P.H. Glatfelter Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 28, 1943

51 N.L.R.B. 780 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of P . H. GLATFELTER COMPANY and DISTRICT 50, UNITED
MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. C-2626.-Decided July 08, 193
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On May 29, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action as set out in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. 'Thereafter, the respondent- filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of the exceptions.
Oral argument, in which the respondent and the Union participated,
was held before the Board on July 20, 1943. The Board has consid-
ered the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that
no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are • hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner, with the exceptions and qualifications noted
below :
1. The Trial Examiner found that the activities of Willis Sprenkle
and David Mummert are attributable to the respondent' We are
not convinced from the entire record that the duties and positions of
these employees were such as to bind the respondent for their con-
duct or that the employees generally had just cause to believe that
they were acting for and in behalf of the respondent.
2. The Trial Examiner has recommended that the respondent in-
form personally, in writing, each of its employees who had been re-
I In his finding as to Sprenkle, the Trial Examiner did not rely on Sprenkle's supervisory,
functions, which were admittedly of a minor nature, but rather on the inference, drawn
circumstantially, that Sprenkle was acting on the respondent's behalf. We have con-
sidered the testimony with regard to the alleged misconduct of this employee and find
nothing in the record which would lead us to infer that the respondent is chargeable with
his acts.
51 N. L. R. B., No. 124.
780
P. H. GLATFELTER COMPANY 781
quired by the respondent to give information as to his union affiliation
at the time of his application for employment, that the respondent will
no longer require applicants for, employment to furnish ;inform;xtion
as to his union affiliation. We are of the opinion that, in order to
effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be sufficient for the respondent
to post a notice informing its employees that it will no longer engage
in the aforesaid practice of requiring applicants for employment to
furnish information as to their union affiliation.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the respondent, P. H. Glatfelter Company, Spring
Grove, Pennsylvania , and its officers , agents , successors , and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership inrDistrict 50, United Mine Workers
of America, or any other labor organization of,its employees, by lay-
ing off, demoting, or refusing to reinstate to their former positions, any
of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of their
employment;
(b) Requiring applicants for employment to furnish information as
.to their union affiliation;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right-to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted ac-
tivities 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) Offer to Roy Baublitz immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights or privileges;
(b) Make whole Roy Baublitz for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally
would have earned as wages from the date of his lay-off to the date of
the respondent's offer of reinstatement to his former position, less his
net earnings during said period;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant at
Spring Grove, Pennsylvania, and maintain for a period of at least
sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices stating
782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that : (1) the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it
has been ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs, (a), (b), and (c) of
this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set
forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this,Order; and'(3) that the
respondent's employees are free to become or remain members of Dis-
trict 50, United Mine Workers of America, and that the respondent
will not discriminate against any employee because of membership or
activity in that organization; I ' ,
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Order, what
steps,the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
CHAIRMAN MILLis took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Geoffrey J. Cunniff for the Board.
Fisher, Ports & May, by Mr. Ralph F. Fisher, of York, Pa., for the respondent.
Mr. Bryan Renick, of York, Pa., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a third amended charge duly filed on April 14,.1943, by District 50,
United Mine Workers i,f America, herein called the Union, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the
Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), issued its complaint dated April
27, 1943, against P. H. Glatfelter Company, herein called the respondent, alleg-
ing that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies
of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the
respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent: (1), from about June 1942, among other things, kept under
surveillance employess engaged in soliciting membership in the Union, threatened •
dire economic consequences if employees. persisted in their union membership
and activity, inquired as to the number of its employees who were members of
the Union, inquired concerning a meeting of the Union held in October 1942
at the home of one of its employees, curtailed privileges because of participation
in said meeting, questioned applicants for employment as to their membership
in labor organizations and employees as to -their membership and activity in
the Union, and inquired as to a meeting of the Union held in March 1943;
(2) about January 11, 1943, laid off Roy Baublitz until January 18, 1943, and
on said date demoted Baublitz from his former position as a machine operator
to a position as a common laborer and thereafter refused to reinstate Baublltz
to his former position because of his membership in and activity on behalf
of the Union; and (3) by the foregoing activities interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
On May 4, 1943, the respondent filed its answer which denied that it had
engaged in any unfair labor practices and specifically denied the several allega-
tions of unfair labor practices contained in the complaint except that the answer
r
P. H. GLATFELTER COMPANY 783
admitted that about January 1943 , as a part of the respondent 's established
personnel policy, the respondent 's personnel officer questioned new employees as
to whether or not they belonged to the Union or any other labor organization.
The answer also averred that on January 11, 1943, Baublitz voluntarily quit his
work as a machine operator ; that when he reported back about January 18,
1943, he was demoted because of two breeches of the respondent 's rules to a
position as laborer on the yard gang at a reduction in pay ; and that while Baublitz
had been informed that at the end of his work on January 11 , he would be
laid off for one week , he left his work before his lay -off was to have commenced.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at York, Pennsylvania , on May 13,
and 14, 1943 , before Earl S. Bellman , the undersigned Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner . The Board and the respondent were
represented by counsel and the Union by an official. All participated 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. At
the close of the hearing , a motion was granted without objection conforming the
pleadings to the proof as to formal matters. Counsel for the Board and for
the respondent argued orally before the undersigned . Oral argument was -
waived by the Union All parties were afforded , but waived , the opportunity
thereafter to file briefs with -the undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, P. H. Glatfelter Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, is
engaged at its office and plant at Spring Grove, Pennsylvania, iii the manufac-
ture, sale and distribution of book, bond and writing paper. During 1942, ap-
proximately 50 percent in volume and over $100,000 in value of the respondent's
raw materials were transported to its Spring Grove plant from States other
than Pennsylvania. During 1942, the respondent shipped approximately 75 per-
cent of its finished products with a value of over $100,000 to States other than
Pennsylvania. The respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Listrict 50, United Mine Workers of America, is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A'. Chronology of events
In the latter part of May 1942, Sam Stevenson, a representative of the Union,
started organizational work among the respondent's employees. In June, Roy
Baublitz joined the Union. Thereafter he solicited memberships and accom-
panied Stevenson in his organizational work.' By July, as testified by Foreman
William Welsh, a witness called by the respondent, Baublitz's interest in the
Union was a subject of conversation and a matter of general knowledge through-
out Spring Grove, a town of about 1,200 population.
3 Three employees assisted Stevenson. Of these, one resigned and one was discharged.
Roy Baublitz is the only one of the three still employed by the respondent.
784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REff ATION6 BOARD
• Sometime during July, David Mummert, a swing man 2 in the respondent's pulp
mill where Baublitz was employed as a digester operator, had a conversation
concerning the Union with Baublitz in the digester room. During this conver-
sation Mummert told Baublitz that he should stop going around with Stevenson
or he would lose his job ; that he should go to see Andrew Luettgen, the superin-
tendent of the pulp mill, one of the major divisions of the respondent's paper plant,
to tell him that he would no longer assist Stevenson in organizing the Union; and
that if he was not satisfied with conditions at the respondent's plant, Baublitz
should go to work for the Thomasville Stone & Lime Company where they had a
union. Baublitz took exception to Mummert's advice and an altercation ensued
during which Mummert grabbed Baublitz, ushered him through a door onto an
adjoining roof some 2 feet below, and laid him on his back. Baublitz did not
report the incident, believing that Mummert had come to him with Luettgen's
knowledge.3
About August 15, around 6 o'clock in the evening, Baublitz went with Stevenson
in the latter's car to the home of employee Harry Sellers, near Spring Grove, to
solicits his membership in the Union. When Baublitz and Stevenson reached
Sellers' home they saw Mummert drive up behind them in his car, a gray Chev-
rolet, .;top, and get out of the car some 20 yards away.' The following day, Mum-
mert saw Baublitz in the digester room and told him tHat he had seen him out the
night before with the union organizer. Baublitz admitted that he had been out
with Stevenson. Mummert asked Baublitz how many cards they had secured,
and was informed that it was none of his business. Mummert also told Baublitz
that he could see that they did not want a union there, and that some day he would
"be out of a job "
A1iout September 10, Mummert again saw Baublitz and asked him if he had
changed his mind about going to see Superintendent Luettgen to tell him that he
would stop assisting Stevenson to organize. Baublitz informed Mummert that
he had not changed his mind.
During the latter part of September, an organizational meeting was arranged
which was held the night of October 6 at the home of employee Albert Spahr
2 Mummert was then studying to be a foreman and was made a foreman on February 1,
1943 The undersigned finds below in Section III, B, 1, that the respondent is chargeable
with his activities discussed herein.
3 The above findings are made upon credited testimony of Baublitz and admissions in
Mummert 's testimony . Mummert testified that upon the occasion of the above encounter
Baublitz had "taken a pass" at him and "scraped" his eye, after be had advised Baublitz
to quit organizing for the Union because he was "only getting in bad." Mummert did not
deny telling Baublitz to inform Luettgen that he would stop organizing for the Union.
Mummert further explained his advice to Baublitz, his first cousin, 'on religious grounds
Both are members of the Brethren Church which holds, according to Mummeit, that its
members may not organize for unions and may join unions only when necessary. Whatever
differences of opinion on religious matters may have been involved in discussions between
Mummert and Baublitz, from all of the circumstances surrounding Mummert's activity,
the undersigned does not believe that religious conviction was the major motivating force
governing Mummert in his behavior discussed herein toward Baublitz and the Union
Moreover it is significant that Mummert urged Baublitz to go to Superintendent Luettgen
rather than to any official of their church to promise he would cease his union activity.
4 This finding is made upon Baublitz's and Stevenson's testimony which the undersigned
credits. Mummert denied that he ever followed Baublitz or Stevenson any place, and
explained that a man who lived just below Sellers also owned a gray Chevrolet . Mummert
impressed the undersigned as being an evasive witness. Further , there is no denial that
Mummert told Baublitz on the following day that he had seen him out with the organizer
the night before. Under all of the' circumstances , the -undersigned does not credit
Mummert 's denial that he ever followed Baublitz and Stevenson.
5 Spahr. who joined the Union early in September, was one of the three who assisted
Stevenson . He quit work in November 1942, and, at the time of the hearing , was farm-
P. H. GLATFELTER COMPANY 785
On the morning of October 6, Spahr's foreman, David Hoover, who had heard
"rumors floating around in the mill" that there was "going to be a party" at
Spahr 's home, asked Spahr why he had not been invited. Spahr told Hoover that
it was not going to be a party but a meeting which was open to the public. Later
that day, Foreman Beck also asked Spahr why he had not been invited. Spahr
told Beek that anyone who wanted to come was welcome. That evening, P. H.
Glatfelter, the respondent's president who had heard some discussion at the plant'
of the "party," saw Spahr in front of the plant as he was leaving work and said,
"Spahr, you are pretty tight with your invitations ; aren't you? I like parties ;
why don't you give me an invitation?" Spahr told Glatfelter that nobody was
barred and that he was invited. Neither of the two foremen nor the respondent's
president, who had thus hinted for invitations to Spahr's "party," came to Spahr's
home that evening.
The following day, Spahr was informed by Foreman Hoover, in the presence
of two other named employees, that he had orders to tell him that he would no
longer be allowed to smoke during working hours in the shipping office or on the
loading, platform where it had been a practice for employees in the shipping de-
partment to smoke. Hoover told the other employees that nothing had been said
about them and that they could continue.'
About October 22, President Glatfelter had a conversation in the evaporating
room of the pulp mill with Roy Baublitz's father, George Baublitz, who owns some
stock and has worked for the respondent 41 years, the last 25 continuously. Glat-
felter asked Baublitz whether it was his boy who was going "around with that
fellow." While Glatfelter did not mention Stevenson's name, Baublitz under-
stood that that was who Glatfelter meant, and replied that that was "what the
people say." Glatfelter then told Baublitz to tell his boy to quit going around
with him or he would "find himself in trouble."'
About November 19, when Stevenson and another organizer for the Union
were passing out leaflets at an entrance to the plant, Roy Baublitz took one of
the leaflets. About 15 minutes later, Mummert came to him and said that he
saw that his friends were outside again. He asked Baublitz if he was still going
around with Stevenson. Baublitz replied that he was and that Mummert could
not stop him. Mummert then stated that some day he would stop Baublitz when
Baublitz had lost his job. The same morning Mummert threw, from a second
story window of the plant , a handful of dark blue material , characterized in his
testimony by Stevenson as "mud," at the two union organizers as they were
giving out leaflets.'
Ing. The findings - above are based upon Spahr's uncontradicted credible testimony and
corroborating testimony of Foreman Hoover and President Glatfelter , two witnesses called
by the respondent.
8 The above findings are made upon credited testimony of Spahr Hoover testified that
he had told all three of the employees as well as the "whole loading force" not to smoke
in the office or on the platform ; that a safety rule permitted smoking only in four specified
places ; that no one had instructed him to mention the matter when he did ; and that the
employees did not obey the no-smoking rule . The respondent called no witness other than
Hoover on this matter . Under all the circumstances , the undersigned does not accept
Hoover's explanation.
7 The findings in the above paragraph are made upon testimony of George Baublitz, who
impressed the undersigned as a truthful witness. Glatfelter testified that he had known
Baublitz easily 40 years, and that he was a fine man and a good workman . Glatfelter
explained his conversation with Baublitz as involving only advice that Baublitz talk to
his son to keep him from getting into trouble about some "scuffling around in the locker
room. " The undei signed was not impressed with Glatfelter s explanation of thg conversation.
8 The findings in the above paragraph and in the paragraph which follows are made on
credited testimony of Baublitz and Stevenson Mummert's denials were not convincing
786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
About December 23, in the early evening, Baublitz and Stevenson drove to the
home of employee Morris Wagner, some 5 miles from Spring Grove, to solicit
his membership. When they reached Wagner's home, Mummert came up behind
them in his car, stopped momentarily, and then drove on slowly past, rolling
clown his window and looking at Baublitz and Stevenson who went up to Wagner's
house.° The following day, Mummert went to Baublitz in the digester room;
said that die had seen him out organizing again ; and asked him how many cards
he had secured, if Wagner had signed a carol, and how many men belonged to
the Union. Baublitz told Mummert that he did not think it was any of his busi-
ness. During the conversation Mummert advised Baublitz to start looking for
a new job as he would not be there "any more after Christmas."
On Saturday, January 9, 1943, sometime about the time the shifts changed at
7 a. in., a sprocket wheel on the conveyor which carries wood chips to the digesters
broke, causing a suspension of operations in the pulp' mill for about 6 hours
while it was being repaired.10 Roy Baublitz and his helper, Robert Dubbs were
working that morning on the shift which ended at 7. Baublitz's relief operator
was John Keeney and Keeney's helper, who relieved Dubbs, was Paul Bollinger.
The digester room, which houses five digesters and two washers, is operated on
three shifts and the three crews, each consisting of an operator and his helper,
rotate shifts each week. The three crews work under three pulp mill foremen,
John Fultz, Henry Hebb and William Welsh. The foremen rotate in one direc-
tion while the crews rotate in the other. Thus, each digester crew works under
each of the foremen every. third week. The digester room crews are responsible
for filling the digesters with wood chips by use of a conveyor, cooking the chips in
a chemical solution with steam for some 4 or 5 hours, emptying the digesters,
and washing the cooking solution, called liquor, from the brown pulp thus made.
In general, the digester operators run the digesters and their helpers run the
washers. However, the helpers assist in filling the digesters and are left in charge
of the digesters, which hold about 5 cords of wood each, while they are being
filled whenever it is necessary for the'operators to leave the room to pack pump3.
It is also the custom for digester operators,to leave their helpers in charge of
the digester room about 20 minutes before the end of the shift to go to the locker
room , a floor below in an adjoining building , to wash up and change clothes, the
operator returning before the end of the shift so that the helper can likewise
go to the locker room."
° The respondent produced Wagner's time card showing that Wagner was at the plant
during , the, time of the above visit. It should be noted, however , that Baublitz did not
testify that they saw Wagner that evening and, according to Stevenson's testimony, he and
Baublitz made several trips before they found Wagner at home
10 During this period , the respondent was unable to make some 15 or 16 tons of pulp.
However, the manufacture of paper ' was not interrupted as pulp was used from storage.
11 Baublitz testified credibly that it had been his practice to do this ; that the other
two operators also did so ; and that he had never been told not to do so While Luettgen,
superintendent of the pulp mill, testified that it was a rule that operators could not leave
the digester room while a digester was being filled, he admitted the rule had never been
set out in written form ; that they were very lenient about operators leaving the digester
room when no digester was being filled ; that the helper was left in charge while digesters
were being filled if the operator had to pack pumps; and that he did not know that it was
customary for the operators to leave the digester room to wash up about 20 minutes before
the end of the shift. Baublitz's testimony 'as to the practice was corroborated by admis-
sions of three witnesses called by the respondent. Operator Keeney testified that upon
occasion he went to wash up, telling his helper that he was going His helper, Bollinger,
testified that it was the custom for Keeney to tell him that he was going to wash up
15 or 20 minutes before the end of the shift, to return so that Bollinger could go, and
that they did not both leave the room at the same time. Foreman Welsh testified that it
was customary and "perfectly all right" for the operator to leave the digester room to
wash up before the end of the shift if he told his helper.
P. H. GLATFELTER COMPANY 787
About 6:30 on the morning of January 9, Baublitz started filling one of the
digesters, an operation taking from 30 to 40 minutes. Some 10 minutes later,
about 6:40, as was the custom, he told his helper that he was going to change
clothes. Dubbs said that he would watch the digester which Baublitz left with
the conveyor running.12 About 15 minutes before 7, Foreman Hebb, who was in
charge of the shift ending at 7, saw Baublitz in the shower room and made no
comment on his being there. About 10 minutes before 7, Dubbs left the digester
room after shutting down the washer but not the conveyor, and met his relief
man, Bollinger, who was on his way up, to the digester room.' Dubbs told Bol-
linger lie was going to wash up and Bollinger said, "All right." Bollinger went
up to the digester room, reaching it about 8 minutes to 7. Dubbs saw Baublitz
in the locker room, told him that he had looked at the digester, that it was
"not near full," and that Bollinger had gone up to the digester room About
that time Keeney, Baublitz's relief operator, saw Baublitz in the locker room.
Baublitz told Keeney that a digester was being filled and that no "liquid" had
been put in it. Keeney said, "All right," and went up to the digester room,
reaching it about 5'minutes to 7. Baublitz then went home without returning
to the digester room.
Superintendent Luettgen testified at the hearing that about 8 o'clock in the
morning of January 9, he had learned from John Fultz, the foreman in charge
of the shift which had come on at 7 that morning, that operations in the pulp
mill had had to close down to repair a broken sprocket ; that Fultz had reported
that the broken sprocket was Baubilitz's fault; and that he had not taken Fultz's
word but questioned Keeney and Bollinger that morning. Luettgin also testi-
fied that Bollinger told him that lie had reached the digester room about 8
minutes to 7; had observed that the motor was idling with the chain making a
cracking noise as it went around the sprocket; had turned off the conveyor;
thereafter, with the assistance of Keeney, had cleaned out the chips ; and thaf
-upon trying to start the conveyor again , they had discovered that the sprocket
was broken. Luettgen further testified that Keeney told him that he had
reached the digester room about 5 minutes to 7 and had found conditions sub-
stantially as described by Bollinger.
At the hearing, Keeney testified that he had found the conveyor full of chips
from one end to the other, that Bollinger had shut the conveyor down, that it
took them about half an hour to clean out the chips, and that after cleaning out
the chips , he had tried to start the conveyor and found that the sprocket had
been broken. At the hearing, Bollinger testified that when he reached the
digester room the conveyors were all running, everything was jammed , there were
chips all over the floor, the chain was slipping around the sprocket, and that he
shut off the conveyors. Yet Bollinger admitted having given a Field Examiner
of the Board a signed statement on January 21, 1943, which stated that when
he had reached the digester room, the conveyor seemed to be running at normal
speed, that he had shut it off, and that when he had tried to start it again it
would click.
It is difficult to believe that the conveyor could have become badly congested
in a minute or two between the time Dubbs left the digester room and Bollinger
arrived, especially in view of the 30 or 40 minutes required to fill a digester.
12 The finding that Baublitz told Dubbs that lie was leaving is made upon testimony of
Baublitz which the undersigned ciedits. While Dubbs, who had been given Baublitz's job
about a weel- after the above incident, testified at the hearing that Baublitz had not told
him that he was leaving Stevenson testified credibly that Dubbs admitted in the presence
of several people in a discussin of the incident at Dobbs* mother's home that Baublitz had
told him that he was going to the locker room.
540612-44-vol. 51--51
788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the other hand, if the.conveyor was jammed and Bollinger, in fact, attempted
to turn on an over-loaded conveyor after shutting it off and before cleaning it
out, as might be inferred from the above signed statement, it appears likely that
the sprocket was stripped by Bollinger before Keeney reached the digester room.
In any event, however the sprocket may have been broken, Luettgen testified that
on that same Saturday morning, upon the oral reports of Bollinger, Keeney, and
Fultz,, he fixed the responsibility for the broken sprocket on Baublitz 13 It is
noteworthy that Foreman Fultz was not called to testify and no explanation
was made by the respondent of its failure to call him. This is particularly
significant both because of Fultz's statement to Roy Baublitz's father set out
below, and because Fultz was the only person with knowledge concerning the
broken sprocket who appears personally to have been above suspicion of respon-
sibility for its breaking.
About 11 p. in. on January 9, Baublitz returned to the plant and worked his
usual shift. He had not heard of the broken sprocket, and first learned of it
through Dubbs. However, Foreman Hebb, who was in complete charge of the
shift, did not say anything to Baublitz about the sprocket having been broken
at any time during the 8-hour shift and it is evident that sprockets had
previously been broken and that no operator has even been disciplined for such
an occurrence."
On Monday, January 11, Baublitz reported for work on the 7 a. in. to 3 p. in.
shift. About 10 o'clock, Superintendent Luettgen and Eugene Troop, the re-
spondent's personnel and safety director, saw Baublitz at his work.15 Luettgen
asked Baublitz how the sprocket happened to break. Baublitz replied that he
did not think it was his fault, that it had not broken on his shift, and that he
had left his helper in the digester room. Luettgen informed Baublitz that he
,considered it was his fault as he was the operator, and told him that at the
end of the shift he was being laid off for the rest of the week. Baublitz was
told to report to Troop the following Monday morning."
Shortly before 12 that clay, Baublitz sent for Foreman Hebb. He told Hebb
that he had been given a week's lay-off for breaking the sprocket, and that he
did not think much of their giving him the lay-off when it was not his fault.
Baublitz also said, "I don't think of working much any more, my wife had a
baby" and I am going home." Hebb asked Baublitz if he was quitting. Bau-
blitz replied that he was not and that he had been told to report to Troop
13 Luettgen had not yet talked to Dubbs
11 In view of testimony of Baublitz and others that sprockets have been broken recently,
and because of admiss ons in the testimony of witnesses called by the respondent,. the under-
signed does not accept the respondent's position that about the middle of 1942, a more
sturdy, solid type of sprocket replaced for the first time a fragile, split type of sprocket and
that the incident of January 9 was the first and only time during the 10 months in which
a solid sprocket has been used that one has ever been broken For instance, from
Bollinger's testimony, it is evident that about January 1, 1943, Foreman Fultz posted a
notice in the digester room concerning a new sprocket which had just been installed.
Also, Keeney testified, as did Baublitz, that a aolid type spiocket was used when the
conveyor was first installed
11 Forenr.in Hebb was not present
16 The above findings are made upon an analysis of the testimony of Baublitz, Luettgen,
and Troop Baublitz denied admitting that the broken sprocket was his fault. Luettgen
fist testified that Baublitz denied responsibility, but latei that Baublitz admitted to Troop
that the sprocket was broken on his shift. Troop testified that Baublitz admitted that the
sprocket broke while he was in the wash room before the end of his shift. The under-
signed does not believe that Baublitz made such an admission.
11 Baublitz 's wife bad given birth to their fouith child on the preceding day. -
P. H. GLATFELTER COMPANY 789
the following Monday.18 Baublitz then went home about 11:45 and Dubbs,
with the assistance of Mummert and Hebb, operated the digester room until
the end of the shift at 3 o'clock. The next day, Luettgen informed Dubbs that
he was to have Baublitz's position as digester operator, which position he has
since filled10
On January 12, Troop saw Roy's father in the plant and asked him what was
the matter with his son, that he had broken the sprocket and caused the loss of
so much production 20 The elder Baublitz told Troop that the trouble was union
activity and nothing else ; that they had it in for his son ; and that they had
laid him off although he had four children and his wife was sick in bed.
Sometime after his son was laid off, the elder Baublitz had a conversation
with Foreman Fultz. Fultz asserted that Roy should not have been laid off,
and that he had always been able to depend on him. George Baublitz replied
that Mummert and Luettgen had "got" his son for "union activity." Fultz's
only reply was, "Yes." 21
On Monday, January 18, Roy Baublitz reported to Troop about 1:30 in the
afternoon rather than on Monday morning.22 Luettgen was present during the
conversation. Troop asked Baublitz why he had not reported in the morning,
and Baublitz explained that he had some things to do at home. Troop then told
Baublitz that he had made a mistake by leaving before the end of his shift on
January 11. Baublitz said that he had just had an addition to his family, was
worried, and wanted to go home. Baublitz was then informed that Luettgen did
not want him in the pulp mill any more and that another man had been put in
his place as digester operator Troop told Baublitz, who had worked for the
respondent for 7 years, the last 2 as a digester operator, that because of big
service he could have a job in the yard. Baublitz said, that he would take it
because he had a family. At 7 o'clock the following morning, Baublitz started
work as a laborer in the yard where he has since been employed at 601/a cents an
hour in contrast with the 67 cents an hour he had received as a digester operator."
On January 29, when Preston Myers applied to the respondent for employment,
Personnel Director Troop asked him where he had previously worked. Myers
named the Thomasville Stone & Lime Company.24 Troop stated that he was "a
little leery about hiring those fellows down there," and asked Myers if he belonged
to "any organization." 26 Myers replied that he did not. About 2 weeks later,
"The above findings are made upon testimony of Baublitz, which the undersigned
believes Baublitz denied that Hebb told him, as Hebb testified, that if he went home then
the respondent was liable to believe that he was quitting.
19 Dubbs testified that he did not require any further instructions in taking over
Baublitz's position as lie had previously been lett alone in the digester room and knew how
to operate the equipment.
20 No mention was made of Roy's having left the previous clay before the end of his shift.
21 The flndings•in the above paragraph are made upon credited and uncontradicted testi-
mony of George Baubhtz As is pointed out above, the respondent, without any explana-
tion, failed to call Fultz, under whose supervision Roy Baublitz worked every third week
21 When Baublitz had been told to report Monday morning, no time bad been specified
nor had the word "early" been used. Also Baublitz had not been told anything on
January 11 to indicate that he would not be returned to his regular position. His shift in
that position started at 3 Monday afternoon Thus,, Baublitz repotted about 11/a hours
before he expected to resume work.
22 The above findings are made upon an analysis of the testimony of Troop and Baubhtz.
24 This is the company which Mummert had mentioned as having a union when 'he
advised Baublitz the previous July to seek employment there if he was not satisfied `with
conditions at the respondent 's plant
25 The respondent 's application blank which was being filled out at the time contains
space for listing "BENEFICIAL ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIETIES," and Troop testified
that It was his practice to consider labor organizations as included tinder that heading.
790 DEDIS.IONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REILATIONIS BOARD
Troop, who had received a report that Myers was wearing a button of the Union,
sent for Myers. Troop pointed out that Myers had, when hired, stated that he
did not belong to any organization, but that nevertheless he was wearing a union
button. Troop also said he hated a liar more than a thief. However, when Myers
insisted that he had joined the Union after starting to work for the respondent
and did not consider his membership therein any of the respondent's business,
Troop' told Myers not to misunderstand him as he did not have anything against
the.'Unlon.
On the evening of March 11, 1943, the Union held a meeting at a hotel in Spring
Grove.26 The following day, Willis Sprenkle, a swing man 27 in the yard where
Roy Baublitz was then working, asked Baublitz if he had been to the union
meeting the night before. Baublitz admitted that he had. Sprenkle then inquired
how many were at the meeting and when the next meeting would be. He also
asked Baublitz to give him a union badge and if he could attend the next meeting.RB
B. Conclusions as to the unfair labor practices
1 The respondent's responsibility for the activities of Willis Sprenkle and David
Mummert
Willis Sprenkle, at the time he questioned Baublitz about the Union in March
1943, was a swing man in the yard. In that position, Sprenkle performed various
work, among which was the transmitting of instructions from foremen to em-
ployees. Admittedly, upon occasions, Sprenkle would take the place of foremen
when they were absent. 'Roy Baublitz identified Sprenkle as assistant foreman
in the yard, but Troop denied that Sprenkle had ever been so classified.
Sprenkle's inquiry about the Union, in the light of his admitted lack of personal
interest therein, is of a pattern with the inquiry of the two foremen and of
President Glatfelter in October 1942 as to why they had not been invited to a
"party" which they clearly did not desire to attend. Further, that the respond-
ent's management received information about the Union is evidenced by the fact
that someone in the plant told Personnel Director Troop, in February 1943, that
Myers was wearing a union button. While Sprenkle's supervisory functions are
not extensive, since the respondent was clearly receiving information about the
Union and Sprenkle was admittedly not personally interested in the Union, the
undersigned infers and finds that Sprenkle was seeking information for the
respondent and that the respondent is chargeable with his questioning of
Baublitz.
David Mummert was a swing man in the pulp mill during all of 1942 and
until February 1, 1943, upon which date he became a foreman. On January
29, Mummert received a letter notifying him of his foremanship. This letter,
which was signed by the respondent's general manager, stated that Mummert's
work "along general lines" had been "keenly followed" by his "direct superiors
as well as the management." The letter also stated that the respondent was
"greatly pleased to see the educational courses" Mummert was taking. As a
swing man in the pulp mill of which Luettgen was superintendent, Mummert
had had the opportunity to go throughout the mill and learn all of the various
26 The undersigned finds that the evidence does not establish that Troop and Yard
uperintendent Kraft kept this meeting under surveillance, even assuming that Baublitz
saw them walking past the hotel that evening and saw Troop writing something.
27 The respondent's responsibility for Sprenkle's activity is discussed below.
28 When called by the respondent, Sprenkle admitted that he had asked Baublitz for a
union badge and about attending a union meeting. He also admitted that he had not
been interested in joining the Union.
P. H. GLATFELTER COMPANY 791
operations . About March 1941, before he was made swing man , Mummert had
started to prepare himself for a foreman 's position by enrolling in a 21/2 years'
correspondence school course in "pulp and paper" at the suggestion of his
foreman. Since 1941, General Manager Koenig, who signed the above letter,
has known that Mummert. was training himself to be a foreman and has received
from the correspondence school reports of the grades which he has made in
his course . Further, Mummert has also taken a course in foremanship at a
night school in York , Pennsylvania. -
Roy Baublitz gave credible testimony that as a swing man Mummert had
taken the place of foremen when they had taken a day or a week -end, off
that Mummert had gone from department to department giving instructions ;
and that Mummert had on one occasion given him instructions and also had
examined papers on • his desk. Mummert denied that as a swing man he had
ever exercised supervisory authority , and Troop corroborated his denial. How-
ever, Sprenkle , a swing man who has not become a foreman as Mummert has,
admittedly exercises functions substantially like those attributed by Baublitz
to Mummert when Mummert was a swing man. In view of this, the under-
signed does not believe that Mummert, while he was preparing to become a
foreman, failed -to exercise supervisory functions at any time during the
year before he was officially designated a full foreman . Accordingly the under-
signed credits Baubliiz 's testimony as to Mummert's functions as a swing man
and finds that during the period material herein, from and after July 1942,
Mummert was in a position close to the management and, upon occasions,
exercised supervisory authority . Further, it is significant that neither Mum-
mert nor Luettgen denied that Superintendent Luettgen was aware of Mum-
mert's repeated attempts to get Roy Baublitz to go to Luettgen to tell him that
he would stop organizing for the Union and that Foreman Fultz admitted that
it was Mummert and Luettgen who "got" Baublitz for "union activity." From
all of the evidence , the undersigned infers and finds that Mummert was acting
with the knowledge and approval of the respondent and that the respondent is
.chargeable with his behavior toward Baublitz and the Union from July 1942
and thereafter.
2. Interference , restraint and coercion
From the facts set out above , the undersigned finds that the respondent, by
the activities of David Mummert , Willis Sprenkle, President Glatfelter, Person-
nel Director Troop, and Foremen hoover and Beck, beginning about 1942,
kept under surveillance employees engaged in soliciting membership in the
Union ; threatened dire economic consequences if employees persisted in their
union membership and activity ; inquired as to the number of its employees
who were members of the Union ; inquired concerning a meeting of the Union
held in October 1942 at the home of one of its employees ; curtailed privileges
because of participation in said meeting ; questioned applicants for employ-
ment as to their membership in labor organizations and inquired as to their
membership and activity in the Union ; and inquired as to a meeting of the
Union held in March 1943 . By the foregoing activities the respondent inter-
fered with , restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercises of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
3. The lay-off and subsequent demotion of Roy Baublitz
The respondent contends that it laid off Baublitz on January 11, 1943, because
on January 9, in violation of a long -standing rule, Baublitz left the digester
792 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
room while the digester was being filled, which action led to a breakdown in-
terrupting production, and that it demoted Baublitz on January 18 because he
quit his job before the end of his shift on January 11 after he had been in-
formed of his disciplinary lay-off. The evidence does not substantiate the
respondent's contentions.
When Baublitz left his helper in charge of the digester room about 6:40 a. in.
on January 9, he was following a plant custom and was not violating any rule.' -
Foreman Hebb saw Baublitz in the locker room about 6: 45 without commenting
on his being there. While Baublitz's helper left the digester room unattended for
a minute or two, he turned the shift over to his relief man and reported to
Baublitz that he had done so. A few minutes before 7, Baublitz talked to his
relief operator who went up to the digester room. Whatever may have happened
in relation to a broken sprocket, the evidence does not establish that the break
can justly be attributed to Baublitz, or that a careful investigation would have
led to such a conclusion. Also, the respondent failed to call the one person
with knowledge of the situation whose own position was above suspicion, Fore-
man Fultz . Further, Baublitz was permitted to work his entire next shift and
Foreman Hebb made no mention of the matter. Finally, it is clear that sprockets
had repeatedly been broken and that no operator had ever before been disciplined
because of a broken sprocket.
Nor is it reasonable to believe that the respondent demoted Baublitz because
it understood that he had voluntarily quit his employment on January 11 when
he reported to Foreman Hebb about 3 hours before the end of his shift that he
felt his punishment was unjust, did not have his mind on his work, and wanted
to go home to his wife, who had given birth to their fourth child the day before.
Clearly, the respondent did not have to train anyone to take Baublitz's place, but
simply promoted his helper the following day. Further, under all of the condi-
tions herein, it is not reasonable that the respondent would have so severely pun-
ished an employee of 7 years' service, the son of a stockholder of 41 years service,
simply because that employee told his foreman that he wanted to go home some
3 hours before the end of his shift.
The respondent's real reason for its treatment of Baublitz lies elsewhere than
in its contentions. For over 6 months Baublitz had openly and persistently or-
ganized for the Union and his activity was common knowledge. Of the three
employees-who had been active in assisting Stevenson, Baublitz was the only one
still in respondent's employ. From June to December 1942, Mummert had re-
peatedly attempted to get Baublitz to tell, Superintendent Luettgen that he
would give up his organizational work. lliummert had also repeatedly predicted
that if he did not cease his union endeavors, he would lose his job. About the
time of the union meeting in October 1942, President Glatfelter had advised
Baublitz's father to warn his son to stop going around with "that fellow" or he
would "find himself in trouble." Shortly after Banblitz's lay-off, Foreman Fultz
told Baublitz's father that his son was dependable and should not have been
laid off and admitted that Mummert and Luettgen had brought about the lay-off
because of Baublitz's union activities. When Troop discussed Roy's lay-off
with the elder Baublitz, he made no mention of Roy's having gone home on Jan-
uary 11 before the end of his shift. Further, the respondent's true attitude toward
the Union a0 is revealed in Troop's remarks shortly after Baublitz's demotion,
29 The undersigned does not credit the testimony of Foreman Welsh that he repeatedly
told Baublitz that he was never to leave while the conveyors were in operation
80 Due consideration has been given to the iespondent ' s contentions as to a notice posted
on June 24 , 1942 , statements made in meetings of the respondent 's supervisors, and a
book concerning labor laws, including the Act, circulated among certain foremen in 1943.
The notice of June 24 was posted after dealings with the Board 's Regional Director. The
P. H. GLATFELTER COMPANY 793
when be told an applicant for employment that he was "leery" of men who had
worked for another company where there was a union, and by Troop's severe
language to that employee when he later learned that he had joined the Union.
On all of the evidence, the undersigned finds that the respondent on January 11
laid off Roy Baublitz, and on January 19 demoted him, and has since refused
to reinstate him to his former position, not because of the reasons alleged by
the respondent, but because of his membership in and activity on behalf of
the Union. The undersigned further finds that by its lay-off, demotion, and
refusal to reinstate Roy Baublitz, the respondent has discriminated in regard
to the hire and tenure of his employment, and has thereby discouraged member-
ship in the Union, and has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
1V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The undersigned finds that the activities of the respondent set forth in Sec-
tion III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
,described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation
to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the
undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain
affirmative action which the undersigned finds necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Having found that the respondent has unlawfully required applicants for
employment to give information as to their union affiliation, the undersigned will
recommend that the respondent cease and desist from such practice and inform
personally, in writing, each of its employees who have completed such an appli-
cation that the respondent will no longer require applicants for employment to
furnish information as to their union affiliation 31
Having found that the respondent discriminatorily laid off, demoted, and there-
after refused to reinstate Roy Baublitz to his former position, the undersigned
will recommend that the respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equ,ivalent employment, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights or privileges. The undersigned will also recommend
that the respondent make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered
by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him, by payment to him
,of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages
from the date of his lay-off to the date of his reinstatement to his former posi-
tion, less his net earnings 33 during said period.
book which bears the signatures, among others, of three foremen of the pulp mill and
Mumniert, also bears dates showing that these foremen retained the book during March
1943, the earliest dates set down thereon. There is documentary evidence of a statement
by President Glatfelter concerning the respondent's neutrality in labor relations contained
in minutes of a safety council meeting held June 15, 1942, shortly before the above notice
was posted There is also testimony that Glatfelter made other such statements How-
ever, under all of the conditions prevailing, the undersigned does not believe that pro-
fessions of neutrality actually neutralize such activities as are set out herein.
31 See Matter of Adolph Spalck and Willianc J. Zrenchik, Co-pat tners, doing business as
Spalek Engineering Company and Society of Designing Engineers, Local 201, Federation of
Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Technicians, C. I 0., 45 N. L. R. B 176
"By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such.as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case,
the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Roy
Baublitz, and thereby discouraging membership in District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 (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
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent , P. H. Glatfelter Company, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in District 59, United Mine Workers of America,
or any other labor organization of its employees , by laying off, demoting , or refus-
ing to reinstate to their former positions , any of its employees , or in any other
manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of their employment ;
(b) Requiring applicants for employment to furnish information as to their
union affiliation ;
(c) In any other manner infering with , restraining , or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form, join, or assist labor
organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining,
or other mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Personally inform in writing each of its employees who have been required
to give information in their applications as to their union affiliation that the
respondent will no longer require applicants for employment to disclose their
union affiliation ;
(b) Offer to Roy Baublitz immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights or privileges ;
(c) Make whole Roy Baublitz for any loss of pay he may have suffered by
reason of the respondent 's discrimination against him by payment to him of a
sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from
the dis te of his lay -off to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement to his
former position , less his net earnings" during said period ;
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Lumber and Sawmill Worbers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L R. B. 440 Monies received for
work performed upon Federal, State , county, municipal , or other work -relief projects
shall be considered as earnings See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L R . B, 311 U. S 7.
83 See footnote 32, supra.
P. H. GLATFELTER COMPANY 795
(d) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant at Spring
Grove, Pennsylvania, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive
days from the date of posting, notices stating that: (1) the respondent will not
engage in the conduct from which it has been recommended that it cease and
desist in paragraph 1 (a), (b), and (c) of these recommendations; (2) that the
respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), and
(c) of these recommendations; and (3) that the respondent's employees are free
to become or remain memberssof District 50, United Mine Workers of America,
and that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of
membership or activityl in that organization ;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, in writing, within ten
(10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10) days from the date
of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article 11 of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board-Series 2, as amended, effective October 28,
1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the
order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of
said-Rules, and.Regulations, filed with the Board, Shoreham Building, Washington,
D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such
exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or pro-
ceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon,
together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. As
further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue
orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board
within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board.
EARL S. BELLMAN,
Trial Examiner.
Dated May 29, 1943.