Atlanta Metallic Casket Company And United Paper Workers Of Ajmerica, Cio, 1225 (1950)

Extract

---

Atlanta Metallic Casket Company And United Paper Workers Of Ajmerica, Cio, 1225 (1950)

In the Matter of ATLANTA METALLIC CASKET COMPANY and UNITED PAPER WORKERS OF AJMERICA, CIO Case No. 10-CA-769.--Decided October 94, 1950 DECISION AND ORDER On April 24, 1950, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster, 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 certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal of those allegations of the complaint. Thereafter the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Respondent's request for oral argument is denied inasmuch as the record and briefs, in our opinion, adequately reflect the issues and positions of the parties.

The Board 1 has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusion, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and modifications.2 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent by the following conduct violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the amended Act:

(1) President Cannon's speeches in February 1949, to employees in the casket plant, during the course of which he stated that, if the Union won the forthcoming election, Respondent would no longer run 'stock jobs,' a circumstance which would result in a loss of employSPursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Murdock].

2 Subsequent to the hearing the Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the charging Union is not now in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. For reasons hereinafter set forth the motion is hereby denied.

91 NLRB No. 188.

1225 ment to the employees,3 that, if the Union lost the election, he expected its supporters to leave Respondent's employ; (2) President Cannon's statement to a group of employees, called to his office in connection with the request of a union-shop committee for an election, that employees Dobbs and Eason, members of the committee, had little seniority, and that Eason would probably be laid off in a short time 4;

(3) the instances of interrogation and related coercion of employees with regard to their union affiliation or voting intentions, more fully described in the Intermediate Report 5; (4) the surveillance of a union meeting shortly before the election by Foremen Martin, Wallace, and Welsh and Production Manager McHan 6; (5) Production Manager Cochran's statement to employee Nelson Cowger, that if the Union won the election, the plant might as well be closed, and Foreman Ragsdale's statement in the presence of employee Sebastian Lopez, following the victory of the Union at the polls, that 'Mr. Cannon... is going to close the plant'7; (6) President Cannon's suggestion to employee James E. Fortner that 'Your father wants his job back, don't he?' coupled with the query as to why Fortner's father kept 'fooling' with the union s; and (7) the institution by the Respondent on May 30, 1949, after notice that Board-directed election would be held on June 21, 1949, of five paid annual holidays, a benefit never previously enjoyed by the employees.9 2. The General Counsel has excepted to the Trial Examiner's failure to find that the Respondent by certain additional statements further interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We find merit in the General Counsel's exceptions insofar as they relate to the following statements of the Respondent,-0 based on the- undenied and credible testimony of the employees concerned: (1) The statement of Paul Miles, manager of the vault plant, to employee William H.

Conger during September 1949, that Conger was a 'damned goat' for being in the Union and was 'going to be a goat' if he didn't get SSee B & Z Hosiery Products Co., 85 NLRB 633.

4We interpret this statement of the Respondent as a thinly veiled threat to lay off at the earliest opportunity those employees who actively assisted the Union's organizational drive., Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Company, 85 NLRB 1358; Tennessee Knitting Mills, Inc., 88 NLRB 1103.

6 Premier Worsted Mills. 85 NLRB 985, and cases cited therein.

7 Somerset Classics, Inc. and Modern Mfg. Co., Inc., 90 NLRB 1676; International Shoe Co. (Searcy, Arkansas Plant), 87 NLRB 479.

8 See, Jasper National Mattress Company, 89 NLRB 75.

9 West...

See the full content of this document

---