Audubon Cabinet Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 861 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

AUDUBON CABINET COMPANY, INC. 861
convention, the international representatives, and the international
auditors are not officers required by Section 9 (h) to file affidavits.
(c) Finally, the Employer contends that an affidavit filed under
Section 9 (h) by one of the Union's vice presidents is false. Investi-
gation of the truth and validity of affidavits filed under Section 9 (h)
is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice §
Accordingly, the Employer's final contention cannot affect the Union's
compliance status.
IT IS THEREFORE ADMINISTRATIVELY DETERMINED that Cigar Makers
International Union of America, AFL-CIO, is in compliance with
Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act.
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Administrative Determination of Compliance Status.
5 See General Furniture Corporation , 109 NLRB 479.
Audubon Cabinet Company, Inc. and Period Tables , Inc. and
United Furniture Workers of America , AFL-CIO, and its Local
235
Period Tables, Inc. and Audubon Cabinet Company , Inc. and
United Furniture Workers of America , AFL-CIO, and its Local
235
Audubon Cabinet Company , Inc. and United Furniture Workers
of America, AFL-CIO , and its Local 235
Period Tables, Inc. and United Furniture Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, and its Local 235. Cases Nos. 35-CA-637,35-CA-643,
35-RC-1164, and 35-RC-118. March '8, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 31, 1956, Trial Examiner James A. Shaw issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Audu-
bon Cabinet Company, Inc. and Period Tables, Inc., herein referred
to as the Respondents, had engaged in and were engaging in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. He further found that
Respondents had interfered with an election conducted among their
employees by the Board on August 24, 1955, to determine representa-
tives for the purpose of collective bargaining, and recommended that
the election be set aside. The Trial Examiner also found that Re-
spondents had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices al-
leged in the complaint and recommended that those allegations be dis-
117 NLRB No. 128.
862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
missed.' Thereafter, Respondent's filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Members Murdock, Rodgers, and Bean].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and brief filed by Respondent, and the en-
tire record in the case,' and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the exceptions, ad-
'ditions, and modifications noted below.
1. Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's recommendation that
the election be set aside on the ground that copies of the objections to
the election filed with the Regional Office had not been timely served
upon it. For the reasons given below, we find this exception to be
without merit.
We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding, more fully detailed
in the Intermediate Report, that Respondent's attack upon the valid-
ity of the service of objections is untimely. In any event, assuming
Respondent's right to raise at this time the issue of timely service, we
find, contrary to the holding of the Trial Examiner, that the Union's
service of the objections upon Respondent was in fact timely. Thus,
the election herein was held on August 24, 1955, at the conclusion of
which the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots. As found by
the Regional Director in his report on objections to election, to which
finding no exceptions were filed, the Union, on August 29, 1955,
"mailed its objections to the 35th Sub-Regional Office and on the same
day mailed copies thereof to the Employers, registered mail, return
receipt requested." The objections were received by the Regional Of-
fice on August 30 and by the Respondent on September 1 or 2.3 Re-
spondent does not dispute the fact that the objections were timely filed
with the Regional Director but contends that they were not timely
served upon it, in accordance with Section 102.61 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations,' because they were not received within 5 days after
election day. But the Board's Rules respecting date of service pro-
1 As no exceptions were filed to these findings and recommendations , we adopt them
pro forma.
2 Including the certified copies of court records submitted pursuant to a stipulation of
the parties subsequent to the issuance of the Intermediate Report
In his report , the Regional Director finds that they were received by Respondent on
September 2. At the hearing , Respondent ' s testimony was that they were received on
September 1.
Section 102 61 reads :
.. . Within 5 days after the tally of ballots has been furnished , any party may file
with the regional director four copies of objections to the conduct of the election or
conduct affecting the results of the election . . . . Copies of such objections shall
immediately be served upon each of the other parties by the party filing them. . .
AUDUBON CABINET COMPANY, INC. 863
vide in Section 102.82 that "The date of service shall be the day when
the matter served is deposited in the United States mail or is delivered
in person, as the case may be." As the Union mailed its objections to
both the Respondent and Regional Office on the very same day, we
agree with the Regional Director that this constitutes immediate serv-
ice upon Respondent within the meaning of Section 102.611
2. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that in the period im-
mediately preceding the election Respondents interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced their employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act and interfered with the free choice of a bargaining repre-
sentative of their employees. In so finding, we rely on (1) General
Foreman Hembree's warning to employee Gish on August 23 that
President Snyder would "shut this place down" if the Union won the
election and his threat to employee Holloman about 2 weeks before
the election that Holloman's adherence to the Union would cost him
his job,' and (2) Snyder's statements, made in conversations with
groups of employees shortly before the election,? in his speech of
August 23, and in the newspaper interview published on August 24,
to the effect that if the Union won the election he would withdraw
from the management and ownership of Respondents. We do not,
however, rely upon Snyder's letters to the employees of August 19 and
22, but find them to be privileged under Section 8 (c) of the Act. For,
as found by the Trial Examiner, the letters contain no unlawful state-
ments. Nor do we rely on the Chandler-Marstall incident of August
20. We have considerable ' doubt 'as to whether Chandler should be
credited in this connection, as he has been by the Trial Examiner,
particularly in view of the Kentucky court records showing Chandler's
criminal convictions which the parties agreed, after the issuance -of
the Intermediate Report, to make part of the record. In the circum-
stances, and because of the cumulative nature of any finding based on
Chandler's testimony, we shall not base a finding upon that testimony.
Respondents contend that Snyder's statements in question were not
coercive. The record shows, however, that Snyder and his wife are
the sole owners of Period Tables, Inc., that Snyder is a stockholder in
Audubon Cabinet Company, Inc., and that he is president of and plays
5 Fisher Products Company, 114 NLRB 161
9 We have adopted the pertinent credibility findings of the Trial Examiner , and accord-
ingly overrule the exceptions thereto filed by Respondents , since it has not been estab-
lished by a clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence that the Trial Examiner's
resolution of credibility was incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products , Inc., 91 NLRB 544,
enfd . 188 F. 2d 362 (C. A. 3).
4 While we, hke the Trial Examiner , rely on Snyder 's conversations in the plant with
the groups of employees , the vice which we find in Snyder 's conduct on these occasions
lies in what Snyder said rather than in the circumstances under which he talked to the
employees . Radiant Lamp Corporation, 116 NLRB 40, on which the Trial Examiner
relies in the instant connection , is not applicable to this case as it involved the technique
of summoning small groups of employees to the employer 's office for talks. See Mall Tool
Company, 112 NLRB 1313.
864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a leading role in managing both companies. It also shows that in his
speech of August 23, when replying to election statements by the
Union, Snyder told the employees that, "The statement was also made
that the company said they would go out of business and would not
be able to operate with a Union, which is undoubtedly true." Under
all the circumstances, we find that Synder's remarks were calculated
to engender fear among the employees that if they voted for the Union,
their employment future would be adversely affected by Snyder's
withdrawing from the management and ownership of Respondents.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, Audubon Cabinet
Company, Inc. and Period Tables, Inc., Henderson, Kentucky, their
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in
the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, and its Local 235, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all of
such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at their plants in Henderson, Kentucky, copies of the
notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by a representative of Respondents, be
posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof and main-
tained by them for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
8 Cf. Rempel Manufacturing, Inc., 116 NLRB 1220, and John H. McCann and Hazel E
McCann d/b/a McCann Steel Company, 106 NLRB 41, 59.
a In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words , "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
AUDUBON CABINET COMPANY, INC. 865
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondents have taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint and objections to the elec-
tion, insofar as they allege violations of the Act or interferences with
the election different from those found in this Decision and Order,
be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the August 24,1955, election be, and it hereby
is, set aside, and that Cases Nos. 35-RC-1164 and 1182 be remanded
to the Regional Director for the Ninth Region for the purpose of
conducting a new election at such time as he deems that circumstances
permit the free choice of a bargaining representative.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist United Furniture Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, and its Local 235, or any other labor organi-
zation, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
and to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment,
as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
AUDUBON CABINET COMPANY, INC. AND
PERIOD TABLES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On January 31, 1956 , upon charges filed by United Furniture Workers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, and its Local 235, herein called the Union , the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region
(Cincinnati , Ohio), herein referred to as the General Counsel and the Board respec-
tively , issued a notice of hearing and a complaint in Cases Nos. 35-CA-637 and
423784-57-vol 117 56
866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
35-CA-643, against Audubon Cabinet Company, Inc. and Period Tables, Inc.,-Hen-
derson, Kentucky, herein called the Respondents, alleging that they had engaged in
and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein referied to as the Act Simultaneously
the Regional Director for the Ninth Region issued a "Notice of Hearing and Order
Consolidating Cases 35-CA-637, 35-CA-643, and Cases Nos. 35-RC-1164 and
35-RC-1182," pursuant to an order of the Board dated January 20, 1956, "on the
objection to the election in Cases Nos 35-RC-1164 and 35-RC-1182" directing said
,consolidated hearing before a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board.
For the purposes of brevity in this section of the Intermediate Report and to avoid
repetition the Trial Examiner will discuss in detail below the events leading up to the
order of the Board consolidating the hearings in the above matters.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleges numerous acts of
interference, restraint, and coercion by certain named officials and supervisory em-
ployees of the Respondents prior to the holding of a consent election among the Re-
spondents' employees on August 24, 1955, of which more anon in other sections of
this report.
On February 4, 1956, the Respondents filed a motion to dismiss complaint. This
motion was referred to the Chief Trial Examiner of the Board for ruling by the Re-
gional Director for the Ninth Region; he in turn assigned said motion to Trial Exam-
iner Thomas N. Kessel, who issued his order denying said motion on February 13,
1956.
On February 9, 1956, the Respondents filed their answer to the ccmplaint in which
they admitted certain jurisdictional matters and in effect entered a general denial to
the allegations therein that they had engaged in conduct violative of the Act.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Henderson, Kentucky, on June 5 and 6,
1956, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Re-
spondents were represented by counsel and the Charging Union by lay representa-
tives. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues
At the onset of the hearing herein counsel for the Respondents made the following
motions: (1) to dismiss the objections to the election on the ground that they were
filed in "excess of the five (5) day period as required by-Section 102.61 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations", and (2) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that
the matters alleged therein are the predicate for the objections to the election, and
further reason that the Regional Director's action in issuing his complaint was at odds
with his finding in his report on objections to the election. The motions were de-
nied by the Trial Examiner without prejudice to their renewal at the close of the
hearing. Accordingly, said motions were renewed by counsel for the Respondents
at that time and ruling thereon was reserved by the Trial Examiner. They are dis-
posed of below. Suffice it to say at this stage of the report that the motion to dismiss
objections to the election and the complaint are denied. The Trial Examiner's rea-
soning thereon will, as indicated above, be thoroughly discussed below.
At the close of the hearing the General Counsel moved to conform the pleadings
to the proof in regard to minor matters, such as names, dates, and the like.' The
motion was granted by the Trial Examiner. At the same time the Trial Examiner
advised the parties of their right to argue orally their respective positions. None of
the parties chose to do so. The parties were also advised of their right to file briefs
with the Trial Examiner. Thereafter briefs were received from the General Coun-
sel and counsel for the Respondents on or about July 2, 1956. They have been con-
sidered by the Trial Examiner.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from the Trial Examiner's observation of
the witnesses, he makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The complaint alleges and the answer admits the following as regards the business
of the Respondents.
Audubon Cabinet Company, Inc., hereinafter sometimes called Audubon, is, and
at all times material hereto has been, a Kentucky corporation engaged in the manu-
' Supplementing the above motion the General Counsel also moved to "Correct" the
complaint as follows: "to change Paragraph IV (f), Page 5 of the complaint from
January 23, 1955 to August 23, 1955." The motion was granted by the Trial Examiner
AUDUBON CABINET COMPANY, INC. 867
facture , sale, and distribution of furniture at its plant in Henderson , Kentucky. Au-
dubon, during the period ending June 4, 1955, which is representative of any 12-month
period material hereto, in the course and conduct of the business described above,
caused substantial quantities of materials, supplies, and equipment valued at more
than $375,000 to be shipped from points outside the State of Kentucky to its plant
in Henderson, Kentucky. During said period, Audubon, in the course and conduct
of the business described above, caused to be shipped from its plant at Henderson,
Kentucky, directly to points outside the State of Kentucky, substantial quantities of
the aforesaid furniture products valued in excess of $100,000.
Period Tables, Inc. (hereinafter sometimes called Period) is, and at all times ma-
terial hereto has been, a Kentucky corporation, engaged in the manufacture, sale,
and distribution of furniture at its plant in Henderson, Kentucky. Period, during
the 12-month period ending August 4, 1955, which is representative of any 12-month
period material hereto, in the course and conduct of the business described above,
caused substantial quantities of materials, supplies, and equipment valued at more than
$100,000 to be purchased and shipped directly into the State of Kentucky, from and
through other States of the United States. During said period, Period, in the course
and conduct of the business described above, caused to be shipped from its plant at
Henderson, Kentucky, directly to points outside the State of Kentucky, substantial
quantities of the aforesaid furniture products valued in excess of $100,000.
At the hearing herein the parties entered into the following stipulation which in
the considered opinion of the Trial Examiner throws additional light on the rela-
tionship between the Respondents and their business operations.
Mr. SHEERAN: By agreement of the parties herein, the General Counsel and
the Respondent and the Charging Party hereby stipulate that the Respondents,
Period Tables, Incorporated, and Audubon Cabinet Company, Incorporated,
have at all times material to the allegations contained in the complaint, have
had common managerial control by George A. Snyder and S. T. Crenshaw, the
same personnel director, common control of personnel and labor-relations poli-
cies, centralized hiring, centralized purchasing, common general office, adjoining
plant facilities, including common parking lot and lumber yard, and that George
A. Snyder, as president and stockholder of each, with George A. Snyder and his
family owning all the shares of capital stock of Period Tables, Incorporated.
Second, the parties turther stipulate that the following employeees have been
at all times material to the allegations contained in the complaint, Supervisors
within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act; first, George A. Snyder, S. T.
Crenshaw, Harry W. Hembree, Paul Marstall, Sherman Combest.
Mr. DONOVAN: The Respondent further stipulates that Jack W. Myers was the
sales manager for the Period Tables, Inc., and as such has supervisory authority
over other salesmen.
Upon all of the foregoing the Trial Examiner finds that the Respondents herein,
Audubon Cabinet Company, Inc. and Period Tables, Inc., are engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) and are employers within the meaning of
Section 2 (2) of the Act having common managerial control as set forth in the above
stipulation.2
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated at the hearing herein and the Trial Examiner finds that
United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and its Local 235 are labor or-
ganizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The objections to the election in Cases Nos. 35-RC-1164 and 35-RC-1182
The record clearly shows that the incidents with which we are concerned herein
stem from a stipulation for certification upon consent election entered into-by the
parties on August 4, 1955. Pursuant to this agreement an election by secret ballot was
conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region
2 In the considered opinion of the Trial Exam finer the above stipulation when considered
with the consent-election agreement ' negates the denial in paragraph 2 of the answer,
that "Audubon Cabinet Company, Inc., and Period Tables, Inc., are integrated and inter-
related " In the considered opinion of the Trial Examiner they are and he so finds.
868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(Cincinnati, Ohio), among the Respondents' employees in the unit agreed upon by
the parties as appropriate on August 24, 1955. The results of the election were as
follows:
TALLY OF BALLOTS
The undersigned agent of the Regional Director certifies that the results of the
tabulation of ballots cast in the election held in the above case, and concluded
on the date indicated above, were as follows:
1.
2.
7.
8.
Approximate number of eligible voters _______________________ 158.
Void ballots--------------------------------------------- 2
3. Votes cast for Petitioner------------- I-------------------- 52
4. Votes cast for-------------------------------------------- 01
5. Votes cast for-------------------------------------------- 0,
6. Votes cast against participating labor organization (s)---------- 85
Valid votes counted (sum of 3, 4, 5, and 6 )__________________ 137
Challenged ballots---------------------------------------- 17
9. Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots (sum of 7 and 8)____ 154
10. Challenges are (not) sufficient in number to affect the results of
the election.
11. A majority of the valid votes counted plus challenged, ballots has
(not) been cast for Petitioner.
As indicated immediately above the Union lost the election. Thereafter on August
29, 1955, the Union filed objections to the election by letter addressed to Robert
Volger, Officer-in-Charge, "N. L. R. B. Sub-Regional Office, 319 N. Penna. Avenue,
Indianapolis, Indiana." For convenience to all concerned the letter referred to is
set forth below:
UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA-CIO
DISTRICT 6
August 29, 1955
Lloyd W. Viers James Jones
District Director President
1022 Silver St.
New Albany, Ind. Paul Foster
Telephone 4-4985-4-8089 Secretary-Treasurer
ROBERT VOLGER, Officer-in-Charge, COPY
NLRB Sub-Regional Office,
319 N. Penna. Avenue, RECEIVED
Indianapolis, Indiana. AUG 30 1955
35th Sub-Region
Re NLRB Election NLRB.
August 24, 1955 Indianapolis , Indiana-,
Audubon Cabinet, Inc.
Period Table Co., Inc.
DEAR MR. VOLGER: In behalf of the International Union, United Furniture
Workers of America and its Local 235, Henderson, Ky., we hereby object to the
conduct affecting the election last Wednesday, August 24, 1955, for the following
reasons:
1. Officials and supervisors of the company coerced and intimidated employees
on their jobs and in the community.
2. Officials and supervisors of the company threatened to discharge employees
and carried out this threat.
3. The President of the company, George Snyder, stated to all the employees
and to many of -them individually and in small groups as well as to the public-
press that if the union won the election he was going out of business. He stated-
to these individuals, small groups and to all his employees assembled on company
time and property that they had to decide between "Snyder, and the union."
4. He called in individuals and went to see individuals and small groups at-
places of work on company property and time for electioneering purposes.
AUDUBON CABINET COMPANY, INC. 869
5. The day before the election company officials spoke to the workers on com-
pany time and property with a new loud speaker wired up inside the plant and
made anti-union speeches.
These happenings made it impossible to have a fair election and we request
that it be set aside.
Sincerely yours,
cc- Mr. Snyder, Pres.
Audubon-Period
Henderson, Ky.
Chas. McCormick, Pres.
Local 235, UFWA-CIO
Henderson, Ky.
(Signed ) HENRY RHINE,
International Representatiit,
COPY
The record shows that the Respondents herein were officially served with a copy
of the Union's objections to the election held August 24, 1955, on September 1,
1955. On September 7, 1955, counsel for the Respondents sent the following
letter to Robert Volger, officer-in-charge of the Board's Subregional Office in In-
dianapolis, Indiana, in which it specifically raised the question of the "timely filing"
of the objections to the election
September 7, 1955.
Mr. ROBERT VOLGER,
National Labor Relations Board,
319 North Pennsylvania Street,
Indianapolis 4, Indiana.
In re NLRB election held at Period Tables, Inc. and Audubon Cabinet Co.,
Inc., on August 24, 1955.
DEAR MR. VOLGER: On September 1, 1955, George Snyder, President of
Period Tables, Inc., and Audubon Cabinet Co., Inc., received a registered
letter, Registration No. 500, from Henry Rhine, which letter purported to be
(dated August 29, 1955. This letter was addressed to you, and it was indi-
,cated upon it that copies were being sent to Mr. Snyder and to Mr. Charles
McCormick. This letter purports to be objections to the election conducted
on August 24, 1955.
It is our understanding that the five days allowed to register objections
to the election had expired at the close of business on August 31, 1955, a
,copy of which was to be furnished the employer. Inasmuch as the employer
did not receive the objections until subsequent to August 29, 1955, we believe
that the Union has lost the right to object to this election.
Regardless of that and without waiving any of our rights to protest the
filing of these objections as the five days had expired, I wish to submit that
the statements and allegations made in this letter to you dated August 29, 1955,
are not true or accurate, with the exception of the statement made in Objection
No. 5, that a speech was made to the employees; however, it is debatable as
to the conclusion Mr. Rhine reached in regard to this speech when he referred
to it as "anti-union."
Should you care to discuss this case with me further, please feel free to do so.
Very truly yours,
KAHN, DEES , DONOVAN & KAHN,
( Signed ) ARTHUR R . DONOVAN.
ARD:T
cc: Mr. George Snyder.
The Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio) caused an in-
vestigation of the above objections to the election. On December 29, 1955, he
issued and served his report on objections on the parties. No objections were filed
by any of the parties to his findings and recommendations to the Board. An exam-
ination of the Regional Director 's report on objections shows that inter alia he
made the following specific finding in regard to the .timeliness of the filing of said
objections on the parties and with the Subregional Office in Indianapolis, Indiana.
On August 19, 1955, Petitioner mailed its objections to the election to the
35th Sub-Regional Office and on the same day mailed copies thereof to the
870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employers , registered mail, return receipt requested . The objections were re-
ceived by the 35th Sub-Regional Office on,August 30„ 1955 , and the - copies
thereof were received by the employers on September , 2, 1955 . The under-
signed concludes that the objections were filed and the copies ' thereof " served
on the Employers adequately and timely within the meaning of Section 102.61
of the Board 's Rules and Regulations , Series 6, as amended.
Further examination of the Regional Director 's report shows that he recom-
mended to the Board a hearing be ordered in respect to objections 1, 2, 3, and 5,
as numbered in his report, which are identical numerically with those set forth in
the Union 's objections filed with the Subregional Office in Indianapolis , Indiana,
on August 30, 1955.8
On January 30, 1956, the Board issued its Order Directing Hearing in the matters
that are now before the Trial Examiner. The Trial Examiner feels that the Order
of the Board should be set forth herein not only for convenience of all concerned
,but also for the further reason that his ultimate findings as regards the "Objections.
to Election" are predicated upon his interpretation of said order , and the Board's
Rules and Regulations applicable thereto.
ORDER DIRECTING HEARING
Pursuant to a "Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election " entered
into by the parties hereto , an election by secret ballot was conducted in the
above entitled proceeding on August 24, 1955 , under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio). On
August 16 and 29, 1955, the Petitioner filed unfair labor practice charges in
Cases Nos. 35-CA-637 and 35-CA-643. On August 29, 1955, the Petitioner
filed objections to the election . The Regional Director caused an investigation
to be made of the objections and, thereafter , on December 29, 1955, issued and
served upon the parties his Report On Objections To Election . In his report
the Regional Director recommended to the Board that a hearing be ordered'
in respect to objections 1, 2, 3, and 5 , as numbered in the Regional Director's
report, except with respect to the discriminatory discharges alleged in ob-
jection 2. He further recommended that no further action be taken with,
respect to objection 4.
Inasmuch as no exceptions have been filed to the Regional Director 's report
by any of the parties within the time provided therefor, the Board decided to
adopt the Regional Director 's recommendations as contained in his report.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a hearing be held before a Trial Examiner
to be designated by the Chief Trial Examiner in accordance with the said
Regional Director 's recomendations as set forth in his, report, and that such
hearing maybe consolidated with any hearing that may be held on the charges
filed in Cases Nos. 35-CA-637 and 35-CA-643; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Trial Examiner designated for the
purpose of conducting the hearing shall prepare and cause to be served upon the
parties a report containing resolution of the credibility of witnesses , findings
of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of said issues.
[Emphasis supplied.] Within 10 days from the date of issuance of such re-
port , any party may file with the Board in Washington , D. C., an original and
six copies of exceptions thereto. Immediately upon filing of such exceptions,
the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other
parties, and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. If no exceptions are
filed thereto, the Board will adopt the recommendations of the Trial Examiner,
and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-entitled matter be, and it
hereby is, referred to the aforesaid Regional Director for the Ninth Region for
the purpose of arranging such hearing, and that the aforesaid Regional Director
be, and he hereby is, authorized to issue early notice thereof.
Dated, Washington, D. C., January 20, 1956.
By direction of the Board:
OGDEN W. FIELDS,
Associate Executive Secretary.
The Trial Examiner is also of the opinion that no proper understanding of the
Board 's Order Directing Hearing could be had without setting forth herein an
excerpt from the Regional Director 's report on objections to elections , particularly
8 See supra
AUDUBON CABINET COMPANY, INC. 871
his recommendation regarding the disposition of objection No. 4. Consequently it
is inserted below.
The evidence in respect to objections Nos. 3 and 4 is considered jointly. It
appears that during the material period and during working hours and in the
Employers' plant, Mr. Snyder, referred to in objection No. 3, called several
groups of employees together on several occasions. These groups consisted of
four to six employees. There is evidence that during the meetings with these
groups Mr. Snyder, among other things, threatened to close the plant before
allowing Petitioner to represent the Employers' employees. It does not appear
that the Employers dispute the evidence concerning how the meetings were held.
However, Mr. Snyder denies having made such threats at the meetings. It
further appears that on August 23, 1955 an article was published in the
Henderson, Kentucky, Gleaner and Journal which stated in part that "Snyder
stated yesterday that rather than 'go through with the union trouble' again he
would `go out of business.' " There is evidence that this article was published
with the authorization of Mr. Snyder.
In respect to the methods used by Mr. Snyder in holding the group meetings,
the undersigned concludes that they do not, by themselves, constitute objection-
able conduct, and accordingly recommends no further action be taken thereon.
In.respect to the contents of Mr. Snyder 's statements at such meetings , and the
publication of the aforementioned article in the Henderson Gleaner and Journal,
the undersigned recommends the same disposition be made thereof as outlined
below in respect to objections 1, 2 and 5.
In respect to objection No. 5, there is evidence that Mr . Snyder , in a speech,
to all employees during the material period and on the Employers' premises
and during working time, stated, among other things, that "I will personally
not remain to operate any union plant. I will leave this Company and let some
other man operate it just as Mr. Higdon left the Company about four years
ago and left me to run it. Maybe some one else will know how to operate a
Union factory. I know I don't know how to operate with a Union. Finally
I want to make it very clear that you can't have both me and a Union. If you
want me, you can't have a Union. If you want a Union, ladies and gentlemen,
you cannot have me."
At this time the Trial Examiner feels that some comment should be made herein
in regard to his ruling denying the Respondents' motion to dismiss the objections to
the election on the grounds that they were not timely filed with the Employers herein,
within the meaning and interpretation by the Board of Section 102.61 of its Rules
and Regulations in similar cases. The Trial Examiner has given considerable
thought to this question and quite frankly agrees with counsel for the Employers
[and/or Respondents] that the objections were not timely filed by the Union. He
bases his reasoning in this regard on the Board's interpretation of Section 102.61
in several recent cases particularly General Box Company, Smithfield Packing Com-
pany, Inc., and General Time Corporation.4 An examination of the above-cited
cases shows that in each of them the Board strictly construed Section 102.61 of its
Rules and Regulations. An examination of the record herein, particularly comments
by counsel for the Employers and/or Respondents at the hearing before the Trial
Examiner and in his brief, clearly shows that counsel would have the Trial Examiner
follow the policy of the Board as expressed in the above-cited cases. The Trial
Examiner has no quarrel with his position in this regard, and as indicated above is
in complete agreement with counsel that the objections to the election were not timely
filed. Moreover, the Trial Examiner is convinced that the findings of the Regional
Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio), in this regard were erroneous.
Even so, the Employers and/or Respondents had their remedy under the same
section of the Board's Rules and Regulations they now rely upon, Section 102.61.
An examination of this section reveals the following, which is pertinent to the
disposition of this issue:
If objections are filed to the conduct of the election or conduct affecting the
result of the election, or if the challenged ballots are sufficient in number to
affect the result of the election, the regional director shall investigate such
objections, challenges, or both, and shall prepare and cause to be served upon
the parties a report on challenged ballots, objections, or 'both, including his
recommendations, which report, together with the tally of ballots, he shall for-
4 General Box Company , 115 NLRB 301 , Smithfield Pack4ng Company , Inco, porated,
112 NLRB 940 ; and General Time Corporation, 112 NLRB 86, at 87.
872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ward to the Board in Washington , D. C. Within 10 days from the date of
issuance of the report on challenged ballots, objections , or both , any party may
file with the Board in Washington , D. C., seven copies of exceptions to such
report. Immediately upon the filing of such exceptions , the party filing the
same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties, and shall file a copy
with the regional director. Proof of service shall be made to the Board. If no
exceptions are filed to such report, the Board, upon the expiration of the period
for filing such exceptions, may decide the matter forthwith upon the record or
may make other disposition of the case . [Emphasis supplied.]
An examination of the record herein shows that the Employers and/or Respondents
failed to exercise their rights to file exceptions to the Regional Director 's report on
objections to the election either within the 10-day period or at any time thereafter.
Hence when the Regional Director 's report on objections to the election was sub-
mitted to the Board in Washington , D. C., for consideration it was barren of any
protest by the Employers regarding the Regional Director 's findings in regard to the
timeliness of the filing by the Union of its objections to the election . Consequently
the Board had no alternative but to follow the Regional Director 's recommendations
in this regard.5 Here then lies the vice of the Employers ' position insofar as its motion
to dismiss the objections to the election is concerned ; they protest too late. As the
Trial Examiner sees it, counsel for the Employers and/or Respondents would have
the Trial Examiner strictly construe Section 102 .61 insofar as it applies to timely
'filing of objections to an election and loosely construe , so to speak , the same section
of the Rules and Regulations in regard to the filing of exceptions to a Regional
Director 's report on objections to the election . This the Trial Examiner cannot and
will not do. Nor did the Board when the matter was before it for consideration. An
'examination of its Order Directing Hearing, dated January 20 , 1956, reveals the
following:
Inasmuch as no exceptions have been filed to the Regional Director 's report by
any of the parties within the time provided therefor, the Board decided to adopt
the Regional Director's recommendations as contained in his report.
As a matter of fact the question regarding the timeliness of the filing of objections
to the election by the Union is not properly before the Trial Examiner in view of
the plain language of the Board 's Order Directing Hearing and any finding in this
regard by him contrary to said order would , in his considered opinion, be clearly
erroneous.
As indicated in the Regional Director 's report on objections to the election , objec-
tions I and 2 are to be considered together . By the same token the Trial Examiner
is convinced that paragraph IV and its subsections should be considered and separately
.disposed of simultaneously since the record clearly shows that the incidents complained
of in the objections to the election are the basis of the allegations set forth in the
complaint . Consequently the Trial Examiner will follow this procedure in disposing
of the issues herein.
(1) Objections Nos. 1 and 2 6
In the Regional Director 's report on objections to the election he states that objec-
-tions 1 and 2 should be considered together ; even though they have been set forth
-above the Trial Examiner sees no harm in reinserting them below for convenience.
1. Officials and supervisors of the Company coerced and intimidated em-
ployees on their jobs and in the community.
2. Officials and supervisors of the Company threatened to discharge employees
[and carried out this threat.] 7
The foregoing objections cover considerable ground as will be amply demonstrated
below. The General Counsel in support of his allegations in the complaint and in the
course of his ascertainment of the facts regarding the objections to the election called
numerous witnesses.
Among the witnesses called by the General Counsel as regards the above were the
following, Francine Armstrong , editor of the Henderson , Kentucky , Gleaner and
Journal , and several employees and former employees of the Employer and/or the
6 See supra for complete text of the Board's Order.
6 See supra for numerical designation of objections.
7 The Regional Director found no merit in that portion of objection No. 2, that reads
. and carried out this threat " referring to the discharge of certain employees. The
Board adopted his finding in this regard.
ATJDUBON CABINET COMPANY, INC. 873
Respondents herein. In addition certain witnesses who had no connection one way
or another with the Respondents were called and testified on behalf of the General
Counsel+s•case-in-chief.
Gedrge Gish, an employee of the' Respondents in the finishing room at times' ma-
terial herein, testified that on the day before the election, August 23, 1955, President
Snyder made a speech to the employees about 2:30 or 3 p.m. Shortly thereafter he
had a conversation with his supervisor, General Foreman Harry Hembree, who at the
time was in charge of the finishing rooms for both of the Respondents herein. Accord-
ing to Gish, Hembree told him in substance that if the Union won the election
President Snyder would shut down the plant.
Hembree denied Gish's testimony in regard to the above incident in toto. In addi-
tion he denied that he ever had a conversation with Gish or any other employee
after the speech or at any time either before or after the election. He further testified
that there was very little discussion among the supervisory staff and top management
about the Union either before or after the election.
From the foregoing it is obvious that a question regarding the credibility of the
witnesses is before the Trial Examiner. Such questions are always difficult to resolve
and require painstaking examination of their testimony in the light of the record con-
sidered as a whole. This the Trial Examiner has done. In addition he observed the
demeanor of the witnesses while they testified under oath before him. Quite frankly
Hembree impressed the Trial Examiner as an evasive and thoroughly unreliable wit-
ness. For example, in the course, of his testimony he testified that' he never at any
time before the election saw President Snyder talk to the employees in his departments
in small groups of say 3 or 4 at a time. He also testified in substance that ways and
means to discourage the employees in their efforts to select a bargaining agent of their
own choosing were discussed but little at foremen meetings and that he personally
had never discussed the matter at such meetings. His testimony regarding the above
is at odds with that of President Snyder who without any hesitation whatsoever
testified quite frankly and honestly in regard to his trips through the plant and his
predetermined plan to talk to all of the employees in small groups so that he could
forcibly bring home to them his personal animosity towards the Union and his deter-
mination to keep it out of the Respondents' plant. He made no bones about it, so
to speak. Moreover, his testimony, particularly as to how he put over his campaign
against the Union, and what he said at the time he met with the employees in small
groups, not only stands uncontradicted and undenied in the record but is supported
by the testimony of witness after witness called by both the General Counsel and the
Respondents. In such circumstances the Trial Examiner cannot and does not credit
Hembree's testimony that he was unaware that such group meetings were going on
day in and day out throughout the Respondents' plant, right under his nose, so to
speak. His testimony in this regard is unbelievable Again his testimony that the
Union's campaign to organize the plant and win the pending election was discussed
but little at foremen meetings and that he personally "wouldn't know" how the Re-
spondents felt about the unionization of its plant is at odds with that of the testimony
of other supervisory employees of the Respondents, particularly that of Sherman
Combest, foreman of the sand, cabinet, and subassembly departments of Period Tables
at times material herein, who testified that as a supervisor he definitely knew that
the Respondents were against the Union, and that it had been the subject of discussion
at foremen meetings.
In view of all of the foregoing the Trial Examiner credits Gish's testimony that
Hembree told him that Snyder would shut down the plant if the Union won the elec-
tion, and discredits Hembree's denial in this regard.
In further support of his case-in-chief the General Counsel submitted testimony
concerning another incident involving Hembree's preelection activities and regarding
certain allegations in his complaint.
Leo Holloman testified that at times material herein he was employed by the Re-
spondents as a shear machine operator in the veneer department, and that his super-
visor was Paul Marstall. He further testified that about 2 weeks before the election,
he and Rufus Denton were in the Fiesta Bar of the Kingdon Hotel in Henderson, Ken-
tucky, having a few beers, and were seated at a table near the door that opens out into
the street. While they were so engaged Hembree came up to their table and that the
following occurred thereafter:
Q. Will you tell us what was said?
A. Mr. Hembree came up and spoke to us, as I recall, and we didn't pay him
any attention, and he wanted to know where the-why the people at the plant
didn't have any use for him. I told him we had heard he was a union buster
and we didn't have any use for union busters.
874 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It was just general conversation. After that I got up and left, I didn't want
to listen to him, and he followed me outside, and he said he would get me a job
in California at $200 a week. I told him I wasn't interested in that kind of
money, and he said, "Well, if you win or lose the election you're going to lose
your job where you're at."
I said, "Why? Because I belong to the Union?" He said, "That's right,"
and I started to leave again, and he reached for his billfold, he said, "I'll bet you
a hundred dollars that you lose the election."
I told him I didn't make the kind of money he did, didn't make it the way he
did, I didn't have it to bet, and I left.
Holloman also testified that Hembree was already in the barroom when he and
Denton came in and sat down at their table near the door.
Holloman's testimony regarding the above incident was fully corroborated by that
of Rufus Denton. Denton was not an employee of the Respondents at times mate-
rial herein, and there is no evidence in the record that he ever had been. He testi-
fied without contradiction that at all times material herein he was employed by the
Chrysler Corporation in Evansville, Indiana, but maintained his residence at the
Kingdon Hotel in Henderson, Kentucky. His testimony about the above incident is
in the considered opinion of the Trial Examiner clearer and in more detail than that
of Holloman. For example, his version of what Hembree said to Holloman about his
union activities was that Hembree told Holloman that "If you vote for that union or
work for it any more you'll be fired out at this plant," and that Holloman replied,
"I'll vote for it. I believe in it and I won't say I won't vote for it."
Denton impressed the Trial Examiner as an honest and forthright witness, and for
reasons discussed above and below his testimony in this regard are fully credited by
the Trial Examiner.
Hembree's version of the above incident and the conversation that ensued was
that he came into the bar at about 8 p. m. and saw Holloman and Denton sitting
on stools at the bar drinking beer. He further testified on direct examination that
he did not make any of the statements attributed to him by both Holloman and Denton
in their testimony. The Trial Examiner had the opportunity of observing all three
witnesses at the time they testified at the hearing herein. His appraisal of Hembree
as a witness has been thoroughly discussed above. In the circumstances the Trial
Examiner credits the testimony of Holloman and Denton in regard to the above
incident and discredits that of Hembree, and finds that he made the statements attrib-
uted to him by them. In retrospect the Trial Examiner desires to point out a persua-
sive factor in his resolution of the credibility question posed above in regard to Hem-
bree's testimony relating to the seating of those involved in the Fiesta Bar. Denton,
who had no interest in the issues presented here, testified that he and Holloman were
seated at a table near the door to the street when the conversation occurred. His
testimony in this respect was corroborated by Holloman. Since Denton admittedly
was on friendly terms with Hembree at the time the incident occurred, it is incon-
ceivable that he would have deliberately distorted his testimony, particularly when
he had nothing to gain one way or another by testifying falsely before the Trial
Examiner.
Having found as above the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that Hembree's
remarks to Holloman and Gish were clearly violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act
in that they contained threats of reprisal . Coming as they did shortly before the
election that was to be held on August 24, 1955, they likewise constituted unlawful
interference with not only the statutory rights of Holloman and Gish to vote without
interference, restraint, and coercion by those empowered with top-ranking supervisory
status by the Respondents and/or Employers, but that of all other employees similarly
situated.
There yet remains to be disposed of the alleged activities of other supervisory em-
ployees of the Employers and/or Respondents in the report on objections to the
election and in the complaint. They are disposed of below.
Roscoe Chandler, employed by the Employers and/or Respondents in their veneer
and mill rooms at all times material herein, testified to certain conversations he had
before the election on August 24, 1955, with his foreman, Paul Marstall. Accord-
ing to Chandler he worked on various machines and several jobs during the course
of his employment. For quite some time before the parties herein entered into the
consent-election agreement referred to above, he had been given a lot of overtime
work by Foreman Marstall. Shortly after the Union started its organizational drive,
in which he actively participated, his overtime work was taken away from him. He
testified that at this time there was still a bit of overtime work on machines that he
normally operated. Nevertheless he was not assigned to it, but one Robert Overton,
a new employee who had only been employed by the Respondent for 2 or 3 months
AUDUBON CABINET COMPANY, INC. 875
before the Union started its organizational drive. According to Chandler, Overton
would take over his machine at 4 p. m., the regular quitting time, on the days that
overtime was available. Chandler's testimony was corroborated by the credited
testimony of Leo Holloman who worked in the same department and witnessed Over-
ton take over Chandler's machine at 4 p. m. on several occasions at times material
herein.
Chandler further testified that on the Saturday before the election the Respondents
gave a picnic at Audubon State Park for their employees which he attended. Ac-
cording to Chandler he had a conversation at the picnic with his supervisor, Paul
Marstall, during the lunch period. In the course of their conversation Chandler
asked Marstall why his overtime work was taken away from him, and Marstall told
him in substance that it was because of his activities on behalf of the Union and that
the orders to do so came from "higher up."
Marstall on direct examination denied Chandler's testimony in this regard. His
testimony at that time is most interesting, for that reason it is set forth below:
Q. (By Mr. Donovan.) Now he says that he talked to you about the
election or something about the coming election.
Will you tell the Trial Examiner, did you talk to Mr. Chandler out there on
Saturday at this picnic about the forthcoming NLRB election at all?
A. No. The only talk that I had with him at all, as best I remember, was
the chicken and the beer that we were both drinking, we both had a bottle of
beer or two of beer, I don't know how many Red had, but I had two myself,
that's about my limit on beer at any one time.
Q. You got out there about 11:30 and left some time before 1:00?
A. Right. I don't remember where I went after it was over. I know I was
in a hurry for some reason. I don't know whether it was something to do at
home at the farm or what the case may be. [Emphasis supplied I
On cross-examination he testified that he did not "remember" what he and
Chandler talked about at the picnic, and that he could not "recall Chandler men-
tioning anything about him losing some overtime." He admitted however that
Chandler ". . . was a pretty good worker" but had his faults like everybody else.
Chandler in the course of his testimony stated that he had on occasion spoken
through the microphone on a "sound truck" that the Union used near the Respondents'
plant during its organizational drive and before the election. His testimony in
this regard stands uncontradicted and undenied in the record. In such circum-
stances it is reasonable to infer that Chandler's activities on behalf of the Union
were known to the Respondents, and the Trial Examiner so finds.
Here as in many cases the Trial Examiner is confronted with a question regarding
the credibility of the witnesses. After careful consideration the Trial Examiner
credits Chandler's account of his conversation with Marstall at the picnic, and dis-
credits Marstall's version thereof. A primary factor in the Trial Examiner's reso-
lution of the credibility issue regarding the testimony of Chandler and Marstall was
Holloman's uncontradicted and undenied testimony in regards to the existence of
overtime work at times material herein, and his testimony that he saw Overton take
over Chandler's machine at 4 p. in. on several occasions at times material herein.
Furthermore Marstall's testimony is at odds with the statement of Vice-President
Myers in his speech to the Respondents' employees on August 23, 1955.8 In this
speech Myers stated that ". . . this is our busy season," and in particular stressed the
point that "we have a nice backlog of orders." This statement has also been a
factor in resolving Marstall's credibility as a witness.
In all the circumstances, and in the light of the record considered as a whole, the
Trial Examiner concludes and finds that Marstall made the statements attributed to
him by Chandler and that such were not only violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act, but are evidence of a determined effort on the part of the Employers and/or
Respondents herein to intimidate and coerce its employees, not only by threats of
reprisal but by actual reprisal itself for attempting to exercise their statutory right
to engage in concerted activities and participate in a Board election without being
intimidated or coerced by an employer in any like or related manner. The Trial
Examiner is also convinced that the only reasonable inference that could possibly
be drawn from the fact that Overton was given the overtime work at times material
herein was because of Chandler's activities on behalf of the Union.
In further support of his position regarding the objections to the election and the
complaint herein, the General Counsel offered the testimony of Arthur R. Thomas,
who testified in substance as follows: According to Thomas he worked for Period
9 See infra.
876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tables in the cabinet room . His immediate supervisor was Foreman Sherman
Combest , and according to Thomas he and Combest had a friendly - conversation
shortly before the election and during the conversation- 'Combest said that if the
Umomcame -in ". . . they'd be able to cut down to 40 hours, and that's all - he ever
said ." The conversation took place in Superintendent Vogel's office.
Combest admitted having had a conversation with Thomas before the election and
that they were close personal friends. On direct examination by counsel for
Respondents he was asked the following question:
Q. (By Mr. Donovan .) Now I will ask you specifically , did at any time the
question of overtime come up, whether or not Mr. Thomas should get over-
time?
A. Not as I know of, because at that time we weren 't even working over 40
hours, some of us not 40 , and even after six or eight months.
On cross-examination Combest testified that he had never asked an employee how
he felt about the Union . Regarding the conversation referred to by Thomas in his
testimony , Combest 's version was that Thomas started the conversation about the
Union by stating to him , ". . . Sherman, I don 't want you to feel hard at me about
that affair out here in the factory " [meaning the Union] and that he assured him
as follows, ". . . I don't feel hard at you," "... you're on . one, side of the fence
and. I 'm on the other side, and you just weigh this thing out whichever way you
think is best for your own benefit and" "... that's all there was to it." As far as
making the statement attributed to him by Thomas about the cutting off of overtime
work is concerned his testimony in substance was that he could not recall "anything
about the hours ," primarily because at all times material herein his department was
not even working 40 hours per week . Further on in his testimony Combest on
cross-examination again reiterated that he could not recall having made any men-
tion of overtime to Thomas in their conversation.
The Trial Examiner has given the testimony of Thomas and Combest long and'
careful consideration as he is convinced that Combest in the course of the above
conversation made the statement attributed to him by Thomas about overtime.
However he is also convinced that the statement was made in the course of a
friendly conversation between two close friends and never was intended as a
"threat of reprisal ." Moreover the Trial Examiner is convinced that Thomas
himself did not interpret it as such . This is evidenced by Thomas ' testimony on
direct examination regarding the conversation in question wherein he described it
as "personal ." Again, an examination of Thomas ' testimony in regard to the
overtime question shows that he understood Combest to say "they'd be all cut
down to 40 hours . . ." and hence was not directed at him personally . In view of
all the circumstances and considering the entire testimony of both the Trial
Examiner is convinced that in this particular instance Combest's remarks were-not
intended to intimidate or coerce Thomas or any other employee, and that Thomas,
himself, so interpreted the remark at the time it was made. Consequently the Trial
Examiner will recommend below the dismissal of this allegation in the complaint
'Christy L. Holmes, a witness called on behalf of the General Counsel in support
of his case-in-chief, testified that a few days before the election he had a conversa-
tion with S. T. Crenshaw , general manager of the Respondent Employers , about the
Union . According to Holmes the conversation took place outside the boilerroom
near a pile of kindling wood and that during the course of the conversation Cren-
shaw asked him if he was for the Union. To which he replied, "I told him I was
on the first but I wasn't now ," and that Crenshaw asked him "if he could depend on
that" on the day of the election.
Crenshaw admitted having the conversation in question but denied having made
the remarks attributed to him by Holmes. According to Crenshaw , the only thing dis-
cussed in the conversation was Holmes ' request to gather up some kindling wood to
take home. He further testified that the conversation took place the week before the
election, and could not have occurred the week of the election because the election
was held on Wednesday, August 24, 1955, and that he refrained from speaking to any
employee the first 2 days of that week.
Here again we have that troublesome question, the credibility of witnesses. The
Trial Examiner has considered Crenshaw 's testimony in the light of the whole record
and is inclined to credit his denial of making the statements attributed to him by
Holmes. A persuasive factor in reaching this conclusion is the fact that there were
approximately 158 employees eligible to vote in the Board election, and it seems most
unlikely to the Trial Examiner that a man in Crenshaw 's position as general manager
of both companies , with access to all departments in their respective plants, would
single out a single employee , Holmes in this case , and ask him about the Union.
Moreover , he impressed the Trial Examiner as an honest witness and was forthright
AUDUBON CABINET COMPANY, INC. 877
in his answers to questions posed by the General Counsel on cross-examination.
Holmes on the other hand impressed him as a confused witness. Not a prevaricator,
but one inclined to stretch a point, as for example his failure to keep his promise to
Crenshaw to pay his Employers out of his next pay for the kindling wood he took,
and so far as this record is concerned, it has not been paid for to date. Crenshaw's
testimony regarding the failure of Holmes to keep his promise to pay for the kindling
wood stands uncontradicted and undivided in the record.
Another factor that has had some persuasive effect on the Trial Examiner in his
resolution of Holmes' testimony is the fact that on January 20, 1956, a field examiner
for the Board took an affidavit from Crenshaw regarding his activities during the
period before the election. An examination of this instrument shows that Cren-
shaw was not queried by the field examiner about the Holmes incident. To the Trial
Examiner this seems rather odd, since the Regional Director issued his complaint
herein on January 31, 1956.
In all the circumstances and upon the record considered as a whole, the Trial
Examiner finds that Crenshaw did not make the remarks attributed to him by
Holmes. Consequently he ,will recommend that the allegation in the complaint as to
Crenshaw be dismissed.
(2)Objections Nos. 3 and 5 9
In this portion of the report we are primarily concerned with the activities of
George A. Snyder, president of both the Audubon Cabinet Company, Inc. and Period
Tables, Inc. As indicated above, Snyder and his wife own all the stock of Period
Tables, Inc., and he is one of the principal stockholders of Audubon Cabinet Co., Inc.
As indicated in the section of this report styled "The business of the Respondents,"
the parties stipulated at the hearing herein that there was joint managerial control of
both companies. The record also shows that Snyder was the dynamic personality
that made for the success of both companies. This observation of the Trial Examin-
er is amply supported by the testimony of witnesses who testified at the hearing, and
the documents offered in evidence by the parties in support of their respective posi-
tions, all of which will be thoroughly discussed below.
The events with which we are concerned herein began with the signing of a con-
sent-election agreement by representatives of the parties. Shortly thereafter Snyder
began his campaign against the Union. That this is so is amply demonstrated in the
record by the oral testimony of Snyder, himself, and by documents admittedly edited
and published by him as president of the Employers and/or Respondents herein.
For example he sent letters to each employee on August 19 and 22, 1955. The
letter of August 19, 1955, is inserted in its entirety below:
PERIOD
Tables Inc.
TABLE MAKERS
HENDERSON, KENTUCKY,
August 19, 1955.
DEAR EMPLOYEE AND FAMILY' All of you are entitled to know how I feel
about these men who come to our plant and proclaim just what they are going
to do for you and to me.
I can tell you that in my opinion, unions these days have become a big racket.
Just pick up any paper and all you can see is that the union men are going to
jail for perjury, for being communistic, for beating up men and women like
you, because you don't agree with them when they call a strike.
These union men hire thugs to attack you on the picket line. In New York
the Union head there has been arrested for spending union money in night
clubs, building his own home on union money.
In Evansville the man who runs that union has been arrested as a traitor to
his country.
In Jasper, Indiana, the union men were arrested and found guilty of beating
up and trying to kill Jasper workers.
We feel sure from what we know by better experience and from what we now
hear and read that would be plenty of trouble for you if this Union ever fooled
you and got back in here.
g The Regional Director recommended that objections 3 and 4 be considered under
number 3, which the Trial Examiner shall do ; however, after examining the record he
'feels that number 5 should be considered along with numbers 3 and 4, since the testimony
adduced at the hearing herein ties them all together, and consists for the most part of
the activities of one person, President George A. Snyder, of the Employers and/or
Respondents herein
878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We feel that in a small plant like ours where everybody knows the boss as
well as everyone else in the plant , and where you can talk things over any
time you want to, that it is not necessary to have to . go through a lot of union
"red-tape" and have someone else-maybe an outsider to talk for you. We see
each other every day. It would seem rather silly if you couldn ' t tell us what
you want. It would be a shame for you to lose this advantage.
You have known us for many years. We have always tried to be fair and
square, decent and truthful . You have read the leaflets passed out by the
union . How do they stack up? The men who wrote them would be your union
bosses.
The union is run by a few top men and the big bosses do not live here. Are
they interested in you? We are.
You are also a business man, therefore , you know that we have to be "in
line" on both prices and wages, otherwise we could not stay in business. If
we are too high or too low on either we won 't last long. A union cannot
change this basic fact.
On our present close relationship we have run pretty steady for many years
and have always been considered a good place to work . We know you
will vote "NO" on the ballot in order not to change this.
Sincerely yours,
G. A. SNYDER.
VOTE NO VOTE NO
The letter of August 22, 1955, is in a similar vein . It is likewise inserted below.
PERIOD
Tables Inc.
TABLE MAKERS
HENDERSON , KENTUCKY,
August 22, 1955.
DEAR EMPLOYEE AND FAMILY : In our previous three letters we have stressed
the importance of the coming NLRB election and the possible effect on the
future welfare of you and your family . The outcome of this election can only
be determined by you and your fellow employees . That is why you have been
presented the issues involved and urged to vote according to your best judgment
and your future best interest.
When you vote, please remember-
1. This will be a secret ballot and no signature will be allowed on the
ballot.
2. No one but you will ever know how you vote.
3. Regardless of what you may have signed or said in the past, you
are in no way obligated to vote for a union.
4. Voting will be from 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM Wednesday , August 24th.
5. The election will be held at the plant and on company time to make
it easy for you.
6. You will be voting to retain your rights and privileges to deal directly
with us and not through strange union officials , from out of town, who
do not know your plant and your problems . We will always be fair with
you.
7. You must not forget the reputation of the CIO Furniture Workers
Union seeking to represent you, and the needless strikes and violence
they have caused at Jasper and elsewhere.
8. Should you let the CIO Furniture Workers become your bargaining
agent and you become dissatisfied with it 's leadership , you will be almost
powerless to get rid of it. Now is the time to prevent that situation, not
later.
9. You do not want employment interrupted by work stopages and
strikes.
10. You want to maintain in the future the same pleasant relationships
which have existed over the past 16 years except for the time when a
union got into this plant.
It is our firm belief after talking with many of you personally that a union
has nothing to offer the employees of this company . They have nothing to sell
except trouble and violence. I feel sure you will vote NO tomorrow.
AUDUBON CABINET COMPANY, INC. 879
In closing I ask you to rely on the dictates of your best judgment in this
election.
Continue your pleasant relationship that we now have and not to go back to
strikes and violence by voting NO.
Sincerely yours,
G. A. SNYDER.
VOTE NO VOTE NO
The record further shows that a few days before the election Snyder contacted
all of the employees of both Period Tables, Inc. and Audubon Cabinet Co., the
Respondents herein, and talked to them in small groups of 3 to 5 each, about the
coming election and what would happen if the employees chose the Union as their
bargaining representative. There is no dispute as to what Snyder said to the em-
ployees in the group meetings. An examination of the testimony of witnesses called
by the General Counsel in this regard and that of Snyder are in accord. As a matter
of fact, Snyder not only admitted that he held such group meetings, but emphasized
what he said to the employees on each and every occasion. The record clearly
shows that each group meeting followed the same pattern. Typical of what trans-
pired at the meetings is found in the credible testimony of Mabel Denton which in
the Trial Examiner's considered opinion gives us a fair picture of what Snyder said
at the time and the mode and manner in which he conducted the meetings. Her
testimony in this regard follows:
Q. All right. Now will you tell us what Mr. Snyder said and what the others
said , if anything?
•A. Well, Mr. Snyder told us that it was our privilege to vote the way we
chose, we had a right to vote for the Union if we wished, for a union. He
said that-well, he told us some of his experiences with the other union and
how bad they were, and that he would not sit down with another-he just
wouldn't tolerate it, and that we-he thought that we were-we didn't need a
union , that we had our grievances, we could come directly to him; that we
did not need a union as a go-between, that was all right in large factories but
in small factories like that one it was not right, it was unnecessary; that we
were more or less as one big, happy family.
In the end Mr. Snyder told us to vote whichever way we chose, that was our
privilege, but we could not have a union and have him too, we had our choice.
His talk that day was brief, short
Q. Wait a minute-
A. -and to the point.
Q. I didn't mean to cut you off. Are you finished with the discussion in the
mill room , or were you talking about another discussion?
A. That was the same one, the same discussion in the mill room.
Q. In the mill room?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When Hailman and the rest of them were present?
A. Hailman and Roberts and Kurtz were present.
Mr. DONOVAN: I think, Mr. Sheeran, you cut her off at a time-I was taking
notes-she was starting to say something that Mr. Snyder said, it was their
privilege to work the way they pleased-
The WITNESS: That's right. Mr. Snyder told us we could vote the way we
pleased, it was our privilege, but we could not have a union and have him, too.
Mr. DONOVAN: And that was his final-
The WITNESS: That was his final statement, that we could not have a union
and have "me" too.
Q. (By Mr. Sheeran.) Did any of the others say anything at this time?
Do you recall?
A. I don't recall anyone making any-Paul Kurtz stood up there and shook
his head and grinned, but I don't recall anyone making any remarks now. I
know we laughed a few times at something Mr. Snyder said , but I don't recall
anyone making any remarks.
Q. Prior to this when was the last time Mr. Snyder came out to the factory
and talked to you in groups?
A. Well, that's the only .time to my knowledge that Mr. Snyder had ever
talked to us in groups.
Q. Since you have worked there?
A. Since I worked there.
880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
While it is true that the Regional Director found that in his report on objection
to the election that standing alone Snyder's conduct in and of itself was not objec-
tionable, nevertheless the Trial Examiner is convinced that the complaint herein, at
paragraph IV-(e) is broad enough to encompass the above-described activities of
Snyder.
At the onset of the hearing the General Counsel called as his first witness Francine
M. Armstrong, editor of the local newspaper, "Henderson Gleaner and Journal."
The paper is published daily and deliveries start at about 7 a. m. in the city of
Henderson. In addition the paper serves what is locally called the "Tri-county"
area, Henderson, Union, and Webster Counties, all in the State of Kentucky.
Mrs. Armstrong testified in substance that on the afternoon of August 22, 1955,
she called Snyder and asked him if he would drop by her office for the purpose of
discussing the pending election in the Respondent's plants-Snyder agreed to do so
and came to her office late in the afternoon. She told Snyder she desired to write
an article for the paper regarding the coming election and to get an expression from
him. They discussed the situation and she made a rough draft of what they had
discussed and his personal reaction to the situation. After she had typed the article
she handed it to Snyder for inspection, and " .. he glanced at it and said it was
all right." She then retouched the rough draft and published the following article
in the Henderson Gleaner-Journal, which was delivered in the area described above
on the morning of August 23, 1955, which was the day before the election. The
article as edited and printed follows below:
HENDERSON GLEANER AND JOURNAL
Seventy-Second Year HENDERSON, KENTUCKY,
TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1955.
PERIOD TABLES' HEAD PREDICTS NO UNION
George Snyder, president of Period Tables' Inc., and Audubon Cabinet
Company said yesterday that he has a strong expectancy that his employees will
not vote in a union at its election tomorrow afternoon. This statement came
after a steady campaign had been waged during the past six months through
union organizers to install a local of the United Furniture Workers of America-
CIO at the two companies.
The companies, which have steadfastly maintained that its 1,50 to 175 em-
ployees fare better in a non-union factory, successfully defended this position,
in a strikebound situation which occurred in 1951. At this time there was an
AF of L union in operation but after the strike was settled the union was not
continued. The former case went before NLRB and the company status was
upheld.
Snyder said yesterday that rather than "go through with this union trouble"
again he would "go out of business". Snyder told his employes yesterday that
he had no intention of replying to circulars mailed or distributed to employes
by out-of-state organizers, nor did he intend to reply to statements made in
speeches broadcast daily over loud speakers in the plant area.
Snyder told the Gleaner and Journal yesterday that the scale averages two
cents higher per hour at Period Tables and Audubon Cabinet than at another
local furniture factory which has a local of the UFWA-JIO. Vacations and
other benefits are in line with union conditions prevailing in the other plant,
he said.
The election will be held on the premises of the company between 3 and 4
p. in. tomorrow.
Snyder admitted that he had the interview with Mrs. Armstrong. His testimony
in this regard follows below:
Q. Did you at any time tell Mrs. Armstrong that },ou would sell your business
and close it down and shut it down completely?
A. No.
Mr. SHEERAN: I object to the form. I think, Mr. Examiner, if we can have
the witness discuss the conversation-
Mr. DONOVAN: All right.
Q. (By Mr. Donovan.) What did you tell Mrs. Armstrong regarding your
withdrawing from the business?
A. Well, I merely told her that I could not operate a business with a union,
if we had a union I would be forced to sell out, and that is exactly what Mr.
Higdon did and the business continued to operate.
AUDUBON CABINET COMPANY, INC. 881
Q. And did you also tell your employees that you would leave the business
if the Union got in?
A. I did.
Q. And you told that in a speech, is that correct?
A. I did.
Q. And do you mean it?
A. Absolutely.
Both Snyder and Mrs. Armstrong are in agreement that the light was poor at
the time they met in her office. Moreover they are also in agreement that Snyder
only glanced at the rough draft of the articles. Nevertheless the fact remains that
insofar as the record is concerned there is no evidence that Snyder ever at any time
after the article was published requested the Henderson Gleaner and Journal to
correct the language used by Mrs. Armstrong in her article. Since the paper con-
taining the above article was delivered in Henderson, Kentucky, between 6 and 7
a. in. on the morning of August 23, 1955, there was ample time for Snyder to have
made such a request before the Board election which was scheduled for 3 p. in.,
August 24, 1955. Since he did not choose to exercise his prerogative in this regard,
the Trial Examiner finds that Snyder had no objection to the article at the time it
was published. In other words, by his silence he condoned it. In the circumstances
the Trial Examiner is convinced and finds that Snyder must be held accountable
for the contents of the article at issue herein. Its effect upon the issue herein will
be discussed below.
On the afternoon of August 23, 1955, the Respondents' employees were assembled
near the recreation room on company time to hear prepared addresses by President
Snyder and Vice-President and Sales Manager Jack W. Myers. There is some con-
fusion in the record about the time of day the employees were assembled to hear the
speeches. After careful consideration the Trial Examiner is convinced that it was
sometime around 2 p. in. and that the employees were dismissed before 3 p. in.,
which would indicate that it was more than 24 hours before the election which was
scheduled for 3 p. in., August 24, 1955.
The speeches were read to the employees by both Snyder and Myers. Copies thereof
were offered and admitted in evidence at the hearing herein.
An examination of Myers' speech shows that for the most part he dealt with the
intense competition in the furniture business, and that it would be foolhardy for
the employees to select the Union to represent them because the first thing the
Union would ask for would be a wage increase, which would be a futile gesture
on its part because the Employers herein were paying all they could afford to pay;
and that having been refused an increase in ,wages, the Union's next move would be
to call a strike, which would hurt everybody. An excerpt from his speech relative
to the effect of the Union's anticipated action if it won the election follows below:
. Let's assume that you vote for a Union,-the first thing the Union is
going to do is press for higher wages (this is not an unreasonable assumption)-
since in order to win your vote they have already petitioned for a wage
increase-even without your approval-Imagine they have the gall to act in
your behalf before you have given them authority or permission to do so. Just
who is already starting to push whom?
Certainly not you, you're their friends.
Let's further assume that the company refuses the wage increase. This is
also a reasonable assumption since we purely and simply do not have a profit
margin sufficient to warrant an increase.
What is the next step-A strike call? Of course.
Now let's further assume that when the factory closes, we have a nice
backlog of orders. This too is a fair assumption, since ours is a seasonal business
and this is our busy season. [Emphasis supplied.]
Myers then discusses the competitive position of the Employer and/or Respond-
ents herein, and in particular the predicament that all employees including the sales-
men would be in should the Union call a strike. An excerpt from his speech in this
regard is likewise set forth below.
... Now, I am going to touch briefly on a point that is a relatively personal
one and yet one which you as workers must give moral consideration to.
In order to keep you people working, I have forty salesmen covering the entire
United States, combing every village and hamlet in an attempt to send in enough
orders to keep you people working full time.
What about them if a strike is called?
423784-57-vol 117 57
882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
These men work strictly on commission and are paid only when merchandise
which they have sold, is shipped.
Can we expect them to sit around and wait for you to learn that the company
has been paying you the maximum possible in order for us to be competitive.
The Union without knowing our financial straits has been promising wage
increases.
What they don't know is that in spite of increasing cost of travel, our sales-
men have voluntarily submitted to two major commission reductions in the last
eight years in order to keep the line competitive. One in the amount of 20%;
the other in the amount of 12V2". A total reduction of 321/2".
Have you ever been called upon to make a sacrifice-paywise in order for us
to stay competitive. Never.
Assuming that the foregoing does take place and the Union (assuming you
vote for one) calls a strike. Do you think that these salesmen are morally
obligated to wait until you learn (to your regret and expense) that the company
cannot financially afford a blanket increase.
No, this then means that we start afresh-No Salesmen, No Customers and
woe to all of us-No Workers.
Let's not be misled by false statements about crumbs from the bosses' table.
Business is tough to get and your voting "yes" may very well be the kiss of death
to a promising firm which has been loyal and fair to you.
Vote "No" and assure all of us of continued employment. [Emphasis
supplied.]
President George A. Snyder also addressed the employees at the meeting described
above. From what the Trial Examiner gleans from the record Snyder's speech was
carefully prepared beforehand and read to the assembed employees from a type-
written document consisting of 12 pages. An examination of the speech shows that
for the most part it is an indictment against any and all labor organizations and their
leaders. Such phrases, as "-it is impossible to have a union without either a strike or
a series of strikes"; "the Union is irresponsible, it's dangerous, it will try to physically
injure us both if it ever gets in"; and so on. On the other hand, Snyder went to great
pains to point out to the employees that no one would be discriminated against because
they supported the Union. An excerpt from his speech follows below:
Many of you probably have questions on your minds, and I have been
asked the following questions by several employees.
If you have signed a Union card, must you vote for the Union?
The answer is definitely "no." The election is by secret ballot and nobody
could ever know how you voted.
Should all employees vote?
Yes, it is extremely important that everybody votes, because anybody who does
vote is in the position of casting half a vote for the other side. I urge each and
every one of you to vote.
Voting will be held in the recreation room on Wednesday, the 24th, from 3
to 4 P. M. This election will be on Company time in order that no one will
lose any pay by voting. Finally it is my honest and sincere belief that the Union
is a real handicap for small companies like this and bad for the employees of
a small company. I know you employees and I want you all to know how I
feel on the question of a Union. I have given you many reasons and the great
majority of the reasons have been based upon my past and bitter experience.
The success of any small business is primarily based upon sound pleasant
working conditions between Management and Employees. If this is not
achieved, the Company will at all times be in trouble. I do not know of any
time that I have ever refused to talk to any employee or try to help in case of
trouble or when any problem was brought to my attention. I shall at all times
continue this practice.
I want to assure each of you that you have a secret vote which enables you to
vote your choice without any discrimination against any employee no matter how
he or she votes.
I will personally not remain to operate any union plant. I will leave this
Company and let some other man operate it just as Mr. Higdon left the Company
about 4 years ago and left me to run it. Maybe some one else will know how
to operate a Union factory. 1 know I don't know how to operate with a Union.
Finally I want to make it very clear that you can't have both me and a Union.
If you want me, you can't have a Union. If you want a Union, ladies and
gentlemen you can't have me. . . . [Emphasis supplied.),
AUDUBON CABINET COMPANY, INC. 883
The italicized portion of the above excerpt from Snyder 's speech is similar to the
statements he made to the employees in small groups in the plant a few days before
the election.10
Concluding and Overall Findings in Regards to Objections to the Election and the
Alleged Violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act
The Trial Examiner has found above that supervisory employees of the Respondents
engaged in conduct violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act shortly before the
Board election among the Respondents ' employees . He has reference to the activities
of President Snyder, Hembree, and Marstall . As indicated above the statements
they made to the named employees were so clearly violative of the Act that in the
Trial Examiner 's opinion no citation of authoritative sources for his findings in
this regard are either necessary or desirable . Suffice it to say that coming as they
did on the eve of the election , so to speak, they meet the test laid down by the
Board in many similar cases . That ". . test is whether the employer engaged
in conduct which , it may reasonably be said tends to interfere with the free exercise
of employee rights under the Act." 11 Applying this test to the facts found herein
above, the Trial Examiner is convinced and finds that the activities of President
Snyder, when considered in the light of the entire record and the timing thereof,
interfered with the rights of Respondents ' employees to vote in the Board election
without interference , restraint , and coercion from any source . His reasoning re-
garding Snyder 's overall activities follows below.
Insofar as this record is concerned Snyder's campaign against the Union started ap-
proximately 10 days before the election . On August 19 and 22, 1955 , he sent the letters
set forth above to each employee. A perusal of these letters clearly shows Snyder's
antipathy , not only towards the petitioning and Charging Union herein , but to all
labor organizations as well . While it may be true that standing alone the letters
were not violative of the Act , since in the final analysis they merely state Snyder's
opinion regarding labor organizations , and as such were privileged under Section 8
( c) of the Act . But the vice of the Employers and/or Respondents position in this
regard is that they do not stand alone, but must be considered in the light of the
entire record and the facts found therefrom.
The same reasoning applies to Snyder's talking to small groups of employees
a few days before the election . In those meetings the record clearly shows not only
without contradiction , but by the admissions of Snyder himself that they were
intended to not only bring home to the employees his personal antipathy towards
unions in general , but what he intended to do in the event the Union herein won
the election . Time and again in his interviews with the employees , in the news-
paper article published in the Henderson , Kentucky , Gleaner and Journal, and in
his letters to the employees , he emphasized the fact that he could not and would
not work with the Union ; and that in the event it won the election he personally
would withdraw from active management of both Audubon Cabinet Company, Inc.
and Period Table Company, Inc., and dispose of his interest in both companies.
Since he was the dynamic force behind the success of both , in fact the sole owner
and co-founder of Period Tables Inc., it is reasonable to infer that he intended
to, and in fact did intimidate and coerce the employees of both Employers and/or
Respondents herein in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by virtue of
Section 7 of the Act, and the Trial Examiner so finds. In the circumstances the
Trial Examiner finds that Snyder's conduct in this regard was not only violative of
Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act , but also grounds for setting aside the election herein.
In the considered opinion of the Trial Examiner his finding above is amply
supported by a recent Decision and Order of the Board, in the following case,
Radiant Lamp Corporation , 116 NLRB 40. Since the instant case presents a situa-
tion similar to that which was before the Board in the above -cited case , a pertinent
excerpt therefrom is inserted below:
Objection No. 3
The investigation revealed that on February 13, 6 groups of employees,
consisting of some 30 in each group, were called into the recreation room by
the executive vice president and that at these meetings , Weil, the secretary-
treasurer, the personnel manager, and various supervisors were also present;
10 See supra.
n N. L It. B v. Illinois Tool Works, 153 F. 2d 811, 814 (C A. 7). See also Radio
Officers' Union v N. L It. B , 347 U. S. 17, 45-46.
884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that remarks made by Weil showed how management felt about a union, how
employees in a unionized plant would be subject to certain disadvantages, such
as loss of wages from strikes and dues and that a union in the instant plant
had been voted out after many years of incumbency. On the day following
the meetings, the Employer mailed a two-page letter dated February 14 to all
employees which included a covering letter signed by Weil and a copy of the
notes Weil had used in addressing the groups.
Objection No. 6
The investigation revealed that some 2 weeks prior to the election, 2
employees were called individually to the office of the executive vice president,
where the latter discussed the election and union sentiments of employees; that
the president of the Employer, on company time, about a week before the elec-
tion addressed a small group of employees and expressed antiunion sentiments
but made no coercive remarks, and that 3 days before the election, the executive
vice president addressed small groups of employees and expressed the Employer's
preference for a "No" vote in the election.
The Employer excepts to the Regional Director's recommendation that the
election be set aside, alleging that no large room was available where all
employees could assemble and that the statements made by company officials
at the group and individual conferences were not coercive and therefore privi-
leged. We find, as we did in Our decision in Supreme Trailer Company,3 that
the technique of interviewing employees in small groups under the circumstances
above-described creates an atmosphere which prevents the employees from
expressing themselves as freely and fully as they otherwise might, and con-
stitutes conduct calculated to interfere with their free choice in the election
regardless of the noncoercive tenor of the Employer's remarks.4 We therefore
adopt the Regional Director's recommendation and shall direct that the election
be set aside and a new election ordered.
a 115 NLRB 962
a We find no merit in the Employer's exceptions that testimony of unrevealed wit-
nesses should not be accepted in the face of sworn testimony by company officials to
the contrary and that a hearing should be ordered on issues of fact raised by these
objections, for the reason that the interviews in themselves, whether or not accom-
panied by coercive remarks, are a sufficient basis for setting aside the election
The Trial Examiner feels that further comment should be made herein as to
the effect of the article printed in the Henderson, Kentucky, Gleaner and Journal,
on August 23, 1955. Since the paper containing the article was distributed on the
morning before the election, between 6 and 7 a. m., it is reasonable to infer that
a large number of the Respondents' employees read the article and the statements
attributed to President Snyder therein, and in particular that he would close
the plant if the Union won the election. In such circumstances the Trial Examiner
infers and finds that in the absence of any evidence that Snyder objected to or re-
quested a retraction by the editors of the paper, the Trial Examiner now finds
that Snyder authorized the statements attributed to him in said article, and that
by so doing he interfered with and coerced the Respondents' employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, and hence violative
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
In the circumstances discussed and found above the Trial Examiner now finds that
objections to the election numbered 1, 2, 3, and 5 are supported by the evidence
herein and it will be recommended below that, (1) the election of August 24, 1955,
be set aside and a new election among the Employers' and/or Respondents' employees
in the appropriate unit be held as soon as possible; and (2) the Respondents herein
cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor practices found above.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondents 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 Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and that they take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS, ETC. 885
In the opinion of the Trial Examiner, the unfair labor practices committed by
Respondents in the instant case are such as to indicate an attitude of opposition to
the purposes of the Act generally. In order, therefore, to make effective the inter-
dependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, thereby minimizing industrial strife,
which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act,
it will be recommended that the Respondents cease and desist from infringing in any
manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and its Local 235 are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By threatening employees with loss of employment or closing the plant; by
polling and interrogating employees as to their union affiliations , sympathies, and
activities, and by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents have en-
gaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The unfair labor practices committed by the Respondents between August 15
and 23, 1955, prevented the holding of a free and fair election on August 24, 1955.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
General Truck Drivers , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers,
Local 270 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO
and International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO and Murray W.
Miller, Trustee for Local No . 270 of the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, AFL-CIO and Robert L. Diaz, Jr., and Warren G.
Diaz, Sr., doing business as Diaz Drayage Company . Case No.
15-CC-50. March 29, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 6, 1956, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respond-
ents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Bean].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
117 NLRB No. 132.