Union Envelope Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 16, 1939

10 N.L.R.B. 1147 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of UNION ENVELOPE. COMPANY and ENVELOPE WORKERS
UNION No. 393 and INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN AND
ASSISTANTS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA
In the Matter Of UNION ENVELOPE COMPANY and FEDERAL LABOR
UNION No. 20795
In the Matter Of UNION ENVELOPE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE No. 10
Cases Nos. C-524, C-515, and C-&6, respectively.Decided January
16, 1939
. Envelope Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion—
-Company-Dominated Union: soliciting membership in ; domination of and in-
terference with formation and administration : activities of supervisors ; dis-
established, as agency for collective bargaining-Units Appropriate for Col-
lective Bargaining: machinists an j machine adjusters, excluding supervisory
employees ; production employees, excluding machinists, machine adjusters,
and clerical and' supervisory employees; contention of company that there
should be only one unit not upheld-Representatives: proof of choice : com-
parison of pay roll with unions' cards-Collective Bargaining: refusal to ne-
gotiate with representatives of majority of employees in units ; form of
remedial order : recognition as exclusive representatives ; negotiation.
Mr. Jacob Blum and Mr. Charles Y. Latimer, for the Board.
Mr. R. E. Cabell, of Richmond, Va., for the respondent.
Mr. C. V. Ernest, of Richmond, Va., for the Pressmen.
Mr. David Kaplan, of Washington, D. C., for the I. A. M.
Mr. H. M. Monahan, of Richmond, Va., for the Federal.
Mr. H. M. Ratcliffe and Mr. William C. Miller, of Richmond, Va.,
for the Association.
Mr. Edwin L. Swope, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Envelope Workers Union No. 393 and
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North
America, herein called the Pressmen, by Federal Labor Union No.
20795, herein called the Federal, and by International Association of
10 N. L. R. B., No. 104.
1147
1148 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Machinists, Lodge No. 10, herein called the I. A. M., the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional
Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland), issued its
complaint dated September 27, 1937, against Union Envelope Com-
pany, Richmond, Virginia, herein called the respondent, alleging
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging'in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1),
(2), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor_
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance (1) that the respondent dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of a labor organization of its em-
ployees, known as the Union Envelope Company Employees' Asso-
ciation, Incorporated, herein called the Association, and contributed
support to it; (2) that the respondent during May 1937, and there-
after, refused to bargain collectively with the Pressmen, the Federal,
and the I. A. M. as the exclusive representatives of the employees in
each of three alleged appropriate bargaining units; and (3) that the
respondent, by the above and other acts and conduct, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their right
of self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, and
to engage in concerted activities for`.the purpose of mutual aid and
protection. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hear-
ing, were duly served upon the respondent, the Pressmen, the Fed-
eral, the I. A. M., and the Association. On August 28, 1937, the
Association filed with the Regional Director a petition to intervene
which was granted by him prior to the hearing.
On October 4, 1937, the respondent filed an answer to the com-
plaint, admitting the allegations of the complaint that it is engaged
in interstate and foreign commerce, denying the alleged unfair labor
practices, setting forth certain affirmative matter, and requesting
that the complaint be dismissed.
On October 4, 1937, the Association filed an answer to the com-
plaint, admitting the first paragraph thereof, but denying those of
the remaining allegations of the complaint which were within its
knowledge, and demanding strict proof of the others.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on October 7, 8, 9, 11, and
12, 1937, at Richmond, Virginia, before Earl S. Bellman, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the re-
spondent, and the Association were represented by counsel and par-
ticipated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing,
the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and objections
to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed these rulings
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1149
and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed . The rulings
are hereby affirmed. The Trial Examiner reserved decision on
certain other rulings for his Intermediate Report.
On December 8, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, finding that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1),
(2), and ( 5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommend-
ing that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
specified affirmative action. Although the Trial Examiner found
that the respondent had dominated and interfered with the forma-
tion and administration of the Association , he failed to recommend
that the respondent disestablish the Association as a representative
of employees of the respondent for purposes of collective bargaining.
The Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report also made rulings on
motions and objections to the admission of evidence upon which he
had reserved decision during the hearing. The Board has reviewed
these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby - affirmed. No exceptions were filed to the
Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing for the purposes of oral argument
was held before the Board in Washington , D. C., on June 14, 1938.
The respondent , the Association , the Pressmen, the Federal , and the
I. A. M. were represented by counsel and participated in the
argument.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a Virginia corporation with its office and plant
at Richmond , Virginia . It is engaged in the manufacture of en-
velopes and envelope containers , and is the largest envelope company
in its section of the country , with an average pay roll of from 225
to 250 employees. The plant has a manufacturing capacity of about
4,000,000 envelopes daily, and its printing capacity is about 1,500,000
daily. The respondent receives a large part of its raw materials from
sources outside the State of Virginia and ships most of its finished
products out of Virginia to other States and to foreign countries.
Under contracts with the Federal Government amounting to $300,000
to $400,000 annually , the respondent ships large quantities of en-
velopes and envelope containers from its plant in Richmond, Vir-
ginia, to various government agencies outside Virginia. The re-
spondent admitted the allegations of the complaint that it is engaged
in interstate and foreign commerce.
1150 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Envelope Workers Union No. 393 and International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America is a labor organi-
zation affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting
to membership all production employees of the respondent, exclusive
of clerical employees, machinists, machine adjusters, and colored
employees.
Federal Labor Union No. 20795 is a labor organization affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership
the colored employees of the respondent.
International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 10, is a labor
organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admit-
ting to membership the machinists and machine adjusters employed by
the respondent.
Union Envelope Company Employees' Association, Incorporated, is
an unaffiliated labor organization, admitting to its membership all
employees of the respondent, exclusive of executives.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate units
The complaint alleges that the respondent's employees constitute
three units appropriate for the purposes of collecting bargaining,
namely, (1) machinists and machine adjusters, (2) colored employees,
and (3) production employees, excluding machinists, machine ad-
justers, and colored employees. The respondent and the Association
contend that all the respondent's employees constitute a single appro-
priate unit.
Machinists are skilled workers and have been traditionally organ-
ized as a craft group. Here the machinists and machine adjusters
have from the outset been organized as a craft group and a majority
of them have designated the I. A. M. to represent them for the pur-
poses of collecting bargaining. In view of our finding below that
the Association is company dominated, there is no claim by any freely
chosen labor organization of the respondent's employees that such a
craft unit is not appropriate. Under these circumstances the ma-
chinists and machine adjusters properly constitute a unit apart from
the other employees.
. The production employees, excluding machinists and machine ad-
justers, have a community of interest resulting from similarity of
work and working conditions. They constitute a normal industrial
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1151
unit. We find no justification in the record, however, for segregating
the colored employees in a separate unit. No evidence was introduced
to show any differentiation of functions 1 which would constitute a
basis for separation of white and colored employees in separate units
for the purposes of collective bargaining.2
Since no evidence was introduced to show why supervisory em-
ployees should be included in the units composed of non-supervisory
employees, we will follow our usual practice and exclude them. We
will also exclude clerical employees. It has been our usual practice
not to include clerical employees in a unit composed of production or
manual workers in the absence of a convincing showing of the
propriety of such a unit.' No such showing was made in these
proceedings.
We find that :
1. The machinists and machine adjusters, excluding supervisory
employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining and said unit will insure to employees of the respond-
ent the full benefit of their right to self-organization and collective
bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
2. The production employees, excluding machinists, machine ad-
justers, and clerical and supervisory employees, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and said unit
will insure to employees of the respondent the full benefit of their
right to self-organization and collective bargaining and otherwise
effectuate the policies of the Act.
2. The representation of a majority in the appropriate units
The complaint alleges a refusal to bargain collectively on the part
of the respondent during May 1937 and thereafter. The respondent
introduced in evidence a list of its employees as of the pay-roll period
ending May 19, 1937. This list also gives the names of persons hired
by the respondent between May 19, 1937, and October 9, 1937, the date
of the hearing, and of persons who left the respondent's employ
during that period.
On May.19, 1937, there were 15 machinists and machine adjusters
in the respondent's employ. There were introduced in evidence
eight signed application cards for membership in the I. A. M., each
bearing a different name and dated some time prior to May 19, 1937.
'None of the colored employees appears to be a machinist or machine adjuster ; all of
them appear to be production employees.
2 See Matter of American Tobacco Company, Incorporated, Richmond Smoking Branch
and Committee for Industrtial Organization , Local No. ¢7$, 9 N. L. It. B. 579.
s See Matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company and United Electrical & Radio Workers
of America, 3 N. L. It . B. 835, 847-848.
1152 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the hearing the respondent examined these cards and did not
question the genuineness of the signatures or that the signatures were
those of machinists and machine adjusters in its employ on May 19,
1937, and thereafter up to the time of the hearing. We have com-
pared the names on the application cards for membership in the
I. A. M. with the names of the machinists and machine adjusters
in the respondent's employ on May 19, 1937, and thereafter, and find
that of the 15 machinists and machine adjusters in the respondent's
employ on May 19, 1937, and thereafter, 8 had signed application
cards for membership in the I. A. M. By signing membership ap-
plication cards these employees had designated the I. A. M. as their
representative for collective bargaining. One machinist who was in
the respondent's employ on May 19, 1937, died thereafter. Although
he was a member of the I. A. M. his name was not on any of the
8 membership application cards introduced in evidence.
On May 19, 1937, there were 194 production employees in the re-
spondent's employ. There were introduced in evidence 103 signed
application cards for membership in the Pressmen and 15 signed
application cards for membership in the Federal, each bearing a
different name and all, except 6,4 dated at some time prior to May 19,
1937. At the hearing the respondent examined these cards and did
not question the genuineness of the signatures or that the signatures
were those of production employees in its employ on May 19, 1937.
We have compared the names on the application cards for member-
ship in the Pressmen and the Federal with the names of the produc-
tion employees in the respondent's employ on May 19, 1937, and find
that of the 194 production employees in the respondent's employ on
that date 118 had signed application cards for membership in the
Pressmen and the Federal. By signing these membership applica-
tion cards, these 118 production employees had designated the Press-
men and the Federal as their representatives for collective bargain-
ing. Even if we disregard the six cards not bearing a date prior
to May 19, 1937, 112 of 194 production employees as of May 19, 1937,
had designated the Pressmen and the Federal as their representatives
for collective bargaining.
During June and July 1937 the Association carried on a member-
ship drive, more particularly discussed below, and succeeded in in-
ducing a number of production employees to resign from the Press-
men and to join the Association. However, in view of our finding
hereinafter that the respondent dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Association and that the re-
spondent, by its agents, encouraged membership in the Association
and discouraged membership in the Pressmen, we consider irrelevant
* Five were undated and one was dated subsequent to May 19, 1937.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1153
defections from the Pressmen occurring after May 19, 1937. As we
have had occasion to state with respect to a similar situation :
The unfair labor practices of the respondent cannot operate
to change the bargaining representative previously selected by
the untrammeled will of the majority.°
We find that :
1. On May 19, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the I. A. M. was
the duly designated representative of the majority of the employees
in an appropriate unit, composed of machinists and machine ad-
justers, excluding supervisory employees, for purposes of collective
bargaining, and pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act was the exclu-
sive representative of all the employees in such unit for purposes of
collective bargaining.
2. On May 19, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the Pressmen and
the Federal were the duly designated representatives of the majority
of the employees in an appropriate unit, composed of production
employees, excluding machinists, machine adjusters, and clerical and
supervisory employees, for purposes of collective bargaining, and pur-
suant to Section 9 (a) of the Act were the exclusive representatives
of all the employees in such unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
3. The refusal to bargain collectively
On May 20, 1937, C. V. Ernest and W. F. Robinson, representatives
of the Pressmen and the I. A. M., conferred with the respondent's
officials, stating that they represented a majority of the respondent's
employees and requesting that the respondent bargain collectively
with them. The respondent's officials were evasive, stating that they
believed that the respondent, because of its contracts with the Federal
Government, was subject to the Walsh-Healey Act a and that they did
not know whether or not they were free under the provisions of that
Act to sign collective bargaining contracts with labor organizations.
The union representatives were thus unable to begin negotiations and
the conference ended.
On or about June 9, 1937, Ernest, Robinson, and H. M. Monahan,
representative of the Federal, again conferred with the respondent's
officials. The respondent again forestalled bargaining collectively by
referring to the Walsh-Healey. Act. After some discussion it was
finally agreed that the respondent would write to the United States
Department of Labor and ascertain whether or not the respondent
was free under the Walsh-Healey Act to sign collective bargaining
5Matter of Bradford Dyeing Association (U. S. A ) (a Corporation) and Textile Workers'
Organizing Committee of the 0. 1. 0., 4 N. L R. B. 604.
6 41 U. S. C. $ 35-45. The 40-hour week provisions of this Act were to go into effect
in the respondent's plant on July 1, 1937.
1154 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contracts with labor organizations. On June 25, 1937, the respondent
sent a letter to the Department of Labor in respect to the Walsh-
Healey Act, and later received a reply which stated in substance that
that Act did not prevent the respondent from signing collective bar-
gaining contracts with labor organizations. On July 6, 1937, Ernest,
Robinson, and Monahan, who had also received a similar letter from
the Department of Labor,' called upon the respondent and requested
that collective bargaining begin. The respondent for the first time
requested proof that the Union represented a majority of the em-
ployees. The union representatives refused to reveal the names of
their members because they feared that such disclosure might result in
discrimination against them. Finally all parties agreed that a com-
parison of the names on the Unions' membership cards with the names
on the respondent's pay roll be made by a conciliator from the United
States Department of Labor.
As found below, during June and July 1937, the respondent, by a
number of its supervisors and other employees, had begun and was
organizing the Association, which we find below to be company domi-
nated, for, the purpose of diverting membership from, and discour-
aging membership in the I. A. M., the Pressmen, and the Federal,
seeking thereby to forestall collective bargaining with these three
unions by destroying their representation of a majority of the em-
ployees. On July 16, 1937, a few days before the conciliator arrived,
the three union representatives again conferred with the respondent.
The respondent informed them that another labor organization had
been formed at the plant and desired to be recognized as the representa-
tive of the employees and that the respondent would now have to
consider its claims also.
A few days later the conciliator arrived and requested the respondent
to allow him to compare the names on the union membership cards
with the respondent's pay roll as of the date on which the unions
requested collective bargaining. The respondent refused, contending
that the claims of the Association should be considered. The con-
ciliator departed without making any comparison. There were no
further negotiations between the respondent and the three unions.
The facts set forth above show that the respondent never intended
to bargain collectively with the duly designated representatives of
its employees and that from the outset of the negotiations with the
union representatives the respondent sought to stifle and prevent col-
lective bargaining. After the elimination of the Walsh-Healey Act as
an obstacle to collective bargaining, the respondent, as found below,
by its agents organized the, Association for the purpose of escaping
I Board Exhibit No. 11. The letter was signed by L Metcalfe Walling, Administrator,
Division of Public Contracts , Department of Labor. . - -
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1155
its obligation to bargain collectively with the I. A. M., the Pressmen,
and the Federal.
The complaint alleges that the respondent refused to bargain col-
lectively with the I. A. M. as the exclusive representative of an appro-
priate unit composed of machinists and machine adjusters , with the
Federal as the exclusive representative of an appropriate unit com-
posed of colored employees , and with the Pressmen as the exclusive
representative of an appropriate unit composed of production em-
ployees, excluding machinists , machine adjusters , and colored em-
ployees . We have found , however, that there are only two appropri-
ate units among the respondent 's employees , namely, ( 1) machinists
and machine adjusters , and (2 ) production employees , excluding ma-
chinists and machine adjusters , and that the colored employees should
not be considered a separate unit. As far as the I. A. M. is
concerned there is no variation between our findings and the
allegations of the complaint . In regard to the Pressmen and the Fed-
eral, the variation between our findings and the allegations of the
complaint is not, under the circumstances of this case , material on the
issue of the respondent 's refusal to bargain collectively , since the
respondent 's refusal to bargain was not motivated by any doubt as to
the appropriate units, but by a rejection of the collective bargaining
principle .' The negotiations never reached a stage which could be
called collective bargaining and the propriety of the units and of
right of the three unions to represent certain classes of employees was
never questioned . In fact, after its various conferences with the
union representatives , including the representative of the Federal,
the respondent was able to state in its answer that "No person has, to
the best of its knowledge and belief , claimed exclusive right to repre-
sent its colored employees as a proper bargaining unit, the first inf or-
mation with respect to such complaint being furnished by the
Complaint."
Under these circumstances we may properly find that the respond-
ent refused to bargain collectively with the Pressmen and the Federal
as the exclusive representatives of the production employees, even
though such a finding varies from the allegations of the complaint.
The representatives of the three unions appeared together at the con-
ferences and attempted to negotiate at, the same times and places. It
is not improbable that, if the respondent had requested the three
unions to define the units which each of them claimed ^ to represent
- 8 See National Labor Relations Board v. BUles-Coleman Lumber Company,. 98 F (2d)
18 (C. C. A. 9th, 1938), enforcing the Board's order in Matter of Biles-Coleman Lumber
Company and Puget Sound District Council of Lumber and Sawmill Workers, 4 N L R B.
679; Matter of Remington Rand v. National Labor Relations Board, 94 F (2d) 862
(C. C. A. 2nd, 1938) enforcing the Board's order in Matter of Remington Rand, Inc. and
Remington Rand Joint Protective Board of•the District Council Office Equipment Workers,
2 N L. 'R B 626, cert den 304 U. S. 576.
1156 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and had objected to a unit composed solely of colored employees, the
Federal and the Pressmen would have agreed to a single unit com-
posed of both white and colored employees and represented by the
Federal and the Pressmen jointly. In any event, it is clear that the
Pressmen and the Federal, which jointly represented a majority of
the respondent's production employees in the unit found by us to be
appropriate, sought to bargain collectively with the respondent as the
exclusive representatives of those employees, and that the respondent
refused to bargain collectively with the Pressmen and the Federal
irrespective of questions of appropriate unit and of the fact that each
of those unions may have been seeking to bargain collectively solely
for the particular classes of employees in the appropriate unit who
were eligible to its membership. The respondent cannot be allowed
now to justify its refusal to bargain on grounds which in no way
motivated its refusal to bargain.
We find that :
1. On May 20, 1937, and thereafter, the respondent refused to
bargain collectively with the I. A. M. as the representative of its
machinists and machine adjusters, excluding supervisory employees,
in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment, and thereby interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
2. On June 9, 1937, and thereafter, the respondent refused to bar-
gain collectively with the Pressmen and the Federal as the representa-
tives of its production employees, excluding machinists, machine
adjusters, and clerical and supervisory employees, in respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act. .
At the oral argument before the Board, the respondent stated that
if the Board found that the respondent had refused to bargain col-
lectively, it would comply with an order of the Board requiring it
to bargain collectively.
B. Domination of and interference with the formation and adminis-
tration of the Association
A group of employees, including two employees designated by the
respondent as foremen, an assistant foreman in the shipping depart-
ment, and two employees who, because of their long service with the
respondent, are considered by their fellow workers to be assistant
foremen, although they are not so nominally designated by the re-
spondent, during June and July 1937, the period when the respondent
was refusing to bargain collectively with the three A. F. of L.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1157
unions, formed and organized an inside labor organization, known
as Union Envelope Company Employees ' Association , Incorporated,
in order to interfere with the "outside " labor organizations , to which
they were opposed. Some of these supervisory employees not only
solicited employees to join the Association , but also encouraged and
urged employees who were members of the Pressmen to resign there-
from and become members of the Association . When the Associa-
tion completed its organization at a meeting of its members held on
July 28, 1937, all the respondent 's foremen were present and took
an active part in the proceedings . These activities of the respond-
ent's foremen in behalf of the Association clearly demonstrated to^
the employees that the respondent favored the Association , and that
failure to join the Association would be visited with reprisals. As a,
result of the activities of the respondent 's supervisory employees,.
many employees joined the Association, and on August 5, 1937, the
Association requested the respondent to recognize it as the bargain-
ing representative for all its employees.
At the oral argument before the Board counsel for the respond-
ent admitted that its supervisory employees were active in organizing
and sponsoring the Association and that because of the activities and
conduct of its supervisory employees the Association is a labor or-
ganization condemned by Section 8 (2) of the Act . Counsel for the
respondent stated that it would comply with an order of the Board
requiring it to disestablish the Association as a representative of its
employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning
grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay , hours of employment,
or conditions of work.
We find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Association and contributed
support to it, and thereby interfered with, ' restrained , and coerced
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
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re-
spondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and with foreign countries, and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Association and has
contributed support to it. In order to effectuate the policies of the
147841-39-vol. 10--74
1158 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act and free the employees of the respondent from such domination
and interference, and the effects thereof, which constitute a con-
tinuing obstacle to the exercise by the employees of the rights guar-
anteed them by the Act, we shall order the respondent to refuse to
recognize the Association and to disestablish it as a representative of
any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, and conditions of work.
The respondent will, in addition, be required to cease and desist
from its unfair labor practices and to bargain collectively with the
I. A. M. as the exclusive representative of the machinists and ma-
chine adjusters and with the Pressmen and the Federal as the exclu-
sive representatives of the production employees, excluding machin-
ists, machine adjusters, and clerical and supervisory employees.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Envelope Workers Union No. 393 and International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America ; Federal Labor
Union No. 20795; International Association of Machinists, Lodge
No. 10; and Union Envelope Company Employees' Association, In-
corporated, are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. The machinists and machine adjusters of the respondent, ex-,
eluding supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
3. International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 10, is, and
at all times since May 19, 1937, has been, the exclusive representative
of all employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on May 20, 1937, and ever since, to bargain collec-
tively with International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 10,
as the exclusive representative of all its employees in such unit, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (5) .of the Act. -
5. The production employees of the respondent, excluding ma-
chinists, machine adjusters, and clerical and supervisory employees,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
6. Federal Labor Union No. 20795, and Envelope Workers Union
No. 393 and International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union
of North America are, and at all times since May 19, 1937, have
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1159
been, the exclusive representatives of all employees in such unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section
9 (a) of the Act.
7. By refusing on June 9, 1937, and ever since, to bargain collec-
tively with Federal Labor Union No. 20795 and Envelope Workers
Union No. 393 and International Printing Pressmen and Assistants'
Union of North America as the exclusive representatives of all its
employees in such unit, the respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5)
of the Act.
8. By dominating and interfering with the formation and admin-
istration of Union Envelope Company Employees' Association, In-
corporated, and by contributing support to said organization, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
9. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise 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.
10. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spondent , Union Envelope Company, Richmond, Virginia , and its
officers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the adminis-
tration of Union Envelope Company Employees ' Association , Incor-
porated, or with the formation or administration of any other labor
organization of its employees , and from contributing support to said
Association or to any other labor organization of its employees;
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Associa-
tion of Machinists , Lodge No. 10 , as the exclusive representative of its
machinists and machine adjusters , excluding supervisory employees;
(c) Refusing to bargain collectively with Federal Labor Union
No. 20795 and Envelope Workers Union No. 393 and International
Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America as the
exclusive representatives of its production employees , excluding ma-
chinists , machine adjusters , clerical and supervisory employees;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form,
1160 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Refuse to recognize Union Envelope Company Employees'
Association, Incorporated, as a representative of any of its employees
for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions
of work, and completely disestablish said Association as such
representative;
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Associa-
tion of Machinists, Lodge No. 10, as the exclusive representative of its
machinists and machine adjusters, excluding supervisory employees;
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively with Federal Labor Union
No. 20795 and Envelope Workers Union No. 393 and International
Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America as the
exclusive joint representative of its production employees, excluding
machinists, machine adjusters, and clerical and supervisory employees;
(d) Immediately post, and keep posted in conspicuous places
throughout its plant at Richmond, Virginia, for a period of at least
sixty (60) consecutive days, copies of this Order together with a
statement that the respondent will abide by and comply with the
provisions of the Order;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.