American Greetings Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 6, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 1440 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1440 DECISIONS OF..NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS.BOARD
-• 3. Within 10 days from the _date.of' this' Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers shall notify the Regional Director for the
First Region, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or
requiring Structural Concrete Corporation by means proscribed by
Section 8(b) (4) (D) to assign the work in dispute to their members
rather than to the employees of the Employer..
American Greetings Corporation and International Brotherhood
of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers , AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case -No. 26-RC-1909. May 6, 1964
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
executed on April 3, 1963, an election by secret ballot was conducted on
April 25, 1963, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Twenty-sixth Region among . the employees in the
stipulated unit. At the conclusion of the balloting, the Regional
Director furnished the parties with a tally of ballots which showed
that, of approximately 655 eligible voters, 631 cast ballots, of which 86
were for, and 532 were against, the Petitioner, and 13 were challenged.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the election.
The Regional Director investigated the objections and on May. 31,
1963, issued his report on,'objections,' in which he found that objec-
tion No. 8 raised substantial and material issues affecting the election
and. recommended that the election be set aside and a new election
be held. He recommended that all other objections be overruled.
The Employer and the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the report.
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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.:
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) an d Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find, in accord-with the stipulation of the parties, that the
following unit is appropriate for purposes • of collective bargaining
within the meaning of, Section 9(b) of the Act: All production,
maintenance, and warehouse 'employees -at the Employer's plants in
1 On June 14, 1963, the Regional Director issued an erratum.
146 NLRB No. 157.
AMERICAN GREETINGS CORPORATION 1441
Osceola, Evadal'e, Blytheville, and Wilson,' Arkansas, including truck-
drivers, head stockmen, head maintenance men, setup men, and plant
clerical employees,2 but excluding general office employees, profes-
sional employees, guards,. and-supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Regional Director's report, and the
exceptions thereto, and makes the following findings:
Objection No. 8 concerns a series of 14 letters to employees front
the Employer's plant manager, all under the' heading "Talking It
Over," in addition 'to other campaign material, distributed during
the critical period before the election.
In determining whether campaign statements interfere with em-
ployee free choice in representation elections, the Board is sometimes
presented with difficult issues of fact. Frequently, the conclusion
will. require- the delicate balancing of the rights of the individuals
acid 'parties involved to' express themselves freely on the economic
issues before the voters, against the rights of the latter to be free of
coercive influence, however subtle, in the exercise of their franchise.
The instant case is of this type.
The first of the Employer's letters, distributed March 19, 1963,
well before the parties executed the consent-election agreement, set
forth the Employer's opposition to unionization of its plant. It
stated, in part,
Some. of you may wonder about our position as to the union
organizing campaign which started about one year.ago. You
and your families have a right. to know what our position is on
the matter.
American Greetings has always been for the things that are best
for American Greetings people. ' A Union in the plant could
not possibly benefit any of us, but instead, we strongly believe it
would do serious harm. For this reason, we intend to use every
proper means to prevent the union from coming here.
We assure you that as far as American Greetings is concerned,
'we do not feel that it is necessary for anybody tojoin a union to
work here. Those who might join or belong to a union will never
get any advantages, benefits' or' preferred treatment of any sort
over those who do not join or belong to a union. We believe in
impartial and fair treatment to all employees, regardless of
church, union or other! affiliations.
In the next letter, distributed March 22, entitled "Protect Your
Freedom,"'the Employer said, "You have much to lose if the outside
Union organizers win," i.e., "your freedom as 'an American citizen"
and "your right to decide for yourself what you- want to do." This
2 Plant clerical employees include all clerical employees working other than in the gen-
eral offices of the Employer at Osceola.
1442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
letter also quoted sections of the Petitioner's constitution to support
assertions that employees could be ordered out on strike anytime,
assessed for funds to support strikes, required to "obey Union bosses,"
and expelled without hearing for disloyalty. The Petitioner could,
and did, respond to this letter.
In a letter of March 27, the Employer reported on an allegedly,
false statement made by a discharged female employee that she was
given n-a check, not for vacation pay, but as a bribe to get her out of
union activities. On March 29, the Employer announced that a
Board hearing would be held April 2 to determine voter eligibility,
that those who signed authorization cards were not precluded from
voting "no," and that any threats to employees should be reported
to the Employer.
The next letter, on April 8, reported the Employer's version of a
conversation with David Angle, an employee, in the course of which a
variety of subjects were covered. On the subject of a wage increase,
the Employer said : "Winning the election would only give the union
the right to bargain with the Company for a contract. The union
would have the right to present demands to us. We would have the
right to reject any union demands which we felt were out of line."
Asked whether it would close down if the Petitioner won, the Em-
ployer stated: "Our Company will not close down just because the
Union gets in the plant."
On April 11, the Employer wrote about a 9-month old strike called
by another labor organization, the IUE, against Emerson Electric
which, like the Employer, had a plant in Arkansas, at Paragould.
This letter contained a newsphoto of two female strikers wearing
placards and walking the picket line. The caption read : "9 Months
Later-The Fun is Gone-So Are Their Jobs! " The Employer com-
pared Emerson Electric's troubles to its own, noted the fact that all
strikers at Emerson Electric had been replaced, promised more details
on the "Paragould story," and suggested that the employees think
for themselves.
The next day the Employer circulated a letter and poster on the
strike theme. In the letter the Employer claimed that the Petitioner
had called a strike at the plant in Rittman, Ohio, because the "Union
Bosses wanted to save face" for having lost ,a large number of arbitra-
tion cases. The poster depicted a strike by the Petitioner against the
Employer, with the words "Who Would Buy the Groceries . . .
While You Walk the Pulp & Sulphite Picket Line."
On April 12 the Employer distributed packets of play money in
different denominations lampooning promises of the Petitioner's or-
ganizers. On April 15 the Employer reported on an offer made by
AMERICAN GREETINGS CORPORATION 1443
a former employee-who said he was active in the Petitioner's orga-
nization drive-to supply the Employer with inside information, for
a price, or to work for the Employer as a "union buster." This offer
was rejected because, the Employer said, it was "morally and legally
wrong." The next day, April 16, the Employer distributed another
letter with attached newspaper clippings pointing up stories of vio-
lence in the Emerson Electric strike at Paragould and relating such
stories to its situation in 'a series of rhetorical "Would you want ..."
questions, to each of which it responded "If not, vote NO."
The next day the Employer circulated a letter and cartoon lampoon-
ing "Big Promises" made by the Petitioner's organizers. It also
referred to a 6-week strike initiated by the Petitioner, under the lead-
ership of Joseph Bradshaw, at St. Joe Paper Company in Memphis,
Tennessee, which resulted in no benefits and which was 'called off
after strikers were replaced. The letter ended with the query, "Do
you want to lose your job through being replaced in one of Bradshaw's
stupid strikes?" The next day, the Employer followed up with a
letter entitled "The Facts About Joseph Bradshaw-A Lost Strike-
and Lost Jobs." The Employer asserts in the letter that Bradshaw
promised wage increases of 45 to 93 cents per hour to the employees
at St. Joe Paper Company, that he has made "Big, Big, Promises" to
employees of the Employer, that he would have to strike to make good
on these promises, and asks how the employees think they would come
out in- "a Joe Bradshaw stupid strike" against the Employer. This
letter, quoting a Memphis newspaper, goes on to describe incidents
of strike violence and coercion in the St. Joe strike and ends with the
statements : "It Could Happen Here-Vote Right-Protect Your-
self." The Petitioner subsequently responded to this propaganda
relating to the St. Joe strike by setting forth its own version of the
facts and asking why the Employer doesn't mention what Bradshaw
has done for the workers at Kimberly-Clark.
On April 22, the Employer responded to an earlier leaflet dis-
tributed by the Petitioner on the subject of the Employer's earnings.
On April 23, the Employer responded to assertions on a variety of
subjects earlier made by the Petitioner in its counterpropaganda.
As above indicated the Petitioner had opportunity to, and did in
part, counter statements made in the Employer's propaganda cam-
paign.' Also, on April 12, the International Ladies' Garment Work-
7 The Petitioner' s campaign propaganda included , among other things, a booklet entitled
"Look Out Below" which was circulated March 21. It cautioned employees about antici-
pated propaganda prepared for the Employer by "'union busting specialists ." It warned
that union members might be accused of being "strike happy, irresponsible and violent"
individuals . The facts , however , were, it stated, that of 125,000 union contracts , 97 per-
cent were signed after peaceful negotiations . 'it also forewarned employees of Employer-
sponsored rumors concerning known "union sympathizers," plant shutdowns , and harsh
union policies.
1444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ers' Union, AFL-CIO, Central States Region, Southern Missouri-
Arkansas District Council, distributed a leaflet supporting -a vote for
the Petitioner. Finally, the day before the election, a handbill by
the Osceola Chamber of Commerce and another, without its sponsor.
identified, both urging a "no" vote, were distributed to employees
outside the plant entrance. The Regional Director found nothing
coercive in this third party propaganda and no exceptions- were taken
to his finding.
In his report the Regional Director concluded that the entire
thrust of the Employer's preelection material was to impress upon the
employees the futility and foreboding consequences of choosing the
Petitioner, including the inevitability of strikes, loss of employment,
and violence, thereby preventing the exercise of free choice by. em-
ployees in the selection of a bargaining agent. The Employer con-
tends that this material was within the limits of permissible campaign
propaganda. We find merit in this contention.
Although campaign propaganda bearing oni strikes and their con-
sequences does not contain any express or implied threats of retalia-
tory action by the employer, it nevertheless becomes improper when it
produces an atmosphere of unreasoned fear that the employer will take
such action if the employees select a labor organization to represent
them. In cases of this nature, therefore, the problem is one of deter-
mining whether the campaign propaganda has exceeded the bounds
of fair comment, taking into account the entire context in which the
material was presented, as well as whether there was opportunity
for reply by the participating labor organizations or for independent
evaluation by the employees.
As indicated by the above summary, the Employer waged an ag-
gressive campaign against selection by its employees of the Petitioner
as their bargaining representative, in the course of which it made
references to two strikes in which the- Petitioner was involved and to
one.strike involving the 'IUE at the Arkansas plant. of another em-
ployer. We note that the Employer's statements concerning these
three strikes 'we're temperate and factual in character and were
relevant to the election issues ' before the employees.. To the extent
that they arguably were half-truths or created a distorted picture, the
Petitioner had full opportunity to, and ' did, circulate counter-
propaganda; Many of the statements and cartoons distributed by
the Employer concerned the qualifications of the Petitioner to represent
the interests of the employees and could readily be evaluated by. em=
ployees as typical campaign propaganda. Contrary to the Regional
Director, we do not believe that the election atmosphere was such that
the employees were precluded from exercising a rational choice on the
AMERICAN GREETINGS CORPORATION 1445
question of whether or 'not they R ished to be represented by the
Petitioner 4 Objection No. 8 is therefore overruled.'
Accordingly, as we have overruled-the objections and as the tally
of ballots shows that Petitioner has not received a majority of the
valid votes cast, we shall certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid votes has not been
cast for the International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite, and Paper
Mill Workers, AFL-CIO, and that the said labor organization is not
the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit found
appropriate.]
MEMBER BROWN, dissenting:
This case appears to conflict with the Board's holding in Storlcline
Corporation.6 There, we set, aside an election where the Employer's
campaign "was keyed to the idea of instilling fear in the minds of
employees who might be disposed to vote for the Union-fear of physi-
cal violence, fear' of strikes, and fear of loss of employment." There,
as here, the Employer appealed "to the employees' fears of economic
and physical harm."' We stated in Storlcline that :
'We also disagree with the Regional Director 's conclusion that the propaganda had the
Impact of creating In the minds of the employees the futility of selecting a bargaining rep-
resentative . In cases in which the Board had set aside an election for that reason, the
employer had stated, either expressly or by clear Implication , that it would not bargain
In good faith with a union even if'it were selected by the employees . See Dal - Tea, Optical
Company,. Inc., 137 NLRB 1782; Oak Manufacturing Company, 141 NLRB 1323; The
Lord Baltimore Press, 142 NLRB 328. Member Leedom did not participate in the two last
cited cases. -
Our dissenting colleague believes that the decision Is in conflict with Stork-line Corpora-
tion, 142 NLRB 875. (Panel decision by Chairman McCulloch and Member Brown, with
former Member Rodgers dissenting.) In our opinion, the facts of that case. are clearly
distin juieh able . There, the majority found that the employer raised the - stike issue as
a "straw man" with whichto frighten employees .. Here, the Employer related the strike
and violence issues to the Petitioner 's own strike record . That record was relevant to the
election' issues before the employees . Moreover , the Petitioner could have, and in fact did,
answer this . Employer contention with its own version of its record . In these circum-
stances, neither the fact that the Employer also
'd
iscussed a strike in a nearby plant in
which Petitioner -was not involved , nor the fact that the Employer 's development of the
strike theme pointed up to employees that in light of Petitioner 's own strike record, their
selection of Petitioner might lead to their Involvement in strikes, violence, and loss of jobs
to replacements , is a'sufficient basis foiefinding that the Employer ' s conduct exceeded the
bounds of permissible electioneering.
5In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Regional Director's recom-
mendations concerning objections Nos. 2 to 7 and 9 to 11. In our opinion , Petitioner's
exceptions raised no substantial Issues which would warrant reversal of the Regional
Director ' s recommendation to overrule objection No. 1.
6 142 NLRB 875.
7 In the instant case , 14 letters and enclosures were sent to the employees between
March 19 and April 23. In Storkline, the employer 's campaign consisted of eight letters,
three speeches , the showing of two movies , and six other documents , also disseminated
over a period of about a month before th'e election . In one speech In Storkline, the em-
ployer told employees that if the union won "you have a lot to lose." In the same speech
he stated that the union "can throw you into violence . . . and it can cause you to lose
Your Job!" There as here the Board noted that the petitioning union provided no justifica-
tion for the tenor of the employer 's comments . We stated that " the Employer 's campaign
was waged on an issue of its own making. It created a 'straw man ' and then proceeded
to frighten the employees into the belief that their physical safety and jobs were at stake
In the election."
1446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An employer may point out in noncoercive terms for his employ-
ees' consideration the possible results of unionization. But this
'campaign far exceeded any such mere appeal to reason. Rather
it was clearly calculated to evoke an unreasoning fear of the con-
sequences resulting from union organization of the plant. The
Employer . . . created such an atmosphere of fear and confusion
as to make impossible the holding of a free election.
Here heavily interspered in the Employer's 14 letters were the
themes of strikes, violence, and job loss. The letters of April 16 and
April 11 are vivid illustrations. The April 16 communication was
headed, "Vote Against Strike Violence-Vote NO." It related to a
strike at Emerson Electric, also located in Arkansas, but the Peti-
tioner herein was not involved in any way in the controversy. In
the letter, the Employer asked whether the employees wanted their
"home shot up," whether they wanted "chunks of concrete thrown
through the windows" of their homes, or whether they wished their
"automobile[s] shot up." It questioned whether each employee
wanted "to lose months ,and months of wages while . . . walk[ing]
a.picket line," or "to lose [his] job by being replaced with a new
employee while . . . ordered out on strike." The letter then con-
cluded with the statement that :
All these things happened to the people who were hoodwinked by
professional union organizers into voting for the Union at Emer-
son Electric. Read the newspaper clippings. They prove it. You
have no proof that the outside union organizers who are trying
to hoodwink you into voting for them would treat you any better.
Attached to this 1-page letter were three illustrated pages of a news-
paper account of the violence which occurred during that strike. On
the third page the pointed message of the Employer herein was un-
equivocably reemphasized : "This Could Happen to You Here at
OSCEOLA-If the UNION.WINS the Labor Board Secret Elec-
tion-Vote Right-Avoid Strikes."
The letter of April 11 also had discussed the controversy at Emer-
son Electric. It prominently reprinted a picture of two strikers walk-
ing the picket line at Emerson. The letter stated, "9 Months Later-
the Fun is Gone-SO ARE THEIR JOBS !" That letter continued
to state that the Emerson Electric business situation allegedly par-
alleled that of the Employer, and then repeated that at Emerson a
strike and job loss occurred. The Employer again ended its letter
by urging the employees to "Vote Right-Avoid Strikes." Cartoons
AMERICAN GREETINGS CORPORATION 1447
and other statements in many of the remaining letters continued to
bear down on strikes and tenuous job security in repetition of the
tone already set forth above.
My colleagues' description of these statements as "temperate and
factual in character" cannot be supported by any reasonable reading
of the letters' message. Although they. concede that these and other
remarks may have been "half-truths or created a distorted picture,"
they imply that the Petitioner's "counterpropaganda" would dissipate
the effect of the Employer's relentless emphasis on economic strife.
However, I believe that this ignores-the obvious coercive impact of
the Employer's preelection comment.
Furthermore, their attempt to distinguish this case from Stork-
line 8 misconceives the thrust of that holding and, in my opinion, de-
parts from accepted principles of this Board. The employer's cam-
paign in Storkline was unlawful because the employer, by stressing the
harm which would allegedly occur if the employees voted for the
union, made it appear that strikes, violence, and job loss were the
inevitable results of collective bargaining. We noted that as a result
of such repetition fear and confusion dominated the election atmos-
phere. In much the same way the Employer herein, by repeatedly
emphasizing threats of strikes, conveyed the clear message that in-
evitable adversities would occur once the union was certified.
A campaign blatantly geared to inflaming fears of job loss, physi-
cal harm, and inevitable strike activity denies the registering of any
meaningful employee choice. It contributes to the industrial in-
stability which the Act seeks to prevent. Sanctioning the Employer's
conduct clearly and effectively undercuts a free and informed vote.
Accordingly, I would direct another election.
MEMBER JEN$INS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Certification of Results of Election.
8 My colleagues receive no support from their attempted factual distinctions between
Storkline and this case , for, in Storkline we noted that the employer acted unlawfully
because there was "not - the slightest hint that the Petitioner engaged in any violence or
that it was threatening strikes or other oppressive action against the Employer." [Em-
phasis supplied .] This is equally true here . Also, in Storkline, the union, as here,
attempted to answer the employer 's arguments but we found that this did not dilute the
employer 's campaign of fear. My colleagues state that in Storkline the employer raised
the strike theme as a " straw man ," but that here , since the Petitioner was involved at one
time in other strikes, the Employer was justified in recounting the details of strikes con-
ducted by other unions against other employers . Under this approach , an employer's
emphasis upon any aspect of a strike or its effects conducted by any other union would
be "relevant" as long as the employer could show that the petitioning union had at any
time in its history also engaged in strike activity.