Reynolds International Pen Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 30, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 932 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of REYNOLDS INTERNATIONAL PEN COMPANY and
FOUNTAIN PEN AND PENCIL MAKERS' UNION, LOCAL 18318,
A. F. OF L.
Case No. 13-C- 765.-Decided August 30, 1946
Mr. Benjamin B. Salvaty, Jr., for the Board. '
Gottlieb and Schwartz, of Chicago Ill-., by Messrs. Harry Schulmaan
and Harry Levi, for the respondent.
Messrs. Nick Cortese and Earl Kaiser, and Mrs. Nellie Knie, of
Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
Miss Anne E. F'reelvng, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
-On May 20, 1946, Trial Examiner Isadore Greenberg issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that the respondent cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the respond-
ent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The respondent also requested an -opportunity to argue orally before
the Board at Washington, D. C. Oral" argument was scheduled for
August 1, 1946. Prior to that date, however, the respondent notified
the Board that it withdrew its request for oral argument. No other
party having requested oral argument, none was held.
The $oard has considered the rulings,made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Trial Examiner's conclusions rest
largely upon his findings as to the credibility of witnesses. The re-
spondent has excepted to these findings. We are not bound by the
Trial Examiner's credibility findings, but inasmuch as the Trial Ex-
aminer had an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses
as they testified, and inasmuch as his findings are supported by the
record, we shall accept them. , The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in the
70 N L. R B, No. 73 I
932
REYNOLDS INTERNATIONAL PEN COMPANY 933
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the following additions.
1. The Trial Examiner states in his Intermediate Report that the
respondent's answer, as amended at the hearing, alleged that the
respondent discharged employees Bullard and Lingle, and refused to
reinstate them, "because of their inefficiency, unreliability, insub-
ordination, inability to cooperate with other employees, and because
they improperly caused work stoppages." The Trial Examiner
should have stated that the respondent' s answer, as amended, alleged,
in addition that the respondent discharged Bullard and Lingle be-
cause of "other good causes." We have considered all the contentions
advanced by the respondent as to its justification for the discharges
and find them to be without merit.
2. Bullard and Lingle had been employed in the respondent' s point
room on the night shift. They were discharged on January 21, 1946.
The respondent discontinued the night shift in the point room on Feb-
ruary 5, 1946, and, on March 5, 1946, discontinued the night shift
entirely. The respondent contends in its exceptions that Bullard and
Lingle "would have had no basis for claiming any right of transfer
to the day shift," and, further, that back pay, if awarded over its
objection, should run only to the date when "the night shift of the
Point Room was discontinued."
The respondent has presented no figures as to the number of persons
employed during each of the periods in question. Nor has it presented
any evidence as to how many night-shift employees were transferred
to the day shift, or as to the basis on which it selected night-shift
employees for transfer to the day shift. The respondent admitted
at the hearing, however, that, after discontinuance of the night shift
in the point room, its day shift was operating more machines of the
type that Bullard and Lingle had operated than was formerly the
case on the day and night shifts combined. Bullard and Lingle had
expressed to the respondent their willingness to work on the day shift.
They were competent employees. We conclude that the record does
not sustain the respondent's contention that Bullard and Lingle would
have lost their jobs in any event as a result of the discontinuance of
the night shift. We shall therefore adopt the Trial Examiner's
recommendation that Bullard and Lingle be ordered reinstated with
back pay from January 21, 1946, the date on which- the respondent
discriminatorily discharged them, to the date of offer of reinstatement,
as provided hereinafter.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Reynolds International
Pen Company, Chicago, Illinois, and,its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Fountain Pen and Pencil Makers'
Union, Local 18318, A. F. of L., or in any other labor organization
of its employees, by discharging, laying off, or refusing to reinstate
any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in re-
gard to their hire or tenure of employment"or any term or condition
of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Fountain Pen and Pencil Makers'
Union, Local 18318, 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 purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act;
(a) Offer to Margaret Bullard and Elsie Lingle immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges,
and make said employees whole for any loss of pay that they may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, by pay-
ment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which each
normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discrim-
inatory discharge to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement,
less her net earnings during that period;
(b) Post at its plant in Chicago, Illinois, copies of the notice at-
tached to the Intermediate Report, marked "Appendix A." 1 Copies.
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Thir-
teenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent, be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it
for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted:
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said-
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
' Said notice, however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first para
graph thereof the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" and substituting in-
lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order."
REYNOLDS INTERNATIONAL PEN COMPANY 935
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Benjamin B. Salvaty, Jr., Esq., for the Board
Gottlieb and Schwartz, of Chicago, Ill., by Hairy Schulman, Esq, and Harry
Levi, Esq., for the respondent.
llr. Nick Cortese, Mr. Earl Kasen, and Mrs Nellie Knie, of Chicago, Ill., for
the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by Fountain Pen and Pencil Makers' Union,
Local 18318, A. F. of L., herein called the Union. the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region
(Chicago, Illinois), issued its complaint dated March 22, 1946, against Reynolds
International I'en Company, herein called the respondent. alleging that the re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 5 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat 449, herein called the Act. Copies
of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served on the respondent
and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance
that the respondent had interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by advising, urging,
threatening, warning, and discouraging its employees against affiliation with or
activities on behalf of the Union, and by questioning employees about their union
affiliation The complaint further alleges that the respondent had, on or about
January 21, 1946, discharged Elsie Lingle and Margaret Bullard, and since that
time gas failed and refused to reinstate them, because of their affiliation with
and activities on behalf of the Union. and because they had engaged in con-
certed activities with other employees of the respondent, for purl.oses of collective
bargaining and other mutual aid and protection
In its answer, dated April 1. 1946, and amended orally at the hearing on April
11. 1946, the respondent denies that it has committed any unfair labor practices,
and alleges that it discharged Elsie Lingle and Margaret Bullard, and has since
refused to reinstate them because of their inefficiency, unreliability, insubordina-
tion, inability to cooperate with other employees, and because they improperly
caused work stoppages.
On April 5, 1946, the respondent filed a motion fora bill of particulars with
the Regional Director`, which the latter referred to the Trial Examiner The
undersigned, at the hearing, granted the motion in part In compliance with
his order, counsel for the Board, on April 9, 1946, furnished counsel for, respond-
ent with a list of the representatives of the respondent alleged to have committed
the unfair labor practices complained of. The respondent thereafter filed a
motion to strike paragraphs 6 and 7 from the complaint on the ground that such
paragraphs fail to allege any facts sufficient to constitute a violation of the
Act This motion was denied. At the hearing, also, the respondent filed an
application with the undersigned for a subpoena duces tecum requiring the
Union to produce all its books and records, particularly those showing sources
of its income, and disbursements for rental of premises. The application was
refused.
936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on April 9, 10, 11, 12, and 15, 1946, at
Chicago, Illinois, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated_
by the Chief Trial Examiner The Board and the respondent were represented
by counsel ; the Union by lay representatives. Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues, was afforded all parties.
At the close of the hearing, a motion of counsel for the Board to conform the
pleadings to the proof was granted without objection. Although afforded an
opportunity to do so, none of the parties argued orally. The respondent filed
a brief with the undersigned. ,
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses.
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, an Illinois corporation, has its principal office and place of
business in Chicago, Illinois, where it is engaged in the manufacture' and sale
of fountain pens. The principal raw materials' used by the respondent are
aluminum, steel balls, and ink During the period from November 1, 1945, to
March 31, 1946, the respondent's purchases of raw materials exceeded $10,000,
some of which was shipped to it from points outside the State of Illinois
During the same period the respondent's sales were in excess of $75,000, of
which more than 50 percent was shipped by the respondent to points outside the
State of Illinois.3
The respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Fountain Pen and Pencil Makers' Union, Local 18318, A. F. of L., is a labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent.'
II[. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
During the period herein discussed, about 20 to 22 employees constituted the
night shift of the ball-point department of the respondent's plant. This depart-
ment is housed in a room in the plant, separated by a curtain and a locked gate
from the rest of the premises, in order that persons unauthorized to enter may
be kept out of the department, which performs operations which the respondent
seeks to keep secret.
On Saturday, January 5, 1946, Earl Kaiser, then acting as the foreman of the
night shift in the ball-point department, informed his subordinates that be was
being demoted. This announcement stirred up considerable unrest and discus-
sion among the employees, because there had been rumors of impending wage
reductions for some time preceding January 5, and the employees feared that
Kaiser's reported demotion presaged a decrease in their own rates of pay. As a
%The•respondent assembles fountain pens from parts purchased bti- it from other manu-
facturers. 1
2 As used herein the term "raw materials" refers to the component parts used by the re-
spondent in the assembly of fountain pens
3 The findings in this section are based upon a stipulation entered Into at the hearing
* The above finding is based on uncontroverted evidence introduced at the hearing. The
respondent did not concede that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act.
REYNOLDS INTERNATIONAL PEN COMPANY 937
result of the discussion that night, employee Helen Fisher sought to find General
Manager Siegfried Fleishhacker, who is in general charge of the whole plant,
and to have him "come back and talk to [the employees of the ball-point depart-
ment] and see if we could not have the thing straightened out."' When Fisher
reported to the employees that Fleishhacker was not in the plant, employee Mar-
garet Bullard suggested that they walk out. All the employees of the depart-
ment except one thereupon punched out their time cards and left the plant,
leaving word with Foreman Kaiser that they would gather at a nearby cafe,
and requesting that lie inform Fleishhacker that the girls would like to see him.
Fleishhacker did not appear, although the girls waited for some hours. While
waiting, employee Elsie Lingle telephoned the plant and inquired of Night
Superintendent Feinberg whether Fleishhacker was there ; she was informed
that he had left The employees finally decided to seek the aid of a labor organi-
zation, and upon getting in touch with the local officers of the American Federa-
tion of Labor, were referred to its affiliate, the Union herein involved On the
Monday afternoon (January 7) following the walk-out, about 18 of the employees
who had left work met with representatives of the Union, at which meeting all
of them signed applications for membership therein Union application cards,
to be used in soliciting membership among the rest of the employees in the plant,
were distributed among those in attendance, with instructions to circulate them
among the employees during lunch periods and before and after work Fisher,
Bullard and Lingle were designated as a temporary organizing committee After
some discussion, and upon. the advice of the union representatives, the girls
decided to return to work in time for that night's shift. After the girls returned
to work, the Union carried on an organizational campaign among the respond-
ent's employees by distributing handbills to them on three or four occasions, and
by soliciting membership in the plant through those of the girls who had joined
the Union.'
B Intei ten once, restraint, and coercion
1. Sequence of events
On the morning (Sunday. January 6) before the above-described union meet-
mg, Fisher telephoned General Manager Fleishhacker and asked him whether
"she had a job," to which Fleishhacker replied that if Fisher reapplied for
employment lie would give her a job, but that "Marge Bullard and her girl friend
were the instigators of the girls walking out. and that they were going to be
fired
5 The above quotation is from the undenied testimony of Helen Fisher, which the under-
signed credits
"The findings as to the events above narrated are based upon the undenied testimony of
Fisher, Bullard, Lingle. and Cortese, the latter of whom is president of the Union These
witnesses testified in detail , and their testimony agreed in all essentials . These witnesses
impressed the undersigned as being straightforward and truthful . The undersigned credits
their testimony.
7 The findings as to the above conversation aie based upon the credited testimony of
Fishes. Fleishhacker's testimony with reference to this conversation differs from Fisher's
in that he testified that he asked Fisher who the trouble makers' were "because Feinberg
told me that Saturday night n * * that Elsie Lingle and Marge Bullard were the
tiouble makers before that" In his testimony he did not relate having threatened to
discharge these two employees, but neither did he deny having made this threat. The
undersigned finds that he did so. 0
The refei ence made by Fleishhacker to "Marge Bullard and her girl friend" is, in the
light of the entire record, clearly to Bullard and Elsie Lingle, and the undersigned so
finds In Fleishhacker's version of this conversation, as related on the witness-stand, he
referred to Bullard and Lingle by name as the "trouble makers " and it is plain from
the entire record that he placed the blame for the walk-out on these two employees
938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon 'their return to work on Monday evening , January 7, the girls who had
engaged in the walk -out met in front of the plant, and , pursuant to an agree-
ment which they had reached ,- entered it together . They were directed to come
into Fleishhacker 's office, where , in addition to the latter , Day Superintendent
Heil' was also present. Heil remarked that "it looks like this place is pretty
well organized . Somebody here knows a lot about wild-cat strikes ." Then,
indicating Bullard and Lingle, he added , "You two worked at Dodge. You
should know a lot about strikes."' Fleishhacker thereupon asked Bullard and
Lingle to leave the room , saying that - he wished to speak to the rest of the girls
alone , but the employees objected to having two of their number thus singled
out, and, as a group, told Fleishhacker that if all of them were not reinstated
to their jobs , none would return to work 10 All the employees then were permitted
to return to their jobs
Upon their resumption of work that night, the night -shift employees of the
ball-point department were introduced to their new foreman , Robert Andre,
who replaced Kaiser in that position . During the course of work that night,
Andre noticed a blank union application card lying next to Fisher ' s machine.
8 Hell had general supervision of the plant during the day shift. Feinberg, who has
been previously referred to as night superintendent, was Heil's opposite number during
the night shift Both were directly responsible to General Manager Fleishhacker
0 The above quotations are from the' testimony of Bullard Fisher and Lingle gave
testimony in substantial agreement with that of Bullard with respect to Hell's remarks
on this occasion Respondent's witnesses, Levi, Fleishhacker and Hell testified that Hell's
statements during this conversation were to the effect that he knew that some of the girls
had worked in the Chicago Dodge plant, and that the walk-out would not have been
tolerated in that plant because it was unionized As is noted below (footnote 10), Levi
was not in the same room with the girls, Fleishhacker, and Heil. and though he testified
that lie could overhear everything that was said in Fleislihacker's office, the undersigned
is of the opinion that his testimony as to what was said to the girls in the office is not
as reliable as that of credible witnesses who were in a better position to hear what was
said to them The undersigned has previously found that Bullard , Lingle, and Fisher
were trustworthy witnesses He -credits their version of Heil's remarks Heil knew of
Bullard's and Lingle's previous employment in the Dodge plant, which was unionized,
and remarked on that fact when they applied for employment with the respondent
Further support for the finding that Heil, on this occasion, made the remarks-attributed
to him by Bullard, Fisher, and Lingle, is to be found in the fact that on a later occasion.
discussed hereinafter, Heil made substantially similar statements about Bullard and
Lingle, when, agreeing with Fleishhacker's statement that they were the real trouble
makers in the point room, Heil added that "they knew what it was all about. they weren't
so dumb . . .
10 The findings above made are based upon the credited testimony of Fisher, Bullard,
and Lingle
Fleishhacker denied that during the above-described discussion he had at any time
asked any of the employees to leave the room while he talked to the others In this
denial he was corroborated by Hell, and by the respondent's vice president, Julian Levi,
who testified that lie heard and observed the discussion from a position immediately
outside Fleishhacker's office, next to an open window in a partition forming part of the
office . 'As between Fisher, Bullard, and Lingle, and Fleishhacker and Heil, the former
three impressed the undersigned as being the more credible witnesses Levi, who was not
in the same room as the approximately 20 people directly participating in the gathering,
may very well have failed to overhear part of the conversation The undersigned further
notes that Fleishhacker, in testifying with respect to this occurrence, in part contradicted
himself. Thus, when asked on direct examination whether, at the time of the gathering
in his office he "figure[d] out any gills who were present in [the] office were ring leaders,"
he answered in the negative Yet, in his immediately preceding, testimony, he stated that
he had asked Fisher, (luring their telephone conversation the day before, whether Bullard
and Lingle were not "the trouble makers " In view of the facts that both Heil and
Fleishhacker had from the beginning singled out Bullard and Lingle as the leaders of
the employees' concerted activities, and that the respondent justifies their subsequent
discharge in great part on the basis of their being the instigators of the walk-out, it is
found that Fleishhacker did, on the occasion under discussion, attempt to "weed out" these
two employees before reinstating the group in the respondent's employ.
REYNOLDS, INTERNATIONAL PEN COMPANY 939
He picked it up, examined it, and said,to Fisher, "If you join that, all you are
helping is Eversharp."" During the lunch hour the same night, Andre also
told Bullard that he was aware of the fact that "they were trying to get'a union
in and everything [they] did was only helping our competitor, Eversharp." 1g
During the ensuing few days, Andre aroused considerable resentment among
his subordinates by conducting himself toward them in a generally rough and
overbearing"manner.1 As a result of this resentment, Fisher, who had acted as
spokesman for the employees on several previous occasions," was approached by
many of the employees, who voiced their complaints to her, and asked her whether
they could not obtain representation from the Union in seeking redress of their
grievances against A°ndre.16 During the afternoon of Wednesday or Thursday
(January 9 or 10). Fisher telephoned Fleishhacker and explaned that she felt
that she could no longer sustain the responsibility placed upon her as a result
of the girls looking to her for leadership, and that she was therefore quitting
her job with the respondent. Fleishhacker answered, "What do you want to
quit for? If the girls all lean to you to lead them, you know you could make your-
self a pretty nice position with the company. We need a girl like you for a lead
lady." When Fisher replied that she was not interested in this proposition,
Fleishhacker urged that Fisher permit him to see her at her home. Fisher
consented to meet him at a street corner near her home, explaining that her
husband was opposed to her getting "mixed up in any of this labor movement."
Later that afternoon, Fleishhacker met Fisher, and the two had a further con-
versation in the former's automobile. During this conversation, Fleishhacker
asked Fisher which union she had joined, how many of the employees had joined,
and informed her that he and Reynolds, president of the respondent, did not
want a union in the plant and would fight it all the way. He again urged Fisher
to return to work, saying that "he could use a girl like [her] in the factory as
long as the girls would listen to [her], and that [she] would make a good leader
for them." Fisher demurred on the ground that she no longer was willing to
be "aggravated" by the complaints arising from Andre's "picking on the girls
and pushing them around," whereupon Fleishhacker promised to get rid of Andre
and get a new foreman. Fisher was then persuaded to return to work, which she
did that evening.16
1
11 The above finding is based on the uncoutradicted credited testimony of Fisher
12 From the uncontroverted testimony of Bullard, which the undersigned credits
"Fisher testified without contradiction that ' between January 7 and January 10
Andre had been pushing the gills around and was rather rough and mean with them . . .
and the girls didn't like it " Also undenied was the testimony of Bullard and Lingle,
giving specific instances of such rough treatment by Andre This testimony was corrobo-
rated by the respondent's vice president, Levi, who testified that lie ordered Andre
discharged about January 21, 1946, because Andre was "not the kind of person that I
wanted to supervise our people," specifying that he had obseived Andre's "bard . . .
harsh" attitude toward the girls On the basis of the foregoing evidence, the undersigned
finds that the employees of the night sluft in the ball-point department were discontented
after returning to work on January 7, with the treatment they received at the hands of
Foreman Andre - -
14 Namely, in seeking to get Fleisbliacker to speak to them immediately preceding the
walk-out on Januaiy 5, in contacting the Union after the walk-out, and on the occasion
when the girls returned to work on January 7 and gathered in Fleishhacker's office
15 The above finding is based on the uncontroverted testimony of Fisher
16 The above findings are based on Fisher's credited testimony Fleishhacker admitted
having a conversation in his automobile with Fisher at the time and place above-described,
but denied that during the conversation he had said that he or Reynolds was opposed to
having a union in the plant, or would fight the Union ; that he offered to promote Fisher
to the position of lead lady; or that he could use a girl like her as long as the other
employees would listen to her. He admitted that lie had inquired of her whether, she
belonged to a union. but testified that when she admitted membership in the Union, he
said that it was "0. K. with [him] . . . It is a free country." Fleishhacker further
940 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thereafter Andre continued his course of harsh conduct towards the employees,
with the result that, during the night shift on Saturday January 12, Fisher
demanded of Andre that he summon Fleishhacker to the ball-point department
to hear the girls' complaints. 5When Andre refused this demand, an argument
arose, and several, of the other employees approached the, spot where Fisher
and Andre were standing. Thereupon Andre directed that those of the girls
who were in accord with Fisher's demand should step to one side, and the others
return to work. When the employees started to move towards Fisher, Andre
physically pushed two of them away, telling one of them that she was too young
to belong to a union Lingle spoke up at this point and stated that if the em-
ployee was old enough to work, she was old enough to join the Union, and that
they had already'signed her up. Fisher had by this time started towards Fleish-
hacker's office. Andre then grabbed Bullard by the shirt and pushed her out of
the department, at the same time profanely telling her to "get * * * out of
here.. You are the cause of it all."" A group of the girls, including Bullard,
'Lingle, and two others, then followed Fisher to Fleishhacker's office, where they
related to him their complaints against the manner in which Andre had been
treating them. The ensuing discussion was interrupted by Fleishhacker's an-
nouncement that all the employees of the plant were to gather to hear an address
by the respondent's president, Milton Reynolds. 'Fleishhacker instructed Fisher,
Bullard, and Lingle to return to his office after the address was ended. The
employees of the entire plant, including the girls in Fleishhacker's office, then
assembled on a platform adjoining the office, to hear President Reynolds' speech.
Reynolds opened his address by saying that he had heard there was trouble
in the factory, and that he had come back to straighten it out. He went on to
say that he had received an offer to locate the factory "down south," where
he could obtain cheaper labor and be free of labor troubles, and where he himself
would prefer to live because of the year-round,warm climate ; that if he decided
to move his plant, he could pack whatever equipment was necessary in 48 hours ;
but that he did not want to move if the employees wished him to remain Rey-
nolds asked the employees if they wanted him to stay, whereupon they chorused
an answer in the affirmative In that event, Reynolds continued, he would dis-
regard the invitation to move the plant south. He then announced that he
planned to redecorate the plant to make it more attractive; that he intended
to install a non-profit cafeteria for the benefit of the employees ; that he had just
returned from a trip to New York, with his pockets bulging with orders ; that
the rumors about wage decreases were false; and that if anything, there would
be an increase in pay for his employees."
admitted having urged Fisher not to quit her job with the respondent , and having promised
to discharge Andre. He explained that the reason he urged Fisher to return to her job
was that she was a good employee and he hated to lose her because of grievances over
a foreman. "especially where [he] knew, where the leadership was as it was " The
undersigned has already noted that Fisher impressed him as being a more credible witness
than Fleishhacker On the witness stand, Fisher appeared to be trying carefully to relate
the events about which she was questioned as accurately as possible The impression of
candor created by this witness on the undersigned was heightened, moreover, by the fact
that Fisher was a much more disinterested witness, and had less apparent' basis for bias
than Fleishhacker , since , as hereafter. appears , she voluntarily left the respondent's
employment in order to withdraw from the controversy and conflict involved in the Union's
organizational campaign . On the basis of the foregoing the undersigned credits Fisher's
version of her conversations with Fleishhacker.
17 The above findings are based upon the uncontroverted testimony of Fisher, Bullard,
and Lingle , all of whom were in substantial agreement as to the events above described
ie The findings that Reynolds delivered a speech to the employees at the time and place
above set forth, and as to the contents of the said speech, are based upon the undenied
testimony of Fisher , Bullard , and Lingle ,
I
REYNOLDS INTERNATIONAL PEN COMPANY 941
Pursuant to Fleishhacker's instructions, Fisher, Bullard and Lingle returned
to the former's office immediately following Reynolds' address to the employees,
and were followed into the room a few moments later by Fleishhacker himself.
The latter proceeded to tell the girls of his background in Germany, related how
he had lost all his property under the Nazis, and then declared that he had lived
under Hitlerism, under Americanism, and under unionism, and that of the three
`isms" the only one that is any good is Americanism. Fleishhacker added that
"this unionism would have to stop" During this conversation, Fleishhacker
asked how many of the girls had joined the Union The three employees present
acknowledged that they had joined, but disclaimed any knowledge of the number
of other girls who had affiliated with it.i9
Following her return to work on the night of January 12, after leaving Fleish-
hacker's office, Fisher informed her fellow-employees that she was quitting her
job with the respondent and that she would get herself "a different job where
[she] didn't have to listen to the ti oubles there " She also informed Foreman
Andre that she was going to quit The latter said he thought it was a good idea-
that it was "bad business for a woman to get mixed up in a labor movement."
About lunch time that night, Fisher punched out her card and left the plant 20
The next morning (Sunday, January 13). Fleishhacker telephoned Fisher at her
home and urged her to reconsider her decisi6ii to quit, and to come in to discuss
the matter with him the next day On Monda), January 14, Fisher returned to
the plant shortly before the beginning of the night shift, and spoke to Fleish-
hacker in his office. During this convei sation, Fleishhacker asked Fisher what
size shoes she wore, and promised to get her a pair of shoes and some nylon
stockings. Fisher asked, "what is this for' I am not going to be no stooge for
an}body" Fleishhacker replied, "I don't expect you.to be a stooge, but as long
19 The above findings are based upon the testimony of Fisher, Bullard, and Lingle On
direct examiiiition, Fleishhackei testified to the effect that he had had one conference with
the girls of the ball-point department on January 12, on the occasion when they came into
his office to complain against Andre , that he had told them that he had "lost everything
under Nazism , Fascism , and [that he wanted] peace , and the only `ism' [he wanted] to
hear about is Ameiieanism " He denied that he had mentioned unionism in this conversa,
tion Heil corroborated Fleishhacker ' s testimony on this point It will be noted that
Heil was present with Fleishhacker during the conference with the girls which preceded
Reynolds ' speech From the credited testimony of Fisher, Bullard , and Lingle , however,
it is clear that nothing was said by Fleishhacker during that conference about Nazism,
unionism or Americanism , that the conversation on that occasion was confined to the
girls' complaints against Andie , and that the conversation was interrupted by the
summons to assemble to hear Reynolds ' speech The uudeisigned so finds This finding
iv supported by Fleishhackei's testimony on cross-examination, when, reminded by the
Board's counsel of the meeting with Fisher , Bullaid and Lingle in his office following
Reynolds' speech, lie corrected his previous testimony and admitted that lie had had such
a second conversation with them in his office at his request . since the pievious conference
bad been interrupted , and that on the second occasion, only Fisher , Bullard and Lingle,
returned to his office It is clear from the foregoing ; and the undersigned finds, that Heil
was not present in Fleishliackcr's office during the conversation between Fisher , Bullard,
Lingle, and Fleishhacker immediately following Reynolds ' speech It is further found that
it was during this second conversation that Fleishhacker discussed his opinions of the
respective merits of Nazism , unionism , and Americanism The undersigned does not
credit Fleishhacker ' s denial that , during this discussion , he declared that the unionism
must stop It is clear that the complaints against Andre had already been discussed by
the time the first conference was interrupted , and these would have been no purpose for
Fleishhacker to instruct Fisher. Bullard and Lingle to reassemble in his office unless there
was something further he wished to discuss with them . It is unlikely that Fleishhacker's
purpose was to deliver an abstract lecture on the merits of Americanism as opposed to
fascism. The testimony of Fishet, Bullard, and Lingle, therefore, that Fleishhacker's
reference to these "isms" was tied in with his expressions of opposition to unionism, is
found to be more credible than Fleishhacker's.
20 The above findings are based upon the uncontroverted testimony of Fisher and Bullard
942 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as the girls will listen to you , and you can lead them , we need a girl back there
to keep things in order. " At the conclusion of the conversation , Fleishhacker
again urged Fisher to return to her job in the plant . She returned to work on
the night shift that evening , but worked only . for a short time, after which she
left the employ of the respondent.2i -
On Thursday , January 17 , Bullard was told by some of her fellow -employees
on the night shift in the ball-point department , that the girls were planning
to stay away from work the next day in protest against Andre 's treatment of
them. Bullard advised them not to stage another walk-out. The following day,
shortly before reporting for work , Bullard telephoned Fleishhacker , warned him,
of the threatened work stoppage , and explaining that she did not wish to be
blamed if such a stoppage occurred , informed Fleishhacker that she had told the
girls not to "do that." Fleishhacker asked Bullard to urge the girls to refrain
from the walk-out, and promised to "take care of Mr. Andre." Fleishhacker then
added , "By the way , Marge , I see that they are handbilling the place again. I
thought we had forgotten about all of that."
During the night shift of Janulry 22, 1946, the employees of the respondent's
plant were assembled to listen to a speech by Night Superintendent Feinberg.
Feinberg opened by saying that he understood there was a union organizing com-
paign in progress among the respondent 's employees , and that his personal advice
to the girls was not to join the Union . He proceeded to say that Mrs Reynolds
had addressed the employees before, and that the employees knew "how things
stood , that Mr . Reynolds would close his doors if the Union ever got in." 21
21 The above findings are based on the credited testimony of Fisher . Fleischliacker ad-
mitted that he telephoned Fisher on January 13 and urged her to return to work , and that
he had had a conversation with her in his office when she returned to the plant on January
14 He denied, however , that he at any time during this discussion offered her shoes or
nylon stockings . The undersigned has previously found Fisher to be a more reliable
witness than Flelshhacker . The lattet ' s denial is not credited
22 The above findings are based on the undenied , credited testimony of Bullard
21 The above findings as to Bullard ' s conversation with Fleishhacker are based on the
credited testnnoni of Bullard Fleishhacker admitted having such a conversation with
Bullard over the telephone , but testified that after she told him about the girls' plans
"to hold back on their work ," he closed the conversation by telling Bullard that he was
"not interested in what you have been told " Fleishhacker testified that so far as he
could recall , that was all there was to the conversation The undersigned finds that
during that conversation with Bullard , Fleishhacker did make the above -mentioned
reference to "the place" being "handbilled ," and that he was thereby referring to handbills
distributed among the respondent ' s employees by the Union The record shows that on
at least three occasions . namely , on or about January 11, 18, and 30 , the Union had
literature distributed publicly to the respondent's incoming eniplo^ees , from points at
the four street corners nearest the respondent's plant Bullard testified that her above-
described conversation with Fleishhacker took place on either January 17 or January 18
The record places the date of the second distribution of handbills among the respondent's
employees by the Union, as taking place on January 18 In view of Fleislihacker's
reference to the plant being "handbilled again, " it is found that the conversation took
place on January 18
24 The findings as to Fei nberg ' s speech are based on the testimony of witness Nellie Knie,
an employee in the respondent ' s ball-point department at the time the speech was-delivered
Feinberg himself did not testify It will be noted that Fisher had left the employ of
the respondent before the delivery of this speech, and that , as hereinafter discussed,
Bullard, Lingle , and employee O'Leary , all adherents of the Union , were discharged by
the respondent a day before Feinberg addressed the employees . and so were not present
The respondent offered the testimony of five witnesses with respect to the speech They
testified that Feinberg said • that he was making the speech on his own authority, and
might be discharged if Mr. Reynolds discovered that he had made it ; that those employees
who had signed union application cards were under no obligation to join the Union , that
the girls could join or not join the Union as they saw fit, and four of them specifically
denied that Feinberg had said that if the Union "got in " Reynolds would close the plant.
The undersigned does not credit the aforesaid denials. Such a statement on the part of
REYNOLDS INTE INATIONAL PEN COMPANY 943
All of the witnesses agreed that immediately following Feinberg's speech, Lead
Lady Eleanor Hobloch spoke, and advised the employees not to join the Union.
Board counsel sought to impute to the respondent responsibility for Hobloch's
speech. Since the record, even without these statements, contains considerable
evidence of the respondent's expressions to the employees of opposition to the
Union, the undersigned does not find it necessary to decide whether or not
Hobloch's remarks on this occasion should be imputed to the respondent.
2. Concluding findings with respect to interference, restraint, and coercion
It has been found that on January 6, 1946, the day following the walk-out
staged by the employees of the night shift in the respondent's ball-point depart-
ment, General Manager Fleishhacker threatened to discharge Bullard and Lingle,
whom he named as the instigators of the walk-out When the girls returned to
work on January 7, Day Superintendent Heil indicated that the respondent con-
sidered Bullard and Lingle the instigators of the walk-out, by remarking that
these two employees had "worked at Dodge" and "should know a lot about
strikes " Fleishhacker then made the respondent's attitude towards Bullard and
Lingle unmistakable by requesting that they leave the room before he would dis-
cuss reinstatement with the employees, with the result that the girls there as-
sembled refused to return to work unless Bullard and Lingle also were reinstated
to their jobs. It is self-evident that for the respondent thus to single out two
of the leaders of the employees' legitimate concerted activities,2i and to threaten
them with discharge in reprisal for such leadership. was calculated to interfere
with, restrain, and coerce the employees in their exercise of the rights protected
by Section 7 of the Act. That these tactics did not, at the moment, succeed in
intimidating the girls, as is evidenced by their concerted refusal to let their ranks
be split, does not, of course, negate the illegality of the respondent's conduct 21
By the night of January 7, when the employees returned to work, they were
affiliated with the Union, and were beginning to press the campaign to organize
the rest of the respondent's employees That the respondent was aware of this
fact, and was opposed to union organization among its employees, was plainly
communicated to them. Thus, on the night of the 7th, Foreman Andre n told
Fisher that if she joined the Union she would be doing nothing but helping the
respondent's competitor, and Bullard that he knew the employees were "trying
to get a union in," and that by so doing they were "only helping our competitor,
Feinberg was entirely consistent with Reynolds' own thinly-veiled threat, made to the
assembled employees shortly before, to move the plant Moreover, as contrasted with the
straightforward manner in which Iinie testified, the respondent's witnesses who testified/
with respect to Feinberg's speech, two of whom were lead ladies, impressed the undersigned
as being on guard to avoid giving any testimony which might reflect on the respondent.
For example, Schnur testified on cross-examination that she was certain that Feinberg
had not mentioned Reynolds' name during his speech, although, under examination by
the respondent's counsel, she testified that Feinberg had said that "if Mr. Reynolds knew
he was speaking to the girls that [Feinberg] could lose his job " and that he (Feinberg)
"was worrying that Mr Reynolds, was getting so disgusted' about the way things were
running clown there " Yakes also testified at one point that Feinberg never mentioned
Reynolds at all in his speech, although in response to questions by the respondent's counsel,
she testified that Feinberg had stated that Reynolds might fire him if he learned of the
speech. In view of all the circumstances, the undersigned credits Knie's testimony that
Feinberg, during the course of his speech to the employees on January 22, told the latter
that if the Union "came in," Reynolds would close the plant.
26 See discussion of this issue , infra, p 20 _
2E Rapid Roller Co. V. N. L. R. B., 126 F (2d) 452, 457 (C C. A. 7), cert. den 317 U. S.
650, N. L. R B. v. Aintree Corp., 132 F. (2d) 469, 472 (C. C A. 7), cert. den. 318 U. S.
744, Elastic Stop Nut Corp v. N. L. R. B, 142 F. (2d) 371, 377-378 (C. C. A. 8), cert.
den 323 U S. 722.
21 It was stipulated that Andre was a supervisory employee.
944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Eversharp ." On January 9 or 10 , General Manager Fleishhacker questioned
Fisher as to how many employees had joined the Union , told her that he and
President Reynolds were opposed to the Union and would fight it all the way,
urged Fisher to return to the respondent 's employ , said that the respondent
"could use a girl like" her because she was accepted as a leader by the employees,
and that she could "make herself a pretty nice position with the company" since
the respondent needed a girl like her for a lead lady . Along the same lines were
the statements made by Fleishhacker to Fisher on January 14, when he exhorted
her to return to work, promised to get her a pair of shoes and some nylon hose, and
remarked that "as long as the girls will listen to you, and you can lead - them, we
need a girl back there to keep things in order." Read in the context of all the cir-
cumstances , the above-described statements of Fleishhacker to Fisher clearly con-
stituted attempts on his part to cajole and bribe Fisher to use her influence among
the respondent 's employees to undermine the Union 's organizational campaign, and
the undersigned so finds. That the respondent used tactics of bribery instead of
intimidation with respect to Fisher, does not, of course , mitigate the illegality of
its conduct . "Interference is no less interference because it is accomplished'
through allurements rather than coercion " ( Western Cartridge Co. v. N. L. R. B.,
134 F. ( 2) 240, 244 (C. C. A. 7), cert. denied 320 U. S 746),
On other occasions the respondent ' s campaign against the Union took more
coercive forms. Thus , on January 12, when Fisher protested Andre's abusive
conduct towards the girls , Andre pushed away two of the employees who aligned
themselves with Fisher , and told one of them that she was too young to.jorn
the Union When Lingle protested that if the girl were old enough to work. ,he
was old enough to join the Union, Andre physically assaulted Bullard, and
profanely accused her of being "the cause of it all " The same night , President
Reynolds bestowed the respondent 's authority on the coercive anti-union campaign
by addressing the assembled employees in the plant and giving expression to an
oblique but unmistakable threat that he would move the respondent 's plant to
the south , thus depriving the employees of their jobs, if the union activity con-
tinued. Reynolds ' address to the employees on that night , to be sure , contained
no explicit reference to the Union or its activities . In the light of the surrounding
circumstances , and of the timing of the speech , however, the only reasonable
interpretation to be placed upon the opening reference by Reynolds to "trouble"
in the plant is that he was adverting to the organizational campaign then being
carried on by the Union among the respondent ' s employees , and that the em-
ployees so must have understood the reference 28 The undersigned so finds
28 On the very day that Reynolds addressed the employees, or the day before, the Union
had for the first time publicly circularized the respondent's employees with hand-bills urging
them to affiliate with it Two or three days before, Fleislihacker had informed Fisher that
Reynolds was opposed to the Union, and would fight it all the way. Five days before.
Andre told two employees that joining the Union would only help-the respondent's com-
petitor And on two occasions shortly preceding Reynolds' speech, Fleishhacker had dis-
played the respondent's concern with and opposition to the Union's campaign by trying to,
cajole Fisher into using her influence among the employees against the Union. The infer-
ence is inescapable that Reynolds not only knew of the Union's campaign at the time he
made his speech, but that this campaign is what he was referring to when he spoke of the
"trouble" in the plant The only other trouble in the plant at the time which is revealed'
by the record, to which Reynolds might have been referring, was the resentment of the-
girls in the ball-point room against their foreman, Andre But obviously Reynolds would'
not have assembled all the employees of the entire plant, as he did, to listen to a discussion
on a topic of interest only to the 22 employees of the ball-point room 'Moreover, Reynolds'
speech contains no reference to the subject of Andre's treatment of his subordinates
The respondent In its brief filed with the undersigned suggests that Reynolds might have
had in mind some thefts from the respondent's plant, which it was testified had been com-
mitted by persons having connections with the Chicago police force, and that the lack of_
REYNOLDS INTERNATIONAL PEN COMPANY 945
Reynolds then told the assembled employees that he had,been offered a site for
the plant in the south, and of the business and personal advantages he would
gain by making such a move, which he emphasized, could be accomplished in
24 or 48 hours He then asked the employees whether or not they wished to keep
the plant where it was. Upon receiving an affirmative answer, he'proceeded to
describe the benefits which the respondent "planned to confer upon the employees,
such as remodeling the plant, the installation of a non-profit cafeteria which
would serve attractive. cheap meals to the employees, and the granting of wage
increases The undersigned is convinced from the whole record, and consequently
finds, that the intended and inevitable effect"of Reynolds' speech upon his lis-
teners was to convey to them the idea that if the "trouble" in the plant, i. e., the
union activities, did not cease, he would move the plant elsewhere, but if they
did cease, the respondent would reward the employees with the benefits mentioned.
If there were any ambiguity in Reynolds' speech, that ambiguity was dis-
pelled by General Manager Fleishhacker immediately after the speech was
delivered, when in his office he declared to Bullard, Fisher, and Lingle that the
"unionism" must stop, and on January 18, the day the Union for the second
time distributed hand-bills among the respondent's employees, when he remarked
to Bullard, "I thought we had forgotten about all of that." Subsequently, on
January 22, Night Superintendent Feinberg even more explicitly spelled out
Reynolds' threat to the employees by declaring that they "knew how things stood,
that Mr Reynolds would close his doors if the Union ever got in""
The respondent contends that even if some of its supervisors are found to
have made anti-union statements to the employees, such statements cannot be
imputed to it because the respondent had established a policy of utmost neu-
trality with respect to union activities,, and had instructed its supervisory em-
ployees to refrain from discussing union activities with any of the employees.
In support of this contention, Vice-President Levi testified that after receiving
a letter from the Union, which apprised him that thataorganization *as active
among the employees, he instructed the respondent's supervisors that the rights
of the employees under the Act must be respected, and that no supervisor except
himself was to undertake to discuss unions at any time with any of the em-
law enforcement thereby implied might have motivated the respondent at the time to con-
sider moving its plant from Chicago The record contains no hint that any of the re-
spondent's employees were responsible for the aforesaid thefts, and it seems extremely
unlikely that if the thefts were the basis for a contemplated removal of the plant, that
Reynolds would carry this problem to the employees, and leave to their decision, as the
uncontroveited evidence shows he did, the question of whether or not the plant should be
moved The only reasonable explanation of Reynolds' speech is that, as found above, he
was throwing out a forceful hint to the employees that continued union activities might
cause them to lose their lobs
xe At some time during his remarks , Feinberg told the employees that his speech was
not sponsored by the respondent , and that he was making it on his own responsibility
Thus, one witness testified that Feinberg stated that he was not "being paid for his speech"
others testified that he told the employees that if Mr Reynolds discovered that he was
making the speech, lie might be discharged It is obvious that Feinberg's statements in his
speech were consistent with the respondent's anti-union campaign, particularly President
Reynolds' precious addiese to the employees, to which Feinberg specifically made refer-
ence Moreover, Feinbei g's warning that the respondent would close its doors if the union
campaign were successful, coming as it did, on the day following the discriminatory dis-
charge of Bullard and Lingle, and uttered as it was by the night superintendent of the
plant, was bound to carry authority in the eyes of the employees The respondent, so far
as the record shows, never stripped Feinberg's speech of that authority by repudiating it
before the employees In these circumstances , Feinberg could not "divest his statements of
their coercive effect and render the respondent immune to responsibility for them, by the
verbal sleight-of-hand of" telling the employees that he was making the statements on his
own responsibility ( Matter of It It. Donnelley & Sons Company, 60 N. L . R. B. 635, 672).
946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees. The letter referred to in Levi's testimony is shown by the record to
have been sent to the respondent on January 12, 1946, and was admittedly'
received by the respondent in the ordinary course of the mail. If the respond-
ent's alleged policy was enunciated to the supervisors, as Levi testified, after
the receipt of that letter, the policy could not have affected the unfair labor
practices which were shown to have been committed prior thereto, as the record
contains no showing of any repudiation by the respondent of such prior unfair
labor practices -Moreover, more than mere lip-service to the command of the
Act is necessary if the right of the employees to remain free from employer
interference, restraint, and coercion is to be protected If, indeed, the respond-
ent did at any time ever enunciate a policy of neutrality, that policy was honored
almost entirely in the breach-and the violations of that alleged policy were
committed by the respondent's, highest officials and supervisors, including its
president, the general manager of its plant, the two next highest in command
in the plant (the day and night superintendent), and by the supervisor closest
to the employees, the foreman Finally, a policy announced only to the super-
visory employees could not possibly have dissipated, in the minds of the rank
and file employees, the effects of the coercive statements made to them by their
superiors. The record contains no showing of any authoritative statement ever
made to the employees by the respondent that it would respect their right to
join a labor organization.'
The respondent further contends that "statements similar to those made, by
respondent's officers and agents have been held protected by the constitutional
guarantee of freedom of speech and hence not constituting discrimination, coer-
cion or intimidation of employees' rights granted by the Act" While some of
the statements of the respondent's representatives herein discussed might, if
viewed in isolation, seem noncoercive, the undersigned has considered these
statements in connection with the whole pattern of the respondent's conduct,
including the threats sat forth above, and the discriminatory discharges dis-
cussed below. So examined, it becomes apparent, and the undersigned finds, that
the statements and conduct of Andre, Heil, Feinberg, Fleishhacker, and Reynolds
which have been above summarized, together with the discriminatory discharge
of Bullard and Lingle as found below, were integral parts of a total course of con-
duct on the part of the respondent which was calculated to interfere with, restrain,
and coerce the respondent's employees in the exercise of their rights to engage in
concerted activities for mutual aid or protection, and to form, join, or assist
labor organizations. No statement constituting an integral part of such I a
course of conduct is privileged under the constitutional right of free speech.
The undersigned finds that by the acts and 'statements of Andre, Heil, Fein-
berg, Fleishhacker, and Reynolds, which have been summarized in these con-
eluding findings, the respondent interfered with, restrained. and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby
committing unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section S (1) thereof.
31 Heil testified that on various occasions he was asked by employees if "there would be
anything against anybody if they joined a union," to which he answered that "it was their
God-given right to join anything they wished to join " Fleishhacker also testified that
he told Fisher on January 10 that he didn't "'give a damn" whether or not she belonged
to the Union The latter testimony by Fleishhacker has already been discredited by the
undersigned ; it is entirely inconsistent with Fleishhacker's course of conduct with respect
to the union activities in the plant. As for Heil's testimony quoted above, the undersigi ed
does not credit it for the same reason In any event, even if it were true that on some
occasions Heil had made some such remarks, such a statement, made to individual em-
ployees would be ineffective to counteract statements made to the assembled employees by
Reynolds and Feinberg, and on the occasions hitherto discussed, to groups of employees, by
Fleishhacker. Cf. Consolidated Edison Co. v. N. L. R B., 305 U. S 197, 230.
REYNOLDS INTERNATIONAL PEN COMPANY 947
C. The discriminatory discharges
Margaret Bullard and Elsie Lingle entered the respondent's employ together on
or about November 19, 1945. Their beginning rate of pay was 80 cents per hour ;
at the time of their discharge they were receiving 90 cents per hour. Except for
the first 2 or 3 weeks of their employment, they continuously worked, until the
time of their discharge, on the night shift in the ball-point department of the
respondent's plant.
Bullard and Lingle were discharged on January 21, 1946, together with em-
ployee Evelyn O'Leary, who also worked on the night shift of the ball-point
department. On the occasion of their discharge, Fleishhacker told Bullard, Lingle,
and O'Leary that 10 of their fellow-employees had voiced an objection to
working with them, and that the respondent was therefore letting them go. As the
three girls were leaving his office, Fleishhacker remarked that he would recall
them to work within two weeks. Then, winking at O'Leary, he repeated, "I
will be sure to call you." 3i O'Leary was called back to work by the respondent
the next day, and returned to her job on January 23. Bullard and Lingle both
thereafter applied for reemployment with the respondent, but such reinstate-
ment has been denied them. When O'Leary returned to work on the 23rd,
Fleishhacker admitted to her that his statement, on the 21st, that ten girls
had demanded the discharge of Bullard, Lingle and O'Leary, was untrue.32 Dur-
ing this conversation, O'Leary questioned Fleishhacker as to the real reasons
for Bullard's and Lingle's discharge, and he answered that there had been a
great deal of trouble in the point room, and that Bullard and Lingle were
the "real trouble-makers" in that department. At this point, Heil, who was
also present, remarked that Bullard and Lingle "knew what it was all about,
they weren't so dumb..." 33 When O'Leary asked whether Bullard and Lingle
had been too active in the Union, Fleishhacker or Heil answered that the girls
were silly for joining the Union, and that they had signed their jobs away by
affiliating with that organization because it was "the Eversharp union." 34
The respondent contends that Bullard and Lingle were discharged "by reason
of a course of unsatisfactory conduct on their part beginning in the first weeks of
31 The above findings are based on the testimony of Bullard, Lingle and O'Leary, which
the undersigned credits. Bullard did not see Fleishhacker wink at O'Leary , O'Leary and
Lingle (lid The undersigned does not credit Fleishhacker's denial that he did so.
Fleislhacker's testimony as to the reasons he gave Bullard, Lingle,and O'Leary for their
discharge on the occasion when it occurred, was vague and rambling, but he admitted
that lie had told them that other employees had complained against them Heil, who
was present during the interview, testified that he could not recall what Fleishhacker
had told the girls on this occasion.
31 The above finding is based on the credited testimony of O'Leary Fleishhacker, when
asked whether he told O'Leary when she was reemployed, that the story he had told her,
Bullard, and Lingle at the time they were discharged, was not true, answered, "I don't
recall now what story but I know when I discharged the other girls I told them other
girls complained about Marge and Elsie . . . ' Heil, who was present, was not questioned
with respect to this conversation.
s3 The meaning of this cryptic remark becomes clear when it is remembered that on the
occasion when the employees returned to work after the walk-out, Heil had stated that "it
looks like this place is pretty well organized. Somebody here knows a lot about wild-cat
strikes," and then, indicating Bullard and Lingle, added, "You two worked at Dodge.
You should know a lot about strikes "
34 O'Leary's testimony with respect to the above conversation is virtually undenied
Fleishhacker, when asked whether O'Leary had said anything to him during this conversa-
tion, answered, "Not that I know of She thanked me because I took her back." At
another point, Fleishhacker testified that on this occasion O'Leary "was merely interested
to get her job back" and that he could not remember her questioning hun with respect
to the reasons for the discharges . As has been pointed out , Heil was not questioned with
respect to this interview. The undersigned credits O'Leary's version of the discussion
between her, Fleishhacker , and Heil.
712344-47-vol. 70-61
948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their employment." " In support of this contention, the respondent points to an
incident which occurred sometime prior to January 5, 1946, when Bullard, upon
being directed to wash pens in a solution, objected to performing this work on
the ground that she was nauseated thereby. The record does not show what
the outcome of this incident was, except that Bullard's foreman told her that
if she did not wish to wash pens she could "punch out" With respect to
alleged further unsatisfactory behavior on the part of Bullard and Lingle prior
to January 5, General Manager Fleishhacker testified as follows :
. . . Marge and Elsie always knew something they had to complain about
this and had to complain about that, but every time when I came up there,
coffee pot was on the stove, any hour, by the hour, in the evening . .
[Andre] said Nate Feinberg told me he was glad to be rid of them when
- he could give them to the Broadway plant. . . 86
There was also testimony by one witness, Yakes, that during the week of
January 19, 1946, Bullard had "paraded around the room all night" while at
work, and had urged the other employees not to work,, and that Lingle had
thrown a handful of pen-points at her to attract her attention, and had asked
her why she was working so fast. Another witness, Sack,B' testified that on
January 19 she had observed Bullard and Lingle leave their work a number of
times to talk to other employees and that during the 2 weeks preceding Janu-
ary 21, she had been told that Bullard and Lingle had threatened "to beat the
bell out of" her because she had not walked out with the rest of the employees
on January 5. Yakes, Sack, and another witness testified that if Bullard and
Lingle were to be reemployed by the respondent, they would not be willing to
remain on their jobs.
It seems obvious that the incident involving Bullard's reluctance to wash pens,
and the alleged propensity of Bullard and Lingle, prior to January 5, 1946,
unduly to trouble Fleishhacker and Feinberg with complaints, even if true,
played no part in motivating the respondent to discharge them. After the afore-
said events both Bullard and Lingle were apparently considered satisfactory
enough employees, not only to be retained in the respondent's employ, but to
receive two wage increases which brought their pay from 80 to 90 cents per hour.
From the whole record, the undersigned is convinced and finds that the re-
spondent's contentions of unsatisfactory conduct on the part of Bullard and
Lingle prior to the walk-out on January 5, 1946, are mere afterthoughts regarding
trivial incidents, and that these occurrences played no actual part in motivating
the discharges.
Bullard denied generally that she-had ever urged any employees to slow down
in their work, and specifically that she had urged Yakes to do so, and Lingle
testified that on January 19 she had not left her place of work on any occasion
except for the usual rest and lunch periods. The undersigned credits Bullard
and Lingle's testimony, and rejects the testimony of Yakes and Sack to the effect
that Bullard and Lingle had circulated among the employees (luring the week of
January 19, urging them to slow down their production 38 Moreover, there is no
38 Brief filed with the undersigned.
39 The undersigned is unable to understand the relevance of Fleishhacker's reference in
the above-quoted testimony, to a coffee pot being on the stove every time he stepped into
the department. There was no claim that Bullard and Lingle were responsible for the
alleged presence of the coffee pot, or even that the repondent had ever objected to the
practice of having it present.
34 Sack was the only employee who did not leave work on January 5, when the rest of
the night shift employees in the ball-point room walked out.
sa The undersigned has heretofore noted that he was impressed by Bullard and Lingle as
being trustworthy witnesses , and that Yakes and Sack, on the contrary, seemed to be
REYNOLDS INTERNATIONAL PEN COMPANY 949
evidence that any of the alleged facts described in the testimony of Yakes and
Sack were ever brought to the respondent's attention prior to the discharge of
Bullard and Lingle. It is thus plain that even if the testimony were to be cred-
ited, the occurrences therein described did not constitute a factor in the respond-
ent's decision to dismiss Bullard and Lingle from its employ.39 This conclusion
is supported by the fact that when Fleishhacker was asked at the hearing to
state the reasons why he had discharged Bullard and Lingle, he made no reference
in his answer to the alleged misbehavior on their part as testified to by Sack
and Yakes.
A further ground for the discharge of Bullard and Lingle advanced by the
respondent is their alleged failure to maintain a satisfactory rate of production
Aside from a general statement to this effect, the only specific evidence in the
record that Bullax•d or Lingle's production was below standard is Fleishhacker's
testimony that Andre had reported to him that he had timed Lingle's production
and found it to be far below normal The testimony of Bullard, Lingle and
O'Leary, which the undersigned credits, establishes that Andre timed Lingle's
operations on January 19, when Lingle was assigned to operating a machine
which was in such a state of disrepair that it continually broke down, thus ma-
terially slowing down her production. Thus, the contention that Bullard and
Lingle produced less than the average employee in their department, rests on the-
respondent's bare assertion, having no support in the record. Since the respond-
ent's expressions of hostility against Bullard and Lingle, based on their leadership
of the employees' union and other concerted activities, and the other circum-
stances hereinafter discussed, furnish a persuasive clue as to the respondent's
real reason for discharging them, the undersigned is unable to credit this
assertion.
In its brief filed with the undersigned, the respondent also alleges that following
their return to work after the walk-out of January 5, Bullard and Lingle "intensi-
fied their unsatisfactory behavior by a deliberate campaign of non-cooperation"
which took the form of continually complaining about Foreman Andre and leaving
their work to register these complaints with General Manager Fleishhacker, "even
after the management had assured them that the foreman in question would be
discharged in order to please the girls." All of the witnesses who testified
regarding Foreman Andre's treatment of his subordinates, including the respond-
ent's vice president, Levi, were in agreement that Andre's attitude and actions
towards the employees were harsh and overbearing, and there was undenied
testimony that on various occasions before Bullard and Lingle were discharged,
Andre had physically manhandled employees Fisher, Bullard and two other
employees.90 Indeed, Vice-President Levi testified that lie had ordered Andre's
dismissal because of the latter's arbitrary conduct with respect to his subordi-
anxious to give testimony which would aid the respondent . Moreover , the conversation
between Fleishhacker and Bullard on January 18, during which, as has been found above,
Bullard displayed apprehension that she might be blamed if further interruptions to pro-
duction occurred in the plant , indicates a frame of mind on her part which would strongly
tend to mitigate against any such behavior on her part as testified to by Yakes and Sack.
$° The respondent's contention that Bullard and Lingle were objectionable to the rest of
the employees, and that this was a factor in inducing it to discharge them, is refuted by
the admission to the contrary made by Fleishhacker to employee Evelyn O'Leary two days
after their discharge, as well as by the fact that there is no evidence in the record that
any employee ever informed the respondent prior to Bullard and Lingle' s discharge, that
he or she objected to working with them.
°0 The respondent points to the testimony of Winifred Sacks who testified that she had
never seen Andre physically push any of the girls around. This hardly constitutes a denial
of the above -cited evidence.
950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nates.41 It thus becomes obvious that Bullard and Lingle had ample legitimate
grounds for the complaints which they lodged on various occasions with Andre's
superiors. At no time did any of the respondent's representatives except Andre
object to the manner or time in which they voiced their grievances; 41 indeed,
Fleishhacker himself discussed the matter with them in his office without voicing
any desire that they choose some other time to approach him. Moreover, Day
Superintendent Heil testified that it is no violation of the respondent's rules for
,an employee to lodge complaints with his foreman or superintendent or general
manager on as many occasions as the employee desires, or believes he has a
grievance. It is also to be noted that Fisher, who at all times took the lead in
carrying the employees' complaints against Andre to his superiors, was not dis-
charged, but instead was admittedly urged on several occasions by Fleishhacker
to reconsider her decision to quit. Thus, the respondent's argument that Bullard
and Lingle's voicing of their grievances against Andre constituted a "deliberate
campaign of non-cooperation" is, in the face of admitted facts, untenable.
On the basis of the whole record, the undersigned is convinced and finds that
none of the reasons for the discharge of Bullard and Lingle put forward by the
respondent, which have been above discussed, were instrumental in bringing about
Bullard and Lingle's dismissal, but that they are in reality mere makeweights,
with which the respondent now seeks to bolster its justifications for the dis-
charges.43 We must look elsewhere, then, for a reasonable and convincing
explanation of the discharge of these two employees.
As the undersigned has hereinabove found, General Manager Fleishhacker
stated on January 6, the day following the walk-out of the night shift employees
of the ball-point room, that he considered Bullard and Lingle to be the instigators
of the walk-out, and that he intended to discharge them. When the employees
returned to work on January 7, Day Superintendent Heil indicated that the
respondent looked upon Bullard and Lingle as trouble makers because they had
previously worked in a unionized plant, and on the same occasion Fleishhacker
singled out these two girls and ordered them to leave the room-a threat which
the employees concertedly protested by declaring that if all of them were not
reinstated, none of them would return to work. During the course of the night
shift on January 7, Foreman Andre told Bullard that he knew that "they were
trying to get a union in and everything [they did] was only helping our competi-
tor, Eversharp." The foregoing, together with Fleishhacker's statements to
Fisher on January 9 or 10, Andre's statement to Bullard on January 12 that she
was "the cause of it all," and Fleishhacker's statement to Fisher, Bullard, and
Lingle later that day, that the unionism must stop, ps well as Fleishhacker's
complaint to Bullard on January 18 that he noticed that the Union was distrib-
uting handbills to the employees again, and that he thought "we had forgotten all
of that," all reflected the respondent's opposition,to the employees' concerted ac-
tivities, and the Union's organizational efforts, and its hostility against Bullard
41 when Levi was questioned with respect to the respondent's reasons for discharging
Bullard and Lingle, he testified inconsistently with the above-quoted testimony, that their
discharge was based on the fact that "the girls and Andre had gotten at loggers-head with
him, that the gals had gotten themselves into a frame of mind where no one but Mr.
Kaiser [their previous foreman] would ever be satisfactory to them."
42 Heil testified that he had cautioned Bullard and Lingle that "these spasmodic work
stoppages would have to stop - ." but the undeisigned does not credit this testi-
mony. Not only were Bullard and Lingle's complaints against Andre admittedly justified,
but Fleishhacker 's discussions with the girls of their complaints , without objection as to
their timing, refutes any claim that may now be advanced that the employees were lodg-
ing the complaints in an impermissible manner.
43 Cf Firth Carpet Co. v. N. L. R. B , 129 F. (2d) 633, 635 (C. C A. 2).
REYNOLDS INTERNATIONAL PEN COMPANY 951
and Lingle because it considered them leaders in such activities . The episode
involving the lay-off and prompt reinstatement of O'Leary also seems to the
undersigned to underline the real reason which actuated the respondent in dis-
charging Bullard and Lingle. There seems to be no rational explanation for
O'Leary's discharge at the same time as Bullard and Lingle, and for the re-
spondent's offer the very next day to reinstate her," except that the respondent
wished to obscure its anti-union motives by involving a third employee who was
not particularly active in union activities and by inventing a fictitious reason for
the discharge of the three employees. P'leishhacker'ssignificant wink to O'Leary
at the time of the discharge, and his admission to her upon her return to work
that he had lied about the reason for the discharge, as well as the remarks made
by Fleishhacker and Heil on the latter occasion, reflecting their resentment of
Bullard and Lingle's union activities, support this conclusion. These circum-
stances, as well as the whole pattern of the respondent's anti-union conduct, make
it clear that the respondent discharged Bullard and Lingle and has refused to
reinstate them because of their leadership of the employees' concerted activities,
and their affiliation with, and activities on behalf of, the Union
In its brief filed with the undersigned, the respondent admits that it discharged
Bullard and Lingle, at least in-part, because on January 5, 1946, they "incited
and directed an unwarranted walk-out of all but one of [the employees of] the
night shift Point Room . . The respondent argues that it was within its
rights in discharging Bullard and Lingle for that reason because while the walk-
out occurred ostensibly as a result of the employees' fear of a wage decrease, it
was wholly unjustified since there was in fact no reasonable basis for this fear
The undenied evidence shows that for some time preceding the walk-out, rumors
had been rife in the plant that wage-cuts were impending Indeed, Fleishhacker
and Heil testified that on January 3 they had informed the employees that
these rumors were without foundation. Several witnesses, on the other hand,
testified that Fleislihacker had made statements to the employees, a few days
before the walk-out, that the rates of pay of the girls in the ball-point department
might be decreased. Be that as it may, the undenied evidence establishes that
the employees were apprehensive of decreases in their pay, and there is no
evidence to controvert the testimony that when Foreman Kaiser reported that
he had been demoted, their apprehension increased, and that, failing in their
attempt to contact General Manager Fleishhacker to obtain some reassurance
that their wages would not be decreased, they concertedly left work as a protest
against the rumored wage cuts, and in order to secure the reassurance they
demanded. It is well established, and the undersigned finds, that whether
or not such a walk-out on the part of the employees was well-advised, it did
constitute such a concerted activity as is protected by the Act from employer
44 Fleishhacker testified that O'Leary was discharged on the recommendation of Fore-
man Andre because she "didn't comply with company rules," and that such violations of
rules consisted of running "more often than necessary between times to the washroom,"
smoking outside of rest periods and "singing and humming tunes." He also characterized
her behavior as failure to "cooperate with the foreman" and doing "what she pleased " He
explained his prompt offer to reinstate O'Leary on the ground that her husband had
pleaded with him to reemploy her because of the family's financial straits due to illness,
and that he ( Fleishhacker) "felt sorry for him and reemployed his wife. " However, Lingle,
too, pleaded with Fleishhacker to reinstate leer„and told him that her need for work was
great also , on account of illness in her family , but Fleishhacker for some reason was not
stirred by her plea, as he was by Mr. O'Leary 's. The undersigned is forced to the conclu-
sion that Bullard and Lingle's leadership in the organizational activities of the employees
was the differentiating factor which accounts for Fleishhacker ' s disparate responses to the
respective pleas for reinstatement.
952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
interference, restraint, and coercion.' It follows that, to single out and dis-
charge Bullard and Lingle because the respondent considered them the instigators
of this legitimate concerted activity, constituted discrimination against them
in violation of the Act.48 This would be true even if it were to be assumed, con-
trary to the finding above, that this reason for the discharges was only one
among others, and that the other reasons were, as the respondent contends, in
themselves valid."
On the basis of the whole record, the undersigned finds that the respondent
discharged Margaret Bullard and Elsie Lingle on January 21, 1946, and has
since refused to reinstate them, because of their leadership of legitimate con-
certed activities of its employees, and because of Bullard and Lingle's affiliation
with, and activities on behalf of, the Union. The undersigned further finds
that the respondent has thereby discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure
of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, apd interfering
with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate and substantial relation to trade, traffic and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act. -
It has been found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Margaret Bullard and Elsie Lingle by discharging
and refusing to reinstate them because of their concerted and union activities.'8
The undersigned will recommend, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act,
that the respondent offer to them immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their rights
and privileges, and that the respondent make them whole for any loss of pay
tney may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against
them by payment to them of a sun. of money equal to the amount which they
45 See N. L. R B V. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co , 304 U. S. 333, 344; N. L. R. B. v.
Schwartz, 146 F. (2d) 773, 774 (C. C. A. 5) ; Carter Carburetor Corp v. N L. R B, 140
F. (2d) 714, 717-718 (C. C. A. 8) , Firth Carpet Co. v. N. L R B., 129 F (2d) 633, 636
(C. C. A. 2).
49 See cases cited in footnote above.
47 Butter Bros. v. N L. R. B., 134 F. (2d) 981, 985 (C C A. 7), cert denied 320 U. S.
789; Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. N. L R. B., 111 F. (2d) 340, 349 (C. C A 8) ;
Cupples Company v N L R B., 106 F (2d) 100, 117 (C C A 8).
48 If the findings were based on concerted activities alone, the remedy would remain
essentially the same In this connection, see the Board's rationale in the following cases
where it held that a discharge for concerted activities not only violates Section 8 (1) of
the Act, but also discourages membership in a labor organization in violation of Section 8
(3) , Matter of Rockingham Poultry Marketing Cooperative, Inc., 59 N L R. B. 486,
487; Matter of Sandy Hall Iron & Brass Works, 55 N L. R. B. 1, 1-2, Matter of Ever Ready
Label Corporation, 54 N L. R. B 551, 557-558; Matter of Texas Textile Mills, 58 N L.
R B. 352, 353
REYNOLDS INTERNATIONAL PEN COMPANY 953
would normally have earned as wages, from the date of their discharge to the
date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less their net earnings" during
said period.
The cease and desist order hereinafter recommended is based upon the follow-
ing findings : As soon as the concerted and union activities among the respondent's
employees came to the attention of the respondent, it undertook to undermine
such activities by attempting to bribe one of the leaders of the employees, Fisher,
to exert her influence against the organizational efforts which had commenced.
At the same time, it threatened to discharge the other two leaders, Bullard
and Lingle. The respondent's supervisors and officials made numerous anti-
union statements to the employees, clearly demonstrating the respondent's pur-
pose to coerce them from exercising their legal right to organize. The anti-union
campaign culminated in addresses to the assembled employees by the respond-
ent's president, and later, by its night superintendent, in which threats were
voiced to deprive the employees of their jobs by moving the plant, in the event
that the Union's organizational campaign were successful. TV add to the
coercive effect of its threats, and revealing its fixed purpose to thwart the
employees in the exercise of the rights granted by the Act, the respondent dis-
criminatorily discharged two of the employees who had been most prominent
in the organizational activities frowned on by the respondent.
Because of the respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose, the
undersigned is of the opinion that the unfair labor practices heretofore found
are persuasively related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed by the
Act and that danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from
respondent's conduct in the past. Unless the order is coextensive with the threat,
the preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted. In order, therefore, to make
more effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence
of unfair labor practices, and thus minimize industrial strife which burdens
and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, the under-
signed will recommend that respondent cease and desist from in any manner
infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record, the
undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Fountain Pen and Pencil Makers' Union, Local 18318, A. F. of L., 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 exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged
in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8
(1) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Mar-
garet Bullard and Elsie Lingle, the respondent has engaged in, and is engaging
in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
41 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N L. R. B. 440. Monies received for work performed
upon Federal, State, county, municipal or other work -relief projects shall be considered
as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the respondent,
Reynolds International Pen Company, of Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Fountain Pen and Pencil Makers' Union,
Local 18318, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization of its employees, by
discharging, laying off, or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any
other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist Fountain Pen and Pencil Makers' Union, Local 18318,
A. F. of L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
rdsentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer Margaret Bullard and Elsie Lingle immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges :
(b) Make whole Margaret Bullard and Elsie Lingle for any loss they may
have suffered by reason of respondent's discrimination against them in the man-
ner set forth in the section above entitled "The remedy" ;
(c) Post immediately at its plant at Chicago, Illinois, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director of the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being duly
signed by respondent's representative, be posted by respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, in its factory and including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois),
in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate
Report, what steps respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the date
of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writing that it has complied with the foregoing recommendations,
the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 27,
1945, any party or counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the
date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to
Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board,
Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D C., an original and four copies of a
statement in writing, setting forth such exceptions 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
REYNOLDS INTERNATIONAL PEN COMPANY 955
copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such state-
ment of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the
same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy
with the Regional Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should any
party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must
be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order
transferring the case to the Board. Any party desiring to submit a brief in
support of the Intermediate Report shall do so within fifteen (15) days from the
date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, by filing with
the Board an original and four copies thereof, and by immediately serving a
copy thereof upon each of the other parties and the Regional Director.
ISADORE GREENBERG,
Trial Examiner.
Dated May 20, 1946.
"APPENDIX A"
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist FOUNTAIN PEN AND PENCIL MAKERS'
UNION, LOCAL 18318, 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 purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection
We will offer to the employees named,below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Margaret Bullard
Elsie Lingle
All our'employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any
employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
REYNOLDS INTERNATIONAL PEN COMPANY
Employer.
By ----------------------- ----------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.