v^ Registry No. 406—02 NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION FOR THE PAPER MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY AS SUBMITTED ON JULY 24, 1933 The Code for the Paper Manufacturing Industry in its present form merely reflects the proposal of the above-mentioned industry, and none of the provisions contained therein are to be regarded as having received the approval of the National Recovery Administration as applying to this industry UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1933 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C. Price 5 cents Submitted by NATIONAL PAPERBOARD ASSOCIATION (11) CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION FOR THE PAPERBOARD PRODUCING INDUSTRY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3 OF TITLE I OF THE STATUTE ENTITLED "AN ACT TO ENCOURAGE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RE- COVERY, TO FOSTER FAIR COMPETITION AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN USE- FUL PUBLIC WORKS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES " 1. This application is made by the National Paperboard Associa- tion, a trade association, the membership of which consists of a sub- stantial majority in numbers and in volume of the producers of paper board. The Committee presenting- this application was duly appointed, and authorized for such purpose, by vote of the industry in open meeting. It is the desire of the Xational Paperboard Association and other members of the industry to cooperate with the President of the L^nited States in increasing employment and wages and to take such further steps, subject to the approval of the President, as may be necessary to make possible such increase in employment and wages. On JNlay 1, 10;>3, there was delivered to the President a statement offering substantially to reduce hours of labor and to increase em- ployment and wages, and recommending legislation relieving indus- try from the Anti-Trust law3 with lespect to codes or agreements approved by the government, the same to be binding upon all mem- bers of an industry. Such statement included an outline of an in- dustry plan which, except for detail, is the plan set forth in the Competition Section of the annexed code. At the time this statement was transmitted to the President, the membership of the National Paperboard Association included over 90 percent of the producers of paper board. About a week prior to the enactment of the National IJecovery Act, the following paj^er board producers, constituting about 1-1 percent in volume of the industry, resigned from the Association : Southern Kraft Corjo., Panama City, Fla. -Bastrop, La. Bogalusa Paper Co., Inc., Bogalusa, La. Albemarle-Chesapeake Co., Inc., West Point, Va. Longview Fibre Company, Longview, Wash. The members of the paper board industry as early as January 193?> recognized that great excess capacity and the effort of the in- dividual to operate beyond industry average was resulting in price demoralization and harm to the industry and to the public, and sub- scribed to the principle that each individual operator should carry it,s fair share of the industry burden and that the industry burden, being excess capacity, each individual operator should own, or op- eratively control, excess capacity which was in proportion to the industry excess capacity. 9447—33 (1) The members of this industry at such time further subscribed to the principle that individual operators who sought to escape their fair share of the depression burden, should not be permitted so to do except on a basis which would not work injury to employees, to capital invested in the industry, and to the public. In formulating the plan set forth in the Competition Section of the annexed code, the industr}^ has taken into consideration the prin- ciple stated and the large cost advantage arising from increased hours of operation. It is not desired to control price, to restrict or allocate volume. The purpose of the tax of $5.00 per ton individual operation,s in excess of the industry average is to prevent price demoralization. It is true that cost savings due to individual operating periods in excess of industry average may be more than the tax. It is desired to permit progress and volume increase arising from business ability, qualit}^, or other proper means, and it is believed that the annexed code will not operate to preclude such progress by fair means. The tax is intended as a balance against, and a deterrent to, securing in- creased operation beyond that fairly and competitively possible with- out resort to unfair, unreasonable, and demoralizing price cutting. It i,s requested that the National Paperboard Association be con- stituted and recognized as the agency, for the purpose of a code covering labor and fair competition for the producers of paper board of all kinds, and that such further action be taken with respect to such code as shall be proper and permitted under the National Indus- trial Recovery Act, and as shall be approved by the President of the United States. It is requested that the National Industrial Recovery Administra- tion forthwith approve the labor provisions of the code herewith submitted and that the labor provisions therein set forth shall be applicable to and binding upon all producers of paper board in lieu of the labor provisions set forth in proposed agreements by indi- vidual manufacturers with the President, and that the individual producers of paper board shall, upon such approval by the National Industrial Recovery Administration, be exempted from execution of the agreement proposed by the President, and shall be deemed to be members of the National Recovery Administration. Annexed hereto, and marked Exhibit A, is a list of the members of the National Paperboard Association. In case this code shall not cover the entire industry and all pro- ducers of paperboard, it is respectfully requested that this applica- tion for a code may be withdrawn. Respectfully submitted. Jno. L. Barchard, Hummel & Downing Co., Milwaukee, Wis. D. H. Patterson, Jr., Fibreboard Products, Inc., San Francisco, Calif. William P. Jeffery, Chahnnan, National Paperboard Association, No. 1 Wall St., New York, N.Y. For the Code Committee of the Paper Board Industry. Dated July 24, 1933. Exhibit A — Membees of National PAPOiBOARo Association, July 21, 1933 Albia Box & Paper Company, Troy, N.Y. Alton Box Board & Paper Co., Alton, 111. American Box Board Co., Grand Rapids, Mich. American Coating Mills, Elkhart, Ind. Auglaize Box Board Co., St. Marys, Ohio. Ball Brothers Company, Muncie, Ind. Bartgis Brothers Co., Ilchester, Md. Bedford Pulp & Paper Co., Big Island, Va. Bicking Paper Mfg. Co., S. Austin, Dowuington, Pa. Bird & Sou, Inc., East Walpole, Mass. Bloomer Brothers Co., Newark, N.Y. Carolina Fiber Company, Hartsville, S.C. Central Fibre Products Co., Chicago, 111. Chemical Paper Mfg. Co., Holyoke, Mass. Chesapeake Paper Board Co., Balti- more, Md. Clifton Paper Mills, Clifton, N.J. Columbia Box Board Mills, Chatham, N.Y. Consolidated Paper Co., Monroe, Mich. Continental Paper Co., Ridgefield Park, N.J. Container Corporation of America, Chicago, 111. Cornell Wood Products Co., Chicago, 111. Coshocton Straw Paper Co., Coshoc- ton, Ohio. Davis Paper Company, West Hopkin- ton, N.H. Dresden Paper Mills Co., Dresden, Ohio. Elk Paper Mfg. Co., Childs, Md. Fairfield Paper Co., Baltimore, Ohio. Federal Paper Board Co., Bogota, N.J. Fibreboard Products, Inc., San Fran- cisco, Cal. Fleming & Sons, Inc., Dallas, Texas. Fort Orange Paper Company, Castle- tnn on Hudson, N.Y. Franklin Board & Paper Co., Frank- lin, Ohio. Frazer Paper Co., Ltd., Madawaska, Me. Robert Gair Co., Inc., New York, N.Y. Gardner-Richardson Co., Middletown, Ohio. Hagar Straw Board & Paper Co., Ce- darville, Ohio. Halltown Paper Board Co., Halltown. W.Va. Hinde «& Dauch I'aper Co., Sandusky, Ohio. Hummel & Downing Co., Milwaukee, Wis. Lawless Bros. Paper Mills, East Roch- ester, N.Y. Lawrence Paper Co., Lawrence, Kans. Liberty Paperboard Co., Inc., Steuben- ville, Ohio. Lydall & Foulds Paper Co., Manches- ter, Conn. MacAndrews & Forbes Co., New York, N.Y. Mac Sim Bar Paper Co., Otsego, Mich. McEwau Brothers, Whippany, N.J. Mead Paperboard Corp., New York, N.Y. Michigan Carton Co., Battle Creek, Mich. Mobile Paper Mills, Mobile, Ala. Morris Paper Mills, Chicago, 111. Mutual Boxboard Co., Utica, N.Y. National Folding Box Co., New Ha- ven, Conn. B. F. Nelson Mfg Co., Minneapolis, Minn. Newark Boxboard Co., Newark, N.J. New Haven Pulp & Board Co., New Haven, Conn. Ohio Boxboard Co., Rittman, Ohio. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., Toledo, Ohio. The Pairpoint Corporation, New Bed- ford, Mass. Prairie State Paper Mills, Joliet, 111. Penn Fibreboard Corp., New York, N.Y. Ravenswood Paper Mill Co., Long Island City, N.Y. River Raisin Paper Co., Monroe. Mich. Robertson Paper Box Co., Montville, Conn. Schmidt & Ault Paper Co., York, Pa. The Shenandoah Boxboard Corp., Win- chester, Va. Smeallie & Voorhees, Inc., Amsterdam, N.Y. W. W. Snyder Mfg. Co., Cohoes, N.Y. Sutherland Paper Co., Kalamazoo, Mich. Tennessee Paper Mills, Chattanooga, Tenn. Terri^ Hnute Paper Co.. Terre Haute, Ind. Toronto Paper Mfg. Co., Toronto, Ohio. United Paperboard Co., New York, N.Y. Upson Company. Lockport, N.Y. Waldorf Paper Products Co., St. Paul, Minn. (3) Section I — Labor 1. Collective haTgaimng. — In conformity with the provisions of Section 7 (a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act, the attitude of this industry with respect to the labor of employees shall be as follows : (a) That employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and shall be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self -organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; (b) That no employee and no one seeking employment shall be required as a condition of employment to join any company union or to refrain from joining, organizing, or assisting a labor organiza- tion of his own choosing; and (c) That employers shall comply with the maximum hours of labor, minimum rates of pay, and other conditions of employment, approved or prescribed by the President. (d) It is clearly understood that the foregoing does not impair in any particular the constitutional rights of the employee and em- ployer to bargain individually or collectively as may be mutually satisfactory to them ; nor does it impair the joint right of emplo^^er and employee to operate an open shop. (e) Nothing in this code is to prevent the selection, retenti