P. Lorillard Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 27, 1939

16 N.L.R.B. 684 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the .Matter of P. LORILLARD COMPANY, MIDDLETOWN, OHIO an
PIONEER TOBACCO WORKERS' LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION NO. 55
Case No. C--853.-Decided October 27,.1939
Tobacco Industry-Interference , Restraint , or Coercion : anti-union statements-
and warnings that union activity might cause the plant to be moved by super-
visory official-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining :. production employ-
ees excluding employees with authority to hire and discharge and employees in
a supervisory capacity : no controversy as to-Representatives: proof of choice :
testimony of union official based upon records-Collective Bargaining: com-
pany's failure to be open to persuasion and refusal to make available represen-
tatives authorized to bargain in Middletown, Ohio , insisting that negotiations:
be carried on in New York ' City ; company ordered to bargain in Middletown,.
Ohio, order-based on majority at date of refusal to bargain.
Mrs. Mary Telker Miff, Mr. Philip G. Phillips, and Mr. William S.
Gordon, for the Board.
Mr. Louis Seelbach, of Cincinnati , Ohio, and Mr. Charles W. Mil-
ner, of Louisville , Ky.; f or the respondent.
Mr. Samuel M. Sponsellor, of Cincinnati , Ohio; for the Union.
Miss Carol Agger, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Pioneer Tobacco
Workers' Local Industrial Union No. 55, affiliated with the Commit=
tee for Industrial Organization, herein called the Union, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein 'called- the Board, by the Regional
Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio), issued its com-
plaint dated April 11, 1938, against P. Lorillard Company, Middle-
town, Ohio, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the mewling of Section 8 (1) and (5) 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 upon the respondent and- the Union.
16 N. L. R. B., No. 69.
684
P. -LORILLA-RD: COMPANY 685
In respect of the .unf air: labor practices, the complaint, as amended
at the.hearing,•Vailegedl in substance that on June 10, 1937, the Union
was, and;ever_since has been, the duly designated representative of, a
majority ,of the 'respondent's employees in an appropriate. unit con=
sisting• of the: production employees at the respondent's Middletown,
Ohio, plant, exclusive of- supervisory. employees; that on June 10,
1937, and ever since, the respondent has. refused to bargain collec-
tively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the appropriate.unit; that -on June, 10,.1937, and. ever
since, the respondent has refused.to meet with the Union at Middle-
town. Ohio, for the purpose of bargaining collectively,' stating that
any such meeting should be held ,only at New York. City, a place
far distant from the Middletown; Ohio, plant, well knowing, that
the Union could not and would not 'bargain there because, of the
expense, delay, and, inconvenience,incidental thereto, and because of
the inappropriateness of New York City as a place for collective
bargaining; and that the respondent has since April 1937 discour-
aged its employees from . becoming members of the Union, and has
intimidated and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act (1) by discharging, laying off,
and otherwise discriminating against members of the Union because
of their. union membership, (2) bv derogatory remarks concerning
the Union and all other outside. and independent labor organizations,
(3) by -threatening: to move the Middletown plant if its employees
continued their membership in the Union, and (4) by sundry and
divers other means well,known to the respondent. .
On April 18, 1938,. the respondent filed its answer to the coin-
plaint. The answer,-as amended at the hearing, denied the unfair
labor practices alleged in 'the complaint as amended; and stated
affirmatively that the respondent had bargained collectively. with the
Union; - . . .
..Pursuant to notice, a, hearing was held at Middletown, Ohio, on
April 23, 1938, before James L. Fort, the.Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Board. The Board and the. respondent were rep-
resented by. counsel and participated in the hearing. Full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to. examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
produce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties.
Included in the evidence introduced 'at, the hearing and made part of,
the record in this case were, the transcript and, exhibits in. Case No.
C-851, in.which, the respondent was charged with engaging, in sim-
ilaar unfair labor 'practices, against the employees at its Louisville,
Kentucky, plant
'Matter of P. Lorillard, Com pany, Louisville, Kcnt-ucky,and,Loical Union No. 201. Tobacco
Workers" Union', 16'N. L. R. 'B.' 703, decided ' this day. '
'686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the close of the hearing the Trial Examiner, without objection
by the respondent, granted a motion by counsel for the Board to
amend the complaint to conform to the evidence. The ruling is
hereby affirmed. At the close of the hearing the parties were afforded
an opportunity to argue orally before the Trial Examiner and to
file briefs.'"The respondent filed a brief which was considered by
the Trial Examiner in the preparation of his Intermediate Report
and which has been considered by the Board.
During the-hearing-the Trial' Examiner°rnaide:^severalh-rul ngs,,on
motions and objections to the admission of evidence. The Board
has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no
prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On July 19, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing
which stated that the respondent had informally presented certain
additional evidence to the Board and that it appeared to the Board
that such evidence, together with any other new and relevant evi-
dence, should be made a part of the record. Pursuant to the notice,
a hearing was held on July 25, 1938, before the same Trial Examiner.
Evidence was presented by the respondent and by the Board.
On August 9, 4938; -,.,the Trial.Exam1nerr,-filed.,:an^ Intermediate
Report based upon the entire record, including the hearing of July
25, 1938. Copies of the Intermediate Report were duly served upon
the parties. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent had
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (1), (3),2 and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act, and recommended that the respondent cease and desist
therefrom and, affirmatively, upon request, bargain collectively with
the Union as the exclusive representative of the respondent's Mid-
dletown, Ohio, employees in an appropriate unit. and "to have duly
accredited representatives meet with representatives of the Union
at its Middletown, Ohio, plant or other convenient place in Middle-
town, Ohio." In his Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner noti-
fied the parties that requests for oral argument before the Board
on exceptions to the Intermediate Report should be `nude within 10
days of the receipt thereof. No such requests have been made.
On August 29, 1938, the respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report. The Board has considered these exceptions and,
except in so far as they are consistent with the findings, conclusions,
and order below, finds that they are without merit.
On October 31, 1938, Lorillard Employees Association, an or-
ganization which was not in existence at the time of the first hearing,
petitioned .for leave to intervene: in the..proceedings,