
NEWARK , NEW JERSEY.
Date-------------------- ---------------------------------------------
(Counsel for the General Counsel, National Labor
Relations Board)
Date-------------------- ---------------------------------------------
(FRANK H. INGRAM, representing Neo Gravure Printing
Co, a subsidiary of Cuneo Press, Inc )
Date-------------------- ---------------------------------------------
(Counsel for the New York Mailers Union No. 6)
Date------ -------------- ---------------------------------------------
(Counsel for the New York Paper Handlers and
Straighteners Union No. 1)
Harbor Plywood Division , Evans Products Company ( formerly
Aberdeen Plywood & Veneers, Inc.) and Local 2901, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-
CIO. Case No. 26-CA-1145. April 25, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 12,1962, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, a
supporting brief, and a motion to reopen the record. The General
Counsel filed an opposition to the motion to reopen, and the Respond-
ent filed a response thereto.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
,136 NLRB No. 129.
1424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this.
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, as modified below.'
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner
as its Order.
'We agree with the Tiial Examiner that Charles Prince was the Respondent ' s agent
In the conduct set forth in the Intermediate Report We find it unnecessary to adopt the
Trial Examiner ' s further statement that Charles Prince ' s authority was equivalent to that
of a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
In adopting the Trial Examiner 's findings of interrogation we do not adopt his con-
jecture that "presumably " the Respondent made other inquiries . The Respondent in its
exceptions to the Intermediate Report asserts that the Trial Examiner , in crediting the
testimony of three Negro witnesses and discrediting the testimony of four white witnesses,
"either was instructed in his findings of fact or Is prejudiced against white people in
favor of Negroes ." Respondent asserts further that this "prejudice apparently Is a racial
prejudice or a prejudice against management in favor of unions " There is nothing what-
ever in the record to warrant this opprobrious and scandalous attack upon the Trial
Examiner and the Board . We think it imperative to note our condemnation of such un-
founded imputations See The Press Co, Inc. v N.L R B. (No. 7 482 ), 118 F . 2d 937, 940
(C ADC.), cert denied 313 U.S 595
The Respondent ' s motion to reopen the record is denied The testimony of Sam Jones,
which it seeks to impeach, is corroborated by other witnesses . The record supports the
Trial Examiner ' s findings.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act
(29 U.S.C. Section 151 et seq .), herein called the Act, was heard with all parties
represented before Trial Examiner Best at Memphis, Tennessee , on December 19,
1961, upon a complaint issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board on November 9, 1961, and answer filed thereto by Harbor Plywood
Division , Aberdeen Plywood & Veneers, Inc .( now Evans Products Company ), herein
called the Respondent . The complaint is based upon a charge filed on September 20,
1961 , and a first amended charge filed on October 25, 1961 , by Local 2901, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, herein called the
Union or Charging Party. The principal issues in litigation are whether the Re-
spondent on and after August 14, 1961, engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the
Act by (1) interrogating its employees concerning their union activities and mem-
bership , and (2 ) threatening its employees with discharge , loss of benefits, and other
reprisals to discourage such organizational activities.
From observation of the witnesses , and upon the entire record in the case, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Harbor Plywood Division, Evans Products Company (formerly Harbor Ply-
wood Division, Aberdeen Plywood & Veneers, Inc.) is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Washington, and operates a distribution ware-
house at 705 Corinne Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee, from which during the past 12-
month period, representative of all times material herein, it shipped goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of
Tennessee.
I find, therefore, and it is admitted, that Respondent is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Prior to October 1, 1961, supervisory employees of the Respondent included
John D. Prince, plant manager; William J. Horton, office manager; and Max Smith,
warehouse manager. Charles M. Prince, brother of the plant manager, was em-
ployed in the warehouse as a receiving clerk until promoted on October 1, 1961, to
HARBOR PLYWOOD DIV., EVANS PRODUCTS CO., ETC. 1425
the position of warehouse manager to replace Max Smith , who became a salesman.
It is clear that all were supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 ( 11) of the Act,
except Charles M. Prince prior to his promotion to warehouse manager on October
1, 1961.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union 2901, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO , is and has been at all times material herein a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of events
In Case No. 26-RC-1673 the Union filed a representation petition on August 11,
1961, copy of which was duly served upon Respondent by registered mail on August
14, 1961. Having heard a discussion in the front office about this petition , Charles
M. Prince ( receiving clerk) approached Joe Thomas Owens ( Negro employee) at
work in the warehouse about 10 a. m., and inquired what he knew about the Union.
Owens admitted that he had signed a union card , and agreed to accompany Charles
M. Prince to the office of Plant Manager John D. Prince to relate all he knew
concerning the union activities . Thereafter, in the presence of Charles M. Prince
and William J. Horton, Jr. (office manager ), Owens repeated inter alia to Plant
Manager John D. Prince that he had signed a union card at the solicitation of some
white man who came to his home several nights ago , presumed that all employees
had signed cards, but that he could only speak for himself . Then he returned
to his work, in the warehouse . Immediately following this interviewing of Owens,
Charles M. Prince approached Sam Jones (Negro employee) at work in the ware-
house and made similar inquiries as to what he knew about the Union. Jones
first denied and then admitted that he had signed a union card at the solicitation of a
man who came to his home and told him that the employees were signing up to get
a union in the plant. Following previous procedure, Charles M. Prince then escorted
Sam Jones to the office of Plant Manager John D. Prince, where this employee like-
wise repeated information elicited by Charles M. Prince. Concurrently with these
interviews , Plant Manager John D. Prince admittedly discussed the situation by long-
distance telephone with Vice President Orloff at the headquarters office of the Re-
spondent in Aberdeen, Washington , who advised him to consult a local attorney.
Robert L. Taylor was thereupon employed by the Respondent , came to the office
at noon , and conferred throughout the ensuing lunch period at Holiday Inn with
Plant Manager John D . Prince, Office Manager William J. Horton , Jr., and Receiving
Clerk Charles M. Prince. Attorney Taylor advised the plant manager not to discuss
the matter with any employees or ask them any questions about it; and later furnished
a "do and don't" list (Respondent 's Exhibit No. 3) for guidance in dealing with em-
ployees in the current situation.
Pending an election to be held on October 23, 1961 , the Respondent on two
separate occasions called and conducted group meetings with its employees on the
plant premises during working hours for the purpose of persuading them to repudiate
and vote against the Union . There is considerable conflict in testimony as to the
exact dates on which such meetings were held and as to what was said to the
employees by representatives of the Respondent . It is admitted by the Respondent,
however, that the first meeting was conducted by Plant Manager John D. Prince on
or about August 25, 1961, and that the second meeting was held approximately
1 week or 10 days prior to the election of October 23, 1961. An analysis and deter-
mination of credibility as to conflicting testimony is hereinafter set forth.
B. Interrogation of employees
It is not denied by the Respondent that on August 14, 1961 , Charles M. Prince
(receiving clerk and brother of the plant manager ) individually interrogated Negro
employees ( Joe Thomas Owens, Sam Jones , and Tommy Fields ) concerning organiza-
tional activities and membership in the Union ; and thereupon consecutively escorted
Owens and Jones into the office of Plant Manager John D. Prince to repeat the infor-
mation so divulged by them. The exact hour at which this occurred is in dispute,
and is not vital to the merits of this case, but it is contended that Charles M. Prince
was not acting as a supervisor or agent of the Respondent.
Joe Thomas Owens testified in substance that Charles M. Prince escorted him
to the office of Plant Manager John D. Prince about 2 p.m., on August 14, 1961,
where both Plant Manager Prince and Office Manager Horton were present-
that Plant Manager John D . Prince inquired "who all " had signed a union card,
1426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
specifically as to Nadine Herrol, Leonard Goodall, James Harris, and Sam Jones,
and as to where he got a card. Thereupon, he told the plant manager he thought
that everybody had signed a card, but could only speak for himself; and that he
got his card from a white man down on Thomas Street.
This witness testified in substance that after leaving the office, Warehouse Manager
Max Smith asked him whether he had signed a union card, and said:
Joe, it is just like this. If you all vote a union in here I automatically got to
fire you. I hate to fire you because you are a good worker. We can't fire all
of you at once, but we can fire you one by one; and furthermore, I am not
doing it on my say but I would have to do it on the Company say by them telling
me to. Furthermore, you should know a union cannot do you any good,
because when I was at Nickey Bros. I fired and hired when I got ready.
You know well I did. Well, it is just like this, the reason I called you away
from John B. Hayes is because if anything comes up, it would be my word
against yours, and when this election comes up I want you to vote no.
Sam Jones testified in substance that: Charles M. Prince came to his place of work
in the warehouse at approximately 2:15 p.m. on August 14, 1961, and escorted him to
the main office, where Plant Manager Prince, Office Manager Horton, and Ware-
house Manager Smith were present; after he walked into the office, Charles M.
Prince inquired whether he had signed a union card or had anybody said anything to
him about a union; he denied it, hesitated, and then said "Yes," that a fellow
had come to his house and told him the Company was getting a union and asked him
to sign a card, and he signed it; he did not know the man and at first thought
he was selling insurance, but signed the card after being told about the Union.
This witness testified further that about 3:15 p.m. the same day, after he had
returned to his work, Charles M. Prince again approached and told him that the
Company did not need a union ; that "if we should get a union , they would have to
let all of us go"; that "he did not want to let me go, because I was a good worker";
that "if I voted for a union, he would have to let me go, and that on election day I
better vote no."
Tommy Fields testified in substance that at approximately 2:30 p.m. on August 14,
1961, Charles M. Prince came to him at work in the warehouse, inquired whether
anybody had talked to him about a union and whether he had signed a union card;
that after receiving an affirmative answer, Charles M. Prince said
Fields, I will put it to you this way, if you all vote a union in here we are going
to have to get rid of all of you old hands, and get some new ones. I can't get
you all at once, but I can get you one by one. It is my word against yours.
C. Respondent's first meeting with employees
After consulting its attorney and being furnished with the so-called "do and don't"
list, it is admitted by the Respondent that at 4:45 p.m. on an uncertain date in the
latter part of August 1961, it assembled all warehouse employees in front of the
shipping office for the purpose of persuading them to abandon and repudiate the
Union. Among those present were Plant Manager John D. Prince, Office Manager
William J. Horton, Jr., Warehouse Manager Max Smith, Receiving Clerk Charles M.
Prince, and Johnny Clark (white employee from the finishing room). All others
present were Negro warehouse laborers, equipment operators, and truckdrivers.
Joe Thomas Owens testified in substance that: This first assembly of employees
was called and conducted by the Respondent at the warehouse shipping office about
4:45 p.m. on August 14, 1961; Charles M. Prince made a speech to the assembled
employees in which he told them that if they voted a union in they would get no
more holidays and vacations with pay; he (Prince) had previously been a union
employee, but all the union did was take his money, and there were 12 ways for the
union to get your money; Plant Manager John D. Prince also spoke and told the
employees that they would get no more paid holidays and vacations with pay if they
voted the Union in, and if they should go on strike, he would get a new group of
men to work just the same, while they were walking the picket line; Johnny Clark
(white employee) also spoke and told the employees that the Union could not do
them any good, and that he had previously been out of work when working under
a union.
Sam Jones testified in substance that: This first meeting with employees was called
and conducted by the Respondent about 4:45 p m. on August 14, 1961, at the
shipping office in the warehouse; Charles M. Prince told the employees that they
did not need a union, and would be paying money for nothing; he (Prince) had been
in a union, and it did not good for him; Plant Manager John D. Prince also made
a speech about the Union, and told the employees there would be no paid holidays
HARBOR PLYWOOD DIV., EVANS PRODUCTS CO., ETC. 1427
and vacations for them if they got a union; the Union would not last 6 months; he
would cut doors himself; truckdrivers would be sent home when a job was finished
and could not be shifted to other work in the plant; and Johnny Clark (white
employee) told the employees that he had been laid off in a former job when they
tried to get a union.
Tommy Fields testified in substance that: Employees were first assembled by the
Respondent at a meeting near the shipping office about 4:45 p.m. on August 14,
1961; Charles M. Prince made the first speech in which he told employees about his
experience with a union, saying that he had belonged to a union for several years,
and it did him no good, nothing but paying out money; Plant Manager Prince spoke
next, saying that he had heard rumors about a union around here, that he had been
mighty nice to all the boys and felt that they should have come to him with the
problems they had; they would not get any paid holidays and vacations if they got
a union, and could not be switched from one job to another as they had been in
the past.
D. Second assembly of employees
It is admitted by the Respondent that it posted a notice on the bulletin board about
10 days or 2 weeks prior to the representation election held on October 23, 1961,
calling for a meeting of all warehouse employees, and that Plant Manager John D.
Prince conducted such a meeting in the main office at 4:45 p.m. on the specified date.
Joe Thomas Owens testified in substance that Plant Manager John D. Prince did
all of the talking at this second meeting, but could not remember what was said
except that employees were told the same thing about taking away paid holidays
and vacations; and recalled that Max Smith, Bill Horton, Mr Walter, Miss Rachel,
and another lady were present, in addition in the warehouse employees.'
Sam Jones testified in substance that Plant Manager John D. Prince did all the
talking at this second meeting, and presented some newspaper articles about unions
to show the employees why the Union was no good.
Tommy Fields testified in substance that all employees attended the second meet-
ing, but does not remember much about it except that Plant Manager John D Prince
did all the talking and presented a newspaper clipping, something about a union,
and passed it around for employees to read.
E. Testimony for Respondent
Charles M. Prince, warehouse manager since October 1, 1961, testified in sub-
stance that: He is a brother of Plant Manager John D. Prince and was employed by
the Respondent on salary as receiving clerk in its warehouse from June or July 1960
to October 1, 1961, when he was promoted to warehouse manager to succeed Max
Smith; as receiving clerk be was responsible for checking in materials for cars and
trucks, seeing that it was done right, and would tell the colored employees where to
put such materials , but had no authority to hire or fire employees or to effectively
recommend such action; he passed through the main office about 9-9:30 am on
August 14, 1961, and overheard some discussion by Plant Manager John D. Prince,
Office Manager William J. Horton, Jr., and other members of the regular office force
about the Union, but did not know what was going on; he went on to his work in
the warehouse, and thereafter about 10 or 10:30 a.m. (without instructions from
anyone) voluntarily went to Joe Owens and Sam Jones, and inquired whether they
had heard anything about a union. After learning from each the circumstances under
which they had been solicited and had signed union cards, he requested each man
to relate these events to Plant Manager John D. Prince; and separately escorted each
to the front office where both the plant manager and office manager were present;
but that he does not remember that either of these employees were asked any ques-
tions by John D. Prince and Horton. This witness further testified that: At noon
thereafter he went out to a luncheon conference with the plant manager, office
manager, and Attorney Taylor, during which the union situation was discussed; after
the lunch period, he returned to the plant, and the plant manager went jug-fishing
with a friend from the Yacht Club, and did not return to the plant that afternoon;
no meeting with employees was held on August 14, 1961, but that he attended such
a meeting in front of the shipping office about 2 or 3 weeks later at which he told
the assembled employees about his being a member of the Union for 7 years and it
did not do too much for him, and so forth. This witness further testified that an-
other such meeting of employees was held on a Wednesday about I month later
i Charles M Prince did not attend this meeting.
641795-63-vol. 136-91
1428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
either on Wednesday before or 2 weeks before the election of October 23, 1961, but
he was absent from the plant at that time and did not attend.
Plant Manager John D. Prince testified in substance that: The original Respondent
herein is now merged with and has become the Harbor Plywood Division of Evans
Products Company; prior to October 1, 1961, Max Smith was warehouse manager
with 12 to 16 employees under his supervision, including salesmen; William J.
Horton, Jr., is credit and office manager in charge of all clerical work, including
payrolls, paperwork, correspondence , and timekeeping; and his brother, Charles M.
Prince, was receiving clerk in the warehouse prior to October 1, 1961, when pro-
moted to warehouse manager to succeed Max Smith upon his transfer to sales.
This witness testified further that: On the morning of August 14, 1961, Respondent
received a copy of the union representation petition through the mail, whereupon he
discussed the matter with Horton and called the company headquarters office at
Aberdeen, Washington, about 10 a m.; thereafter about 10:15 a.m. Charles M.
Prince came (consecutively) into the office with Joe Owens and Sam Jones, while
he was trying to contact Vice President Orloff by telephone, and each related the
circumstances under which they had signed union cards, but he did not interrogate or
threaten either Joe Owens, Sam Jones, or Tommy Fields concerning the union
activities; about that time Vice President Orloff advised him by telephone to contact
a local attorney, and he got in touch with Attorney Robert L. Taylor; Attorney Taylor
came to his office at noon, and they went out to lunch at the Holiday Inn; Attorney
Taylor advised him not to discuss the matter with employees and subsequently fur-
nished a "do and don't" list for his guidance in dealing with the employees; he
returned to the office from lunch, and then rushed off to the Yacht Club to go jug-
fishing, and did not come back to the plant until 9 a.m. next day. John D. Prince
further testified that no meeting with employees was held on August 14, 1961, but
that he did call and conduct such a meeting at 5 p.m., on or about August 25, 1961,
at which he followed his "do and don' t" list in explaining to employees the various
benefits given to them by the Respondent and what they could expect; and told the
employees that he preferred to deal directly with them rather than through some
bargaining agent who did not have their best interests at heart and would be looking
for dues and money from them; that at this meeting , Charles M. Prince told the
employees about experiences he had for a period of 7 years as a member of Local 345
of the Carpenters Union; Johnny Clark (white employee) told them how long he
was out of work on account of a union; and a Negro truckdriver (Jones) said to them,
"I don't want any part of it, and you boys better think a long time before you get
in it"; but that he (Prince) did not threaten to take anything away from the
employees. Plant Manager Prince further testified that by notice on the bulletin
board, he called and conducted a second meeting with employees about 10 days to 2
weeks before the election of October 23, 1961, at which he passed around two article
clippings from the Wall Street Journal concerning (1) a libel suit brought by one
union against another and (2) a fine of $500 imposed against an employee by a union
in Wisconsin for doing too much work; that he again followed his "do and don't"
list, discussing everything therein that he was familiar with and omitting anything that
he did not understand; that he requested the employees to say anything they desired,
but did not interrogate or threaten them in any way whatever.
Office Manager William J. Horton, Jr., testified in substance that: A copy of the
union petition was received in the main office of Respondent about 8:15 a.m. on
August 14, 1961, and Charles M. Prince passed through the office while he was
discussing this matter with Plant Manager John D. Prince; about 9 a.m. Charles M.
Prince and Joe Owens came into the plant manager's office, where Owens related
how he had signed a card at the solicitation of a union representative in his home,
and then left; about 15 minutes later Charles M. Prince returned to the office with
Sam Jones and went through the same procedure; the telephone rang about that
time, and Plant Manager Prince went out to talk with his boss at the home office
on the west coast; Attorney Taylor came to the office about noon , and they all went
out to lunch together at the Holiday Inn and thereafter returned to the plant office:
the Attorney left after a few minutes, and Plant Manager Prince immediately left
to go fishing about 1:30 or 2 p.m., and no meeting with employees was held that
day, but approximately 10 days or 2 weeks later Plant Manager Prince did conduct
such a meeting at which no one threatened to deprive employees of their holidays
or vacations with pay; at this meeting Plant Manager Prince used as an outline the
"do and don't" list furnished by Attorney Taylor, reviewed the benefits, paid vaca-
tions, adequate wages, insurance , etc., afforded to its employees by the Respondent,
compared such benefits with those offered at other companies, and told employees
that he preferred to deal individually with them rather than through a third party,
and that it would be a disadvantage for them to deal through a third party; they
would have to pay dues and would lose income in event of a strike; Charles M.
HARBOR PLYWOOD DIV., EVANS PRODUCTS CO., ETC. 1429
Prince made a speech in which he related his unfavorable experiences with a union.
and Johnny Clark made a few comments about his experiences also. This witness
testified further that Respondent, pursuant to posted notice on the bulletin board,
called and conducted a second meeting of employees at 4:45 p m., about 1 week
before the election of October 23, 1961, at which a sample of the ballot was dis-
played, and Plant Manager John D. Prince presented two clippings from the Wall
Street Journal concerning a fine or assessment levied by a union. Horton further
testified that he himself made no remarks at any meeting with employees, and had
never heard any supervisor interrogate or threaten the employees at any time, and
that both meetings were entirely educational in tone.
Warehouse Manager Max Smith (salesman since October 1, 1961), testified in
substance that: Charles M. Prince worked as receiving clerk under his supervision
and had no authority to hire or fire employees or to assign anyone to work; he
has never interrogated Joe Owens, Sam Jones, or Tommy Fields about their union
activities or threatened them with the loss of benefits or other reprisals; the only
thing he said in any comment was that it was immaterial whether a man belonged
to a union or not; if an employee did a good job he would stay and if he did not, he
would go; he knew when Joe Owens and Sam Jones were in the plant manager's
office on August 14, 1961, because it was his duty as a supervisor to keep up with
the whereabouts of the men, but was not consulted about it by anyone; no meeting
of employees was held that afternoon, but he was present at such a meeting about
a week after August 14, 1961, and heard what was said to the employees by John D.
Prince and Charles M. Prince; Plant Manager Prince enumerated the benefits given
to employees, and said that Respondent was treating all employees "good," even
better than a lot of companies treated them, and inquired whether anyone else de-
sired to say anything; and Charles M. Prince and Johnny Clark related their ex-
periences with the Union, and Sylvester Jones (truckdriver) spoke up and said:
"I don't want any part of it." Smith testified further that he first found out that
the Union was trying to get in at Harbor Plywood on Monday, August 14, 1961,
when a copy of the petition arrived in the mail, and he overheard a discussion about
it while passing through the office about 9:30 or 10 o'clock that morning On cross-
examination Smith admitted that prior to employment with the Respondent he was
a supervisor for Nickey Brothers, where Joe Owens was also employed, but not
under his supervision.
Concluding Findings
From the preponderance of evidence in this case, I find that on August 14, 1961,
Respondent's receiving clerk, Charles M. Prince (brother of Plant Manager John D.
Prince) interrogated employees of the Respondent (Joe T. Owens and Sam Jones)
concerning their union activities, and thereafter separately escorted each of them
to the office of Plant Manager John D. Prince for further investigation and report
thereon; that Plant Manager John D. Prince and Office Manager William J
Horton, Jr., were present, passively participated in such interviews in the office of
the plant manager, and voluntarily accepted, condoned, and ratified the interroga-
tion made by Charles M. Prince, and presumably made inquiries of their own to
elicit information with respect to the organizational activities of Respondent's em-
ployees; that following such interviews and interrogation, Respondent later utilized
and accepted the services of Charles M. Prince in conferences with its attorney and
at a meeting with employees to relate his unfavorable experiences as a former mem-
ber of the Union. I, therefore, conclude and find that Charles M. Prince was a
duly authorized agent of the Respondent and that the Respondent is responsible and
liable for interference, restraint, or coercion of employees engaged in by Charles
M Prince. Under the circumstances of this case I am convinced and find that the
duties and authority exercised by Charles M. Prince as receiving clerk prior to his
promotion to warehouse manager on October 1, 1961, and thereafter, were equiva-
lent to those of a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. I find,
therefore, that by interrogatively interviewing Joe T. Owens and Sam Jones on
August 14, 1961, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in their exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act within the
meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. I credit the substantive testimony of
Joe T. Owens to the effect that within a few minutes after he left the office of the
plant manager on August 14, 1961, Warehouse Manager Max Smith came to him
to inquire about his signing a union card and told him in substance that the Union
could not do the employees any good, and if they voted in a union the Respondent
would automatically get rid of them one by one. I credit the substantive testimony
of Sam Jones that Charles M. Prince came to him later during the afternoon of
August 14, 1961, told him the Company did not need a union, and would have to
let all employees go, if they got a union. I also credit substantive testimony of
1430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tommy Fields that Charles M. Prince came to him on August 14, 1961, and in-
quired whether he had signed a union card, and said that if they voted in a union
the Respondent would have to get rid of the old hands and get some new ones. I
find, therefore, that by the aforesaid threats of Charles M. Prince and Warehouse
Manager Max Smith to the effect that Respondent would get rid of employees if
they got a union, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Administrative records and testimony offered by the Respondent show that James
Harris, Jr. (employee), was terminated on Friday, August 11, 1961, for charging
the employer with excessive hours worked on out-of-town trips (Respondent's Ex-
hibit No. 4), was notified of such termination when he reported to the plant for
work on Monday, August 14, 1961, and was delivered a separation notice by Ware-
house Manager Max Smith at the plant on Tuesday, August 15, 1961. Basing their
recollection on the incident of the termination of this employee, witnesses for the
General Counsel positively testified that the first meeting with employees was called
and conducted by the Respondent near the shipping office in the warehouse at
4:45 p.m. on August 14, 1961. Credible testimony offered by the Respondent did
not fix the exact date of such meeting, but I am convinced and find therefrom that
the first meeting was held after August 14, 1961, and on or about August 25, 1961.
While discrediting testimony of witnesses for the General Counsel as to the date
of this meeting, I credit certain substantive testimony of Joe T. Owens, Sam Jones,
and Tommy Fields with respect to conduct engaged in by representatives of the
Respondent at the first meeting of employees on or about August 25, 1961. I credit
testimony of Joe T. Owens to the effect that both Charles M. Prince and Plant
Manager John D Prince told the assembled employees that if they voted for a
union they would not get any more holidays and vacations with pay. I credit the
testimony of Sam Jones to the effect that Plant Manager John D. Prince told the
assembled employees that if they got a union the employees could not be shifted
from one job to another to keep them at work, that upon finishing a lob the truck-
drivers would be sent home, and that they would get no holidays and vacations with
pay. I also credit testimony of Tommy Fields to the effect that Plant Manager
Prince told the assembled employees that if they got a union the employees could
not be shifted from job to job, and would not get any paid vacations or holidays.
I find, therefore, that by threats of reprisal and loss of benefits previously enjoyed,
the Respondent on or about August 25, 1961, interfered with, restrained, and co-
erced its employees in their exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
With respect to the second meeting of employees called and conducted by the
Respondent approximately 10 days preceding the election on October 23, 1961,
I find the testimony offered by the General Counsel insufficient to support a finding
of further violations of the Act It appears that Plant Manager John D Prince did
all of the talking, displayed a sample copy of the ballot and newspaper clippings
from the Wall Street Journal, but none of the witnesses could remember specifically
any statements made by him at that meeting.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of the Respondent described in section 1, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce amon t
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, it will be
recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local Union 2901, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, as found above, the Respondent has
HARBOR PLYWOOD DIV., EVANS PRODUCTS CO., ETC. 1431
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact , conclusions of law, and the entire
record in the case , it is recommended that the Respondent , Harbor Plywood Divi-
sion , Evans Products Company (formerly Aberdeen Plywood & Veneers, Inc.), its
officers, agents , successors , and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
( a) Interrogating its employees concerning their organizational activities and/or
threatening them with loss of wages and benefits or other economic reprisals if
they assist , or become or remain members of, Local 2901, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, or any other labor ' organization,
or if they engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self -organization , to form, join or assist labor
organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities ex-
cept to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Post at its offices and warehouses and other places of business in Memphis,
Tennessee , copies of the notice attached here to marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of
such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-sixth Region
of the National Labor Relations Board, shall , after being duly signed by Respond-
ent's representative , be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof
and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps and
measures shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-sixth Region , in writing , within
20 days from receipt hereof , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply with
this Recommended Order?
2 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words "A De-
cision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner" In the notice ; and if the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United
States Court of Appeals , the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision
and Order."
'In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision shall
be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing , within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their organizational
activities , or threaten them with loss of wages , benefits, or other economic re-
prisals if they assist , or become or remain members of , Local 2901, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form, join,
or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of
1432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from
any or all such activities except to the extent that such rights may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment , as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
HARBOR PLYWOOD DIVISION, EVANS
PRODUCTS COMPANY ( FORMERLY
ABERDEEN PLYWOOD & VENEERS,
INC. ),
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 7th
Floor Falls Building, 22 North Front Street, Memphis, Tennessee , Telephone
Number Jackson 7-5451 , if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
Alberto Culver Company and Local 1608, Furniture and Wood-
workers Union . Cases Nos. 13-CA-3746, 13-CA-3940, 13-CA-
4030, and 13-CA-4357. April 25, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 30, 1961, Trial Examiner George L. Powell issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent
had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices.
Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Charging
Party also filed exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and the briefs, and the entire record
in these consolidated cases,' and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following
modifications.
1 We deny the Respondent' s motion to incorporate in the record herein the record made
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois as the result of
which a temporary order issued on November 17, 1961, restraining the Respondent from
violations of 8(a ) ( 1) and ( 5) of the Act ( 49 LRRM 2516 ). We agree with the General
Counsel that Respondent has had ample opportunity to present evidence in the cases now
before the Board, and we deem the record herein adequate to dispose of the issues.
136 NLRB No. 115.