Calcasieu Paper Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 18, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 794 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Moser, Henry
Murphy, Edward
Newkirk, Donald
Novajsky, John
Ostrander, William
Perlotto, Gene
Quinn, Michael
Relva, Joseph
Richards, Paul, Sr.
Richards, Paul, Jr.
Ammirato, Joseph
Bakunis, Vincent
Basile, Andrew
Bernard, Lorenzo
Bianchi, Joseph
Britton, George
Coolbeth, Gordon
Crawford, William
Di Giovanni, Daniel
Di Giovanni, Donato
Douglas, Leroy
Folio, Joseph
Gallagher, Thomas
Gilson, Thomas
Hanecek, Joseph
Kelley, Gerald
Scheidel, Leo
Siddell, Charles
Strattman, Harold
Strattman, Irving
Volpe, Edward
Whalen, Joseph
Zavatky, Bodie
Zimmerman, William
Zeller, Paul
Appendix B
Killiany, John
Klinck, George
Lessard, Edward
Macchi, Peter
Pagarullo, Joseph
Peck, Clifford
Richards, William
Rulli, Samuel
Russo, John
Sabolcik, Alfred
Sarog, Alexander
Schaer, Andrew
Vanotti, Joseph
Vasko, Alexander
Williams, Claudius
Williamson, David
CALCASIEU PAPER CO., INC., SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES COMPANY and IN-
TERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAPER MAKERS , AFL and INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE AND PAPER MILL WORKERS,
AFL, JOINTLY. Case No. 15-CA-350. June 18, 1952
Decision and Order
On November 30, 1951, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, then consoli-
dated with Cases Nos. 15-RC-400 and 401, finding that the Respond-
ents had engaged in conduct which had prevented the holding of a
free and uncoerced representation election among their employees
conducted by the Board on January 23, 1951, and recommended that
99 NLRB No. 122.
CALCASIEU PAPER Co., INC. 795
the results of the election be set aside. The Trial Examiner also
found that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in
certain unfair labor practices and recommended that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Ex-
aminer also dismissed certain allegations in the complaint. There-
after the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
The General Counsel also excepted to the Trial Examiner's failure to
find certain conduct by the Respondents violative of the Act and filed
a brief.
By motion dated January 28, 1952, the charging Unions in this
proceeding, who were the petitioning labor organizations in Cases
Nos. 15-RC-400 and 401, requested permission from the Board to
withdraw the objections to the election filed in these cases without
waiving their rights under the charges of statutory violations based
on such conduct filed in the instant case. By order dated March 4,
1952, the Board severed Cases Nos. 15-RC-400 and 401 from the in-
stant case, granted the aforesaid motion to withdraw the objections
to the election, and certified that the petitioning labor organizations
in the representation cases had lost the election. In view of this order
and certification of results of election, it is unnecessary to consider
the Trial Examiner's findings and recommendations with respect to
the objections to election and the Respondents' exceptions thereto.
1. The Respondents except to the Trial Examiner's commerce find-
ings, essentially on the ground that these findings are not supported
by evidence in the record. Contrary to this contention, however, we
find that the Trial Examiner's findings accurately reflect the precise
commerce facts stipulated into the record by the Respondents and the
General Counsel. We therefore find the foregoing exceptions to be
wholly without merit.
2. The Respondents except to the Trial Examiner's conclusion that
they constitute a single employer of the employees at their Elizabeth,
Louisiana, plants. The Respondents contend, in effect, that they are
separate entities in law and fact, that no findings of violations against
Respondent Southern Industries Company, herein called Southern,
were permissible because the evidence of allegedly unlawful conduct
in the case related solely to acts committed by officials and supervisors
of Respondent Calcasieu Paper Company, Inc., herein called Calca-
sieu, directly involving only its employees, and that the Respondents
were prejudiced by the failure of the Trial Examiner 1 originally
designated to act in this case to grant their prehearing motion for
severance and separate hearing for each. We affirm the denial of the
'Charles L Ferguson.
796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR tiELATIONS BOARD
motion to sever. The joinder of the Respondents was clearly neces-
sitated by the allegations of the complaint which attributed the un-
fair labor practices to both of them, and no showing of prejudice re-
sulting from such joinder has been shown.
We are satisfied that although the Respondents are separate legal
entities, the facts in this case justify the Trial Examiner' s conclusion
that for the purposes of this proceeding they are a single employer of
all the employees at their respective plants. In addition to the evi-
dence detailed by the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report,
indicating the common control and integration of the Respondents'
operations and labor relations, we rely on the following record facts,
not mentioned by the Trial Examiner. The Respondents have held
joint meetings of supervisors at both their plants, and held such a
meeting about 2 weeks before the hearing. Calcasieu handles Southern
freight invoices and lends its labor gang to Southern on a reimbursable
basis. Major repair jobs which cannot be accomplished in the South-
ern machine shop are performed in the Calcasieu shop. Employees
of both Respondents use the same parking lot. Employees of both
Respondents may borrow money from them, and for this purpose go
to Cavanaugh, the Calcasieu personnel director. In this connection
it should be noted that while Ahrens, the general manager and assist-
ant general manager of Calcasieu and Southern, respectively, testified
that Cavanaugh is not officially the personnel director for Southern,
he conceded that he did function in this capacity as recently as the
time of the Board election in January 1951, that he presently inter-
views applicants seeking employment with Southern, and that "in a
way" he is Southern's personnel director. In 1947, when the CIO was
attempting to organize the Respondents' plants, the Respondents took
the position that all their employees should be bargained for in a single
unit. In the representation proceedings 2 which resulted in the above-
mentioned Board election, the Respondents again took the same posi-
tion. C. G. McGehee, Calcasieu's president and Southern's general
manager, testified this was because he "wouldn't want to have to deal
with one union at Calcasieu and another union at Southern Indus-
tries." During the period preceding the representation election in
January 1951, the Respondents disseminated a letter among their
employees urging them to vote against the Unions. The tenor of this
letter manifests a singleness of purpose between the Respondents and
all their employees which, in our opinion, convincingly shows that
the Respondents acted towards their employees as a single employer.
We conclude from the foregoing circumstances and the entire record
in the case that, for the purposes of this Act, Calcasieu and Southern
together constitute a single employer of the employees at their Eliza-
2 92 NLRB 998
CALCASIEU PAPER CO., INC. 797
beth, Louisiana, plants, and that they are jointly responsible for the
unfair labor practices committed in their plants irrespective of
whether such conduct was committed exclusively by the supervisors
or officials at only one of their plants and directly involved only the
employees at that plant.3
3. The Respondents also except to the Trial Examiner' s findings
that'-'certain Calcasieu officials and supervisors engaged in conduct
violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act before and after the January
23, 1951, representation election by interrogating employees as to
their union views, threatening them with reprisals if the Unions were
to win the election, and making promises of benefit if they rejected
the Unions. In part, these exceptions attack the credibility findings
of the Trial Examiner. As the clear preponderance of all the relevant
evidence on the record considered as a whole does not convince us that
the Trial Examiner's resolution of conflicts in the testimony of
nesses was incorrect, we hereby adopt his credibility findings 4 We
do not, however, adopt all of the 8 (a) (1) findings made by the Trial
Examiner. In concluding that the Respondents, by the conduct of
their officials and supervisors, violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act,
we rely only on the following circumstances: 5 (a) Personnel Director
Cavanaugh's interrogation of employees John Parks, J. E. Perkins,
Earnest West, Archer Turner, and Everett Yeley as to their union
views and sympathies which we find to be per se violative of the Act.
(b) The following remark by Cavanaugh to employee Parks in con-
nection with the foregoing interrogation which we construe As a threat
of reprisal if the Unions were to win the election : "I didn't think you
were for the Union . . . not as nice as we treat you fellows, and you
get a vacation and a bonus, and then you get a union in here, and that
will be cut out." (c ) Cavanaugh's threat to employee Albert Willis
that "the way a man votes in this election could make it hard or easy
on him." (d) Foreman Sermon's remark to employee Archer Turner
that Mr. McGehee was going to make it hard on the employees signing
up for the Union and holding offices. (e) Supervisor Reeves Thomp-
son's admonition to employee Johnnie Martin ("Don't vote for that
Union. If it don't go in, you will get your money. If I didn't know.
I wouldn't be telling you."), which in the context in which it was
uttered constituted a promise of benefit to Martin if the Union were
rejected. (f) Supervisor Crawford's threat to employee Ottis
Strothers and a group of about six other employees, "If you boys vote
, N. L R . B. v Pennsylvania Greyhound Lenes, The, 303 U S . 261; N . L R. B. v
Condenser Corp ., 128 P 2d 67 (C A 3).
4 Standard Dry wall Products , Inc., 91 NLRB 544. enf. 188 F. 2d 362 (C A 3) ;
N. L. R. B . v. Supreme Bedding Mfg. Co., 30 LRRM 2097 ( C. A. 5).
5In view of the numerous 8 (a) (1) findings In this case . we deem It unnecessary to
pass on the General Counsel 's exception to the Trial Examiner's failure to find certain
othwr 8 ( a) (1) violations by the Respondents.
798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union in, you will not be able to sit on the bench." We construe
this as a threat of denial of a privilege enjoyed by employees if the
Unions won the election.
The Remedy
We believe that the numerous unlawful acts found herein to have
been committed by the Respondents 6 disclose a hostile intent on their
part to defeat the attempts by their employees at self-organization.
We find that the unfair labor practices committed by the Respond-
ents are potentially related to other unfair labor practices proscribed
by the Act, and that the danger of their commission in the future is to
be anticipated from the Respondents' past conduct. The preventive
purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is coextensive
with the threat. Accordingly, in order to make effective the inter-
dependent guarantees of Section 7 and thus effectuate the policies of
the Act, we shall issue a broad cease and desist order.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondents, Calcasieu Paper Co., Inc.,
and Southern Industries Company, Elizabeth, Louisiana, their of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating their employees concerning their union mem-
bership, 'sympathies, and activities; interrogating their employees
concerning their voting intentions in representation elections con-
ducted by the Board; promising benefits to their employees if they
vote against the Unions or reject the Unions; and threatening their
employees with reprisals if they vote for the Unions or do not give
up the Unions.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization or
to form, join, or assist International Brotherhood of Paper Makers,
AFL, or International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill
Workers, AFL, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any and all such activ-
ities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
6 The record indicates that the Respondents ' S (a) (1) conduct was even more wide-
spread among its employees than would appear from our specific findings of violations
of the Act . Thus, Personnel Director Cavanaugh testified that he could not remember
how many employees he had interrogated as to their union views , whether it was 20,
or 30, or 40.
CALCASIEU 'PAPER CO., INC. 799
ment. requiring membership in a -labor organization as a condition
of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at their plants at Elizabeth, Louisiana, copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region,
shall, after being signed by the Respondents' representatives, be
posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof and
maintained by them for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, ,in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondents have taken to comply therewith.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Order.
Appendix
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
membership, sympathies, and activities; interrogate' our employees
concerning their voting intentions in representation elections
conducted by the Board ; promise benefits to our employees if they
vote against INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAPER MAKERS,
AFL, and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE AND
PAPER MILL WORKERS, AFL, or reject these unions; threaten our
employees with reprisals if they vote for these unions or do not
give them up.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-oganiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named
unions or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activ-
' In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named unions, or any other labor organization, or to refrain
from such activities except to the extent that such right may be af-
fected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment, as required in Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act.
CALCASIEU PAPER COMPANY, INC.,
SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES COMPANY,
Employers.
Dated ------------- By --------------------------- --------
(Representatives ) (Titles)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, AFL,
and International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL,
-herein jointly called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, respectively called herein the General Counsel and the Board, by
the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana), issued
:a complaint dated July 9, 1951, against Calcasieu Paper Company, Inc., and
Southern Industries Company, herein called the Respondents or at times Cal-
casieu and Southern, respectively, alleging that the Respondents have engaged
in and are engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges that the Re-
spondents, by certain of their agents, employees, foremen, and representatives,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
After the holding of a consolidated hearing in Cases Nos 15-RC-400 and
15-RC-401, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election, dated De-
cember 27, 1950. An election was conducted by the Board among the Respondents'
employees on January 23, 1951. The Union lost the election by a vote of 296
to 298. On January 29, 1951, the Union filed objections to the election. In his
'report on objections, dated April 23, 1951, the Regional Director for the Fifteenth
Region recommended that a hearing be held on the Union's objections. By an
order dated May 9, 1951, the Board directed that a hearing be held on the issues
raised by the objections, and that ". . . the Hearing Officer designated for the
purpose of conducting the hearing shall prepare and cause to be served upon the
parties a Report containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses, findings
of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of said objec-
tions." On July 10, 1951, the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region issued
CALCASIEU PAPER CO., INC. 801
a combined notice of hearing and order consolidating the complaint and repre-
sentation cases.
On about July 20, 1951, the Respondents filed an answer in which they denied
the commission of any unfair labor practices. Thereafter the Respondents filed
motions with the Regional Director for severance, for amendment of the answer,
for a bill of particulars, and for a change of the designated place of hearing
Trial Examiner Charles L. Ferguson, to whom the motions had been referred
for ruling, granted the motions for a change of place of hearing and for amend-
ment of the answer, but denied the motions for severance and for a bill of par-
ticulars.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Elizabeth, Louisiana, on September
5 to 7, 1951, inclusive, before the undersigned Trial Examiner. All parties were
represented by counsel Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence hearing on the issues, was afforded
all parties. The Respondents renewed their motions for severance and for a
bill of particulars. The motions for severance were denied.' The motion for a
bill of particulars was granted in part and denied in part. The General Counsel
moved to amend the complaint. The motion was granted over the Respondents'
objection. After the General Counsel had rested his case, the Respondents
moved to strike the name of Stewart Willis from the complaint. The motion
was granted without objection. The Respondents also moved to strike the-
names of Theo Hamilton, C. G. McGehee, and Edward K. Ahrens.' Ruling on,
the motion was reserved. The motion to strike is disposed of as hereinafter
indicated
Althought afforded an opportunity to do so, none of the parties argued orally
on the record at the conclusion of the hearing. The General Counsel and the
Respondents have submitted briefs to the Trial Examiner.
Both from the entire record in the case and from his observation of the
witnesses, the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACE
I. THE BUSINESSES OF THE RESPONDENTS
Calcasieu Paper Company, Inc., is a Louisiana corporation which is engaged
in the manufacture of pulp and paper at its plant in Elizabeth, Louisiana.
Southern Industries Company is a Florida partnership with its principal cffice
in Jacksonville, Florida ; and it is engaged in the manufacture of paper bags at
its plant in Elizabeth, Louisiana.
Less than 200 feet separate the plants of Calcasieu and Southern, and there
is no fence or barrier between the two. Elizabeth is a "company town" which
is leased by Calcasieu from Industrial Lumber Corporation. However, Southern
owns its plant and the land upon which it is located. Employees of both Re-
spondents lease houses from Calcasieu. Calcasieu has approximately 530 pro-
duction and maintenance employees, and Southern has approximately 130.
Most of Southern's raw materials are purchased from Calcasieu. Calcasieu's.
office force prepares Southern's payroll. Calcasieu also furnishes Southern with
3 The Respondents moved to sever the complaint case from the representation cases, and
to sever the parties respondent. The Board in its decision of December 27, 1950, found
that "The Employers and the Petitioner agree that all production and maintenance
employees of both Companies in%olved in this proceeding appropriately belong in a single
unit," and that a single unit was appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2 McGehee and Ahrens are named in the bill of particulars, but not in the complaint.
802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
power and major maintenance work. Southern pays Calcasieu for these
services.
C. G. McGehee is president and chairman of the board of directors of Cal-
casieu. He also is the general manager of Southern. McGehee's three sons and
his two brothers are members of Calcasieu's board of directors ; and there are
only two directors who are not members of the McGehee family. Jacksonville
Paper Company owns a controlling interest in Calcasieu. The McGehee family
owns a controlling interest in Jacksonville Paper Company ; and only members
of the family are on its board of directors.
There are eight partners in Southern. Six are children of C. G. McGehee.
His brother and another brother's widow's estate are the other partners.
Edward K. Ahrens is vice president and general manager of Calcasieu. He
also is assistant general manager of Southern. A. A. Cavanaugh is personnel
manager of Calcasieu. Although he is not paid by Southern, he interviews its
applicants for employment.
In view of the findings of the Board in its decision of December 27, 1950, and
upon the facts found above, I find that the Respondents constitute a single em-
ployer for the purposes of the Act.
During the period of 12 months preceding September 1951, Calcasieu, in the
course and conduct of its business, purchased and caused to be shipped to its
Elizabeth plant from points located outside the State of Louisiana various raw
materials having a value of $100,000. During the same period, Southern, in
the course and conduct of its business, purchased and caused to be shipped to
its Elizabeth plant from points located outside the State of Louisiana various
raw materials having a value of $10,000.
During the same period, Calcasieu processed, sold, and distributed various
finished products, of which an amount in excess of $100,000 was shipped to
points outside the State of Louisiana; and Southern processed, sold, and dis-
tributed various finished products, of which an amount in excess of $25,000
was shipped to points outside the State of Louisiana.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Paper Makers , AFL, and International Broth-
erhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL, are labor organizations
which admit to membership employees of the Respondents.
III. THE OBJECTIONS TO ELECTION AND THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The events on and before January 23, 1951
Cases Nos. 15-RC-400 and i5-RC-401 were consolidated by order of the Board
dated August 22, 1950. As related above, an election was conducted by the Board
among Respondents' employees on January 23, 1951.
R. Lee Maricle was in the employ of Southern from about September 6, 1950.
On about October 27, 1950, he went to the home of Paul Cooper, supervisor of
Southern's shipping, finishing, and receiving department, in order to inquire
about a job for his wife. Maricle testified that Cooper told him, "I know you
were against us before . . . The Unions are coming back and I want you to
stand by us this time, and I will give your wife the first opening" Cooper
admitted that Maricle spoke to him about a job for his wife, but denied the
statements attributed to him by Maricle. Cooper testified, in substance, that
he did not have the authority to hire ; that women were not employed in his
department; that Laurence Parisey, superintendent of Southern, often consulted
CALCASIEU PAPER CO., INC. 803
With him before hiring a man for his department ; that he received applications
for employment when Parisey was not present ; that he recommends employment
of applicants when they "look good" ; and that on the day in question he told
Maricle to see Parisey. Parisey lived across the street from Cooper ; and it is
undisputed that Maricle went to see him immediately after his conversation
with Cooper.
Maricle did not impress me as a reliable or credible witness. If Cooper had
in fact promised Maricle to give his wife the first job opening, then it is difficult
to understand why Maricle went to see Parisey. Further, it is undisputed that
women were not employed in Cooper's department. Accordingly, I credit
Cooper's denial and his version of the conversation.
Maricle also testified concerning three conversations that he had with A. A.
Cavanaugh, Calcasieu's personnel director, during December 1950, and on Janu-
ary 3 and ]8, 1951. Cavanaugh denied the remarks attributed to him by Maricle,
except that he admitted that during the December conversation he asked Maricle
what he thought about the Union. Since Maricle has been heretofore discredited,
his testimony is not credited in this connection. Cavanaugh also admitted that
he questioned a number of employees concerning their sympathies toward the
Unions.' It is found that such interrogation constitutes interference, restraint,
and coercion.
J E. Perkins was employed by Calcasieu in the "washroom" under Supervisor
Lawrence Crawford. About 2 weeks before the election, Perkins and about three
other employees had a conversation with Crawford about the Union. Concerning
this conversation, Perkins testified credibly that Crawford stated to the em-
ployees that they "could vote [the Union] in or vote it out," but if they voted it
in, he would "make it awful hard" on them. Crawford denied the statement
attributed to him by Perkins. His denial is not credited.4 It is found that his
statement constitutes interference since it contains a threat of reprisal.
About 2 weeks before the election, John Parks, an employee of Calcasieu, had
a conversation with Cavanaugh. Concerning this conversation Parks testified
credibly as follows : '
. . . he (Cavanaugh) said, "Did I hear you are for the Union?"
Then I asked him, "Who told you that? . . . And he said, "I didn 't think you
were for a Union. ... . Not as nice as we treat you fellows, and you get a
vacation and a bonus, and then you get a union in here, and that will be cut
out."
It is found that the above remarks of Cavanaugh constitute interference, re-
straint, and coercion.
The Respondents had a rule which prohibited union activity on company time
and property. The rule was posted in the plants. On about December 1, 1950,
J. W. Willis, an employee of Calcasieu, was called to Cavanaugh's office. Con-
8 Employees J. E. Perkins, John Parks, Earnest West, and Archer Turner testified cred-
ibly that Cavanaugh interrogated them concerning their union sympathies and activities
' Employee James Perkins was called as a witness by the Respondents. He testified that
he was present during the above conversation and that he did not hear Crawford make the
remarks attributed to him by J E. Perkins James Perkins did not impress the under-
signed as a reliable or credible witness Accordingly, his testimony is not credited in this
connection
° Cavanaugh admitted questioning Parks about the Union, and testified :
There was no conversation about vacations or bonuses I can't answer those ques-
tions I don't know, it depends on the individual, the vacation part of it.
804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cerning his conversation with Cavanaugh , Willis testified credibly and without
contradiction as follows : °
Mr. Cavanaugh told me, "I just hear you are organizing on the job, it has
been three or four different men told me." And he asked me had I been
talking, and I told him "yes," and he said that we like to warn a man before
we fire him. If I hear you talking union any more on the job, I am going
to fire you. And I said, "If you are going to fire me, you may give me my
time now." And he said, "No, but we like to warn a man," and I said,
"Fire me now, and it will save you coming on the job and getting me."
And he said they wanted to warn a man and give him a chance, and I asked
him, I asked Mr. Cavanaugh if a man would walk up to me, I would talk to
them. And he never answered my question. And I said I was going to talk
to any man that wanted to talk to me, and he said, "About the union?"
And I said, "Yes, if he wanted to."
About 1 week before the election, Albert Willis, an employee of Calcasieu, had
a conversation with Cavanaugh. Concerning this conversation, Willis was
questioned and testified credibly as follows : '
Q. Will you tell me, as best you remember, what you said and what Air.
Cavanaugh said?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you tell us now?
A. "How do you think the election is going," and I said, "I don 't know."
And he said, "We have it whipped." And he said, "If we get a union or if we
don't, I am still the boss, and I will still do the hiring and firing."
Q. Do you remember anything else he said?
A. He said, "The way a man votes in this election could make it hard or
easy on him."
It is found that the above remarks of Cavanaugh constitute interference since
they contain a threat of reprisal.
About 3 weeks before the election, Cavanaugh asked Everett Yeley, an em-
ployee of Calcasieu, how he was going to vote in the election.' It is found that
such interrogation constitutes interference.
Johnnie Martin was employed by Calcasieu as a cutter operator. Upon some
three or four occasions he asked Jerry Collins, superintendent of the finishing
room, and Cavanaugh for a raise. About 2 weeks before the election , he-bad a
conversation with Collins. Concerning his conversation with Collins, Martin
testified credibly and without contradiction as follows :
He came by the cutter one day and I had it running, and he asked me if
I was busy, and I said no; and he said, "How about going with me to the
bag plant and help count rolls," so I said O. K. We went over there and some
fellows were over there, but I didn't count any rolls ; I don't remember
whether he did or not, but as we were coming back between the bag plant
and the paper mill and the finishing room, he told me, "I want to talk to you
about the union," and he said, "I think I can make you see where we don't
Employee Wesley Willis testified credibly that about 11 days before the election he was
warned against "interfering with the men" and "talking" during working hours by Cava-
naugh and Edward Ahrens, general manager of Calcasieu and assistant general manager
of Southern.
' Cavanaugh admitted questioning Willis about the election, but denied the other remarks
attributed to him by Willis. His denial is not credited.
8 Yeley testified credibly to the above. Cavanaugh testified that he asked Yeley what he
thought about the Union, but that he did not ask him how he was going to vote. Cava-
naugh's testimony is not credited in this connection.
CALCASIEU PAPER CO., INC. 805.
need any union , and I am not promising you, anything ; I have had three or-
four chances to fire you, but I didn't because I, like you and like your work,.
and like to work with you, but I want to talk to you again."
About 1 hour after his conversation with Collins, Reeves Thompson, a supervisor
in the finishing room, came to Martin and told him,
Don't vote for that Union. If it don't go in, you ... will get your money.
If I didn't know, I wouldn't be telling you.'
It is found that Thompson's statement constitutes interference, restraint, and
coercion.
About 2 or 3 days before the election, Ottis Strothers, who was employed
by-Calcasieu as a carpenter, and about six other employees were sitting on a
bench in the digester room. While they were discussing the Union, Supervisor-
Crawford told them, "If you boys vote the Union in, you will not be able to sit
on the bench." '0 It is found that Crawford's remark constitutes interference-
since it contains a threat of reprisal.
On January 23, 1951, the day of the Board's election, employees Enos Thomp-
son and Elzy Johnson were riding with Supervisor Reeves Thompson in his car.
They stopped to help push the car of employee Melvin Johnson, a brother of
Elzy Johnson. Reeves Thompson asked Melvin Johnson how he was going to.
vote in the election. They also stopped when they saw employee Earnest West,
and Reeves Thompson asked West the same question" It is found that the
above interrogation by Reeves Thompson constitutes interference, restraint, and
coercion.
On January 22, 1951, the Respondents distributed to their employees, while at
work in the plants or at their homes, the following letter :
JANUARY 22, 1950.
To All Employees Calcasieu Paper Company, Inc., Southern Industries
Company.
My FELLOW WORBERS : It seems that ever so often some outside people
come into our peaceful community and try to tell us that they know more
about our common problems than we do. Because of recent undated and
unsigned letters that have been delivered, to you, I believe it necessary that
I again tell you about what I believe to be our problems and the way we
will endeavor to solve them.
(1) I think we have gotten along very well as a large operating group
during the past four years. We have had a lot of things come up, and I am
sure you will agree with me that they have been solved in a way that is
satisfactory to all of us. That being true, it seems only natural that we
will all get along better in the future if we continue our policy of coopera-
tion , and when I say cooperation I mean the relationship between our
employees and the management that will allow any employee to bring his
O Martin testified credibly that Thompson made the above remarks . Thompson denied
the statements attributed to him by Martin His denial is not credited.
10 Strothers testified credibly to the above incident . The record shows that a bench was
provided for employees in order to rest and smoke between disgester blowing. Crawford
denied that he made the above remark , and testified that one of the employees said, "It
will be bad when the Union comes in; we will have to throw the bench out" and that he
(Crawford) remarked, Will it be bad to throw the bench out?" Crawford's testimony is
not credited in this connection.
11 Melvin Johnson and West testified credibly that Reeves Thompson questioned them as
above. Thompson denied that he asked them how they were going to vote Enos Thomp-
son testified that he questioned West concerning his vote , and Elzy Johnson testified that
be questioned his brother . Both testified that Reeves Thompson did not question the
employees Their testimony in this connection is not credited.
215233-53-52
806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
problems either directly to the management or through his immediate
supervisor. Is this a better plan, or could anyone possibly think that some
man living in another town could come in and solve something that he knows
very little if anything about? Good employee-employer relations exist
because of the direct contact one with another, not through some stooge
that has been set up by an organization whose purpose is to get so much of
your salary each month. I know you, many of the members of your fam-
ilies, and I am sympathetic to your many daily problems. None of us
know who might attempt to represent a union today, tomorrow, or next
year, and we surely couldn't develop as satisfactory relation through an
unknown individual as we can by dealing directly and trusting each other.
(2) In one of the unsigned letters, which incidentally would indicate
that these were form letters gotten up and probably used in some other organ-
ization case after which they were just mimeographed and sent to you,
I note the party who is unknown to you and us states that by joining a
union you will gain seniority rights and security. I am sure you will all
agree that the matter of seniority has been observed by this organization
as evidenced by the way the new mill was set up. As far as possible men
were promoted from the old small mill into better positions in the new
mill, and men who held lower positions in the old small mill were promoted
to better positions in the old small mill. I haven't heard of one single com-
plaint on the part of a single employee about the manner in which these
promotions took place. That seems to be pretty good evidence that the
company is appreciative of the fair handling of its employees. Further, this
company will continue to practice just that policy. Whenever an opening
occurs where a better opportunity is offered for an employee, the next man
in line will be given that position if he is qualified. We will continue just
such seniority as we have shown in the development of the new mill.
(3) On this job security, I don't think you can find a manufacturing
plant of any type whether it be paper or otherwise which offers more job
security for its employees than does Calcasieu and Southern Industries.
Neither of these plants have closed in the last 41, years except for Chris-
mas holidays, or maybe a few hours because of a breakdown. One of the
principal reasons for our ability to continue to operate full time is because
of the cooperation of each and everyone of you. By cooperating one with
another we have made a good product and good products can always be
sold. When a product of a plant is sold there is a demand for regular
operation of that plant. By continuing to work one with another, for-
getting the interference of outside folks, we will be able to run these plants
full time, and the very best type of job security anyone can think of will
be offered to our employees.
(4) This matter of whether you shall have a union or not have a union
is one that you will have to, decide for yourself. You should ask yourself,
not someone else, (1) What will I gain by being a member of a union in
plants such as Calcasieu and Southern Industries? (2) Will my wife and
children or those who are dependent upon me gain or lose by union mem-
bership? (3) Will I have a happier job where outside people are trying to
handle my affairs, or will I be happier in dealing with the people with whom
I work? (4) Will I get any more money per day or per week by joining a
union after having to pay dues to that union or not?
(Answer #1) It will not make any difference whether you are a member
of a union or not a member of a union insofar as your job is concerned in our
plants. The employee who is not a member of a union will get exactly the
CALCASIEU PAPER CO., INC. 807
same consideration as one who is a member of the union. Union member-
ship will have no bearing whatever upon seniority rights, nor will any
employee of this company ever have to be a member of a union to WORK FOR
this company. You did not have to join a union to get your job here-you do
not have to join a union to hold your job now-and you will not ever have to
join a union in the future. This company will not be a party to a contract
forcing you to join any union against your will. The fact that you may have
signed a union card does not mean you will have to vote for a union. You
can vote for a union or against a union even though you may have already
signed a union card.
(Answer #2) I believe the employees of these companies are as happy a
group of people as I have ever known. I believe the standards of living
among the people who are employed by these companies are as high as any I
have ever known. By this I mean that the people who work for these com-
panies live as well as a whole as any people in the United States. All of
you do not live in the town of Elizabeth, but whether you do or do not, your
employment by these companies affords conveniences, both the town and
countryside, that are not found at such reasonable costs in any other section
of the United States or anywhere else in the world. All of this means that
your surroundings are good and your family life should certainly be an
enjoyable one.
(Answer #3) I can't help but believe that any employee wants the privi-
lege of talking to the man under whom he works about his conditions and
the many problems that he bumps into every day. Surely an outside man
who attempts to represent you could not have a detailed knowledge of your
particular problems and be able to present them to us.
(Answer #4) This is the only appeal the union has. All of the other
things they have mentioned in these unsigned letters are just put there to
fill up space. First I want to say that the paper mills in the South have
either the second or third highest wage scale of any type of manufacturing
plants in the country. For instance, the paper scale is about 11/2 times some
other manufacturing plants I might mention in the South. The paper scale
has been worked out on a basis of the size of the plant. As an illustration,
the scale of wages for a large mill is a little higher than the scale for a
mill the size of ours. It has been our policy in the past, and will continue to
be our policy in the future, to maintain a scale, all things considered, equal
to other plants the size of ours in this section of the South.
I must apologize for the length of this letter, but feel it necessary to give
you the details. Now I want to urge that each and everyone of you VOTE
in the election to be held on Tuesday (tomorrow). After you have thor-
oughly read this letter, make up your mind and vote for what you believe to
be best for you, your wife and your babies, and remember your decision will
determine your dealings with your company for a long long time.
I want to emphasize the fact that I have dated, and am signing my name
to this letter, and you may be sure that the statements made herein will be
lived tip to.
Sincerely yours,
(s) C. G. McGEHEE,
President , CALCASIEU PAPER COMPANY, INC., Gen'l Mgr..
SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES COMPANY.
Attached to the above letter was a sample ballot of the Board with a red "X"
in the space provided for a vote against the Union.
808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The events after January 23, 1951
During about March 1951, Theo' Hamilton, Respondents' attorney, questioned
and took statements from a number of employees in preparation of the Respond-
ents' case. The employees were called to the company office and were questioned
in the presence of McGehee, Cavanaugh, and Ahrens. They were later ques-
tioned by Hamilton at the company pavilion and a reporter made a transcript of
their statements. McGehee, Cavanaugh, and Ahrens also were present at this
meeting.
The General Counsel contends that the questioning of the employees under-
such circumstances constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion. This con-
tention is rejected. There is no evidence that Hamilton unnecessarily ques-
tioned the employees concerning their union activities. It appears that his ques-
tions were only concerned with the incidents related above and that the state-
ments taken were necessary for the preparation of the Respondents' case. I
do not believe or find that the presence of high management during the inter-
views per se constituted a violation of the Act.
Archer Turner was employed by Calcasieu as an electrician under Foreman
Dennis Sermons. On about August 29, 1951, Sermons told Turner, "Mr. Mc-
Gehee was going to make it hard" on the employees who "have been signing up
for the Union." "
It is found that Sermons' remark to Turner constitutes interference, restraint,
and coercion.
C. Conclusions
The various incidents of interference, restraint, and coercion which occurred'
before and on the day of the election have been related above. Further, although
the Respondents did not permit the Union to organize or campaign for the elec-
tion in the plants during working hours, McGehee's letter was distributed to em-
ployees on the job the day before the election. This conduct amounts to a dis-
criminatory application of Respondents' rule against union activity during
working hours. Standing alone and without taking into consideration the numer-
ous acts of interference, restraint, and coercion on and before January 23, 1951,.
it is my opinion that such conduct presents a serious doubt as to whether or not
the employees were afforded a free choice at the election. Accordingly, it will
be recommended that the results of the election be set aside.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring
in connection with the operations of the Respondents 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 burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor-
practices, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondents cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
It also will be recommended that the Board set aside the election conducted
among the employees of Respondents on January 23, 1951.
u Turner testified credibly to the above. Sermons denied the remark attributed to him,
by Turner His denial is not credited.
CENTRAL JUNCOS 809
Upon the . basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case , the undersigned makes the following :
CONcLusIoNs OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, AFL, and International
Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL, are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents have en-
gaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
EASTERN SUGAR ASSOCIATES (A TRUST) D/B/A CENTRAL JUNCOS and
UNION AMALGAMADA. DE TRABAJADORES..INDUSTRIALES DE JUNCOS
(ILA-AFL), PETITIONER . Case No. 24-RC-291. July 18, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Philip Licari, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dici al error- and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.'
2. The labor organizations, involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.2
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all production, main-
tenance, and repair employees at the Employer's tractor and mechanics
shop.3 The Employer contends that the petition should be dismissed
Eastern Sugar A88oeiate8, 80 NLRB 73
2 The Union de Trabajadores Industriales de Central Juncos ( Ind.) was permitted to
intervene on the basis of a contract interest . The Sindicato de Trabajadores de la In-
dustria Azucarera de P. R . (CGT-CIO), also possessing a contract interest , although duly
notified of the hearing did not appear.
The Employer has only one such shop servicing its several sugar plantations.
99 NLRB No. 121.