Claymore Manufacturing Co. of Arkansas, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 5, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 1400 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I also recommend that the results of the second election held on April 5, 1963,
be set aside , and that a third election be ordered.
CONCLUSIONS OF .LAW
1. The Respondents , Louisville Chair Company , Inc. and Louisville Chair &
Furniture Company, Inc., are employers who are engaged in commerce and whose
activities affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and -( 7) of the Act.
2. United Furniture Workers of America , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. ,
3. By reprimanding and threatening to discharge Charles L. Wimsatt and John
Alvin Pottinger , two of its employees , because they had been active in support of
the Union , the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By transferring Charles L. Wimsatt from his job as edge sander to the more
onerous and less desirable job of packer as a reprisal for his union activities, the
Respondents also violated Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Claymore Manufacturing Company of Arkansas, Inc. and Amal-
gamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 26-RC-1902. May 5, 1964
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an
election by secret ballot was conducted on March 28, 1963, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-
sixth Region in the stipulated unit described below. At the conclu-
sion of the election, the Regional Director served upon the parties a
tally of ballots, which showed that of, approximately 100. eligible
voters, 104 ballots were cast, of which 47 were for, and 49 were against,
the Petitioner. Eight ballots were challenged. The Petitioner filed
timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
Director conducted an investigation, and on May 10, 1963, issued and
duly served upon the parties his report on objections and challenged
ballots, in which he recommended that: the challenges to 6 ballots be
sustained; the challenges to 2 ballots be overruled; objections 3, 4, and
6 be sustained, and the election set aside and a new election directed;
and the'remaining objections be overruled. - On June 3, 1963, the
Petitioner and the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Di-
rector's report. On June 19, 1963, the Regional Director issued his sup-
plemental report on objections and challenged ballots, in which he
revised his findings but reiterated his recommendation that objections
3, 4, and 6 be sustained. The Employer, by a letter dated June. 24;
1963, requested that its exceptions of June 3, 1963, be treated as equally
applicable to the supplemental report.
146 NLRB No. 153.
CLAYMORE MANUFACTURING. CO. OF ARKANSAS, INC. 1401
Hating duly considered. the matter, the Board, by order dated
August 9,1963, adopted the Regional Director's recommendations as
to the challenged ballots, and directed that a hearing be held before a
Trial Examiner to resolve the issues raised by Petitioner's objections 3,,
4,and6.
Pursuant to the above order,''a hearing was held on September 12,.
1963, in Huntsville, Arkansas, before Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey.
All parties participated through counsel and were given full -op-
portunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues.
On December 9, 1963, the Trial Examiner issued and served upon
the parties his attached report on objections, in which he recommended
that objections 3', 4, and 6 be overruled, and that the results of the elec-
tion held March 28, 1963, be certified by the Board. The Petitioner
filed timely objections to his report.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that all production and main-
tenance employees employed by the Employer at its Huntsville,
Arkansas, plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors'as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial' Ex-
aminer's report, the Petitioner's exceptions thereto, and hereby adopts
the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and his recommendation
that objections 3, 4, and 6 be overruled.
Our dissenting colleagues would find that the community campaign,
as well as the Employer's March 14, 1963, letter interfered with the
election. However, we are satisfied that, when considered in the total
context of preelection propaganda by both sides, a contrary result
is indicated.
Thus, Petitioner conducted a vigorous campaign, which over a 7-
week period included meetings of employees on 5 different dates and
the distribution of 21 circulars or letters. In these documents Peti-.
tioner, inter aZia, on March 21, 1963, answered the townspeople's paid
1402 •DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
advertisement; on the day before the election, challenged the Hunts-
ville businessmen and professional men who were opposed to, the
Union's public statement that the Employer had stated that the plant
would move if the Union won; admonished employees as to "scare-
bait," and advised them that when the time came the Employer would
be around to negotiate; on the day of the election answered the Em-
ployer's letter of March 26; and twice'in its circulars warned of the
illegality of interference with the election, including plant closure.
Finally, we note that prior to March 14, the Petitioner's attorney had
requested the Employer to issue a disavowal of any statements con-
cerning the plant's future except' those issued by the Employer's
officers.
. It was in response to Petitioner's request that the Employer issued
its March 14 letter to the employees, in which it advised, inter alia:
"WE CAN SAY THIS . . . please disregard ALL rumors. The
future of this plant will be decided by the officers and directors of the
company- and only the statements issued by officers of this company
as to the future of this plant can be regarded as reliable and authentic."
It does not appear that Petitioner protested this letter at the time it
was circulated as being an inadequate disavowal of rumors about the
plant closing, or as constituting interference with the election. Fur-
thermore, in its March 14 letter, the Employer stated that it was still
operating at a deficit, and that "Our older employees know from ex-
perience that- we have dealt fairly and squarely with our people on
our working conditions. If we are permitted to stay in the manufac-
turing business, we hope and confidently expect to do better with your
help and cooperation." Thereafter, in its March 26 letter, the Em-
ployer again reassured the employees, saying "Regardless of rumors,
it is our intention to try our level best to keep this plant going regard-
less of the outcome of this election."
In sum, we reach our conclusion in the light of the following: the
give -and take of the campaign; the absence of any showing by Peti-
tioner that it was dissatisfied with the Employer's disavowal of rumors
about the plant closing; the fact that the campaign propaganda here
in issue occurred in the context that the Employer was in fact losing
Inoney; and the Employer's straightforward assurance of employees
that it had dealt fairly with them, hoped to do better, and intended
to keep the plant going regardless of the outcome of the election.
Therefore, for the above reasons, as well as. those stated by the Trial
Examiner, we find that the preelection activity relied upon by our
colleagues , did. not interfere with the election.
Accordingly,. as the tally of ballots indicates that the Petitioner has
failed. to obtain a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify the
results of the election...
CLAYMORE MANUFACTURING CO.- OF ARKANSAS, INC. 1403
[The Board certified that a majority of- the valid votes has not been
cast for Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and
that the said labor organization is not the exclusive representative of
the employees in the;appropriate unit.]
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH and MEMBER BROWN, dissenting:
We cannot, on the facts of this case, agree with our colleagues that
the Trial Examiner's report on objections should be adopted and the
results of the election certified. On the contrary, the facts as found by
the Trial Examiner in his report clearly reveal that, as a result of a
community campaign against selection of the Union as bargaining
representative, fear of economic loss so permeated the atmosphere in
which the election was conducted that a new election must be held.'
As recited by the Trial Examiner, "for more than a month before the
election prominent and influential townspeople, including the mayor
and his wife, the county judge, a local minister and various business-
men, made an organized and deliberate effort to talk to employees
in attempts to dissuade them from voting for the Union in the elec-
tion." The theme which was emphasized throughout was that the
designation of the Union would cause the Employer to move the plant
from the town and would keep other business and improvements from
the town. The result of this, it was said, would be the loss of jobs for
the employees, the loss of money invested in the plant by the speakers
and other businessmen,' and a general economic loss to the area. The
Trial Examiner notes that each incident appears to be the type of ac-
tivity which constitutes interference with an election and warrants
setting it aside. However, by treating each event separately to deter-
mine whether the particular employee involved was in fact "scared or
fooled," rather than considering the campaign in its entirety 3 to deter-
mine the likelihood of its interfering with an unrestrained choice by
the electorate as a whole, the Trial Examiner held that no interference
-was shown.
The campaign here and its impact on the election cannot, in our
opinion, be distinguished from that in Utica-Herbrand Tool Division
of Kelsey-Hayes Company 4 Nor do the Employer's statements prior
to the March 14 letter require a different result. For, although the
Employer told employees, in a speech on February 21 and in response
to questions by individuals at other times thereafter, that the plant
did not intend to move, the statements by the community leaders, many
i See , for example , The Falmouth Company , 114 NLRB 896.
s As noted in the report , Huntsville, Arkansas , has a population of about 1 , 050. It en-
gaged in a sustained effort to bring business to the town to Improve its economic standing
and most of the townspeople mentioned by the Trial Examiner as engaging in the anti-
union campaign , as well as other businessmen and the town itself , had invested money in
the plant.
9 Oak Manufacturing Company , 141 NLRB 1323.
4 145 NLRB 1717.
1404 -DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of whom had a financial interest in the plant, appeared to be authorita-
tive and by their sheer numbers and nature were such as tend to con-
fuse the voters; Furthermore, the Employer's March 14 letter, far
from unequivocally disavowing 5 the community's statements, tended
to capitalize on the fear generated by the townspeople. While the
letter asks employees to disregard all rumors, it nowhere reassures the
employees that the advent of a collective-bargaining representative
would not cause the Employer to close down.' The only statements by
the Company are that it would like to keep the plant in operation "if
we are permitted to stay in the manufacturing business" but that
"meeting even a small part of [the Union's] promises would put our
plant out of business in a short time . . . . Union or no Union, blood
cannot be squeezed out of a turnip . . . all that would be left is a
crushed turnip . . . which means no plant, no jobs and no wages . .
unless the Union would like to take over and see if they can run the
plant and make their promises come true." The letter forcefully called
employees' attention to the Employer's control of the employees' eco-
nomic welfare by reminding them "When you vote, remember that your
wages are paid by the Company and not by the Union. Promises are
cheap. Your best chance for wage increases, the protection of your
jobs, and the creation of additional jobs comes when the Company can
meet competition and remain successful in business." The Trial Ex-
aminer characterizes this letter as "plainly [indicating] the Em-
ployer's intent to stay in business in Huntsville if it could do so eco-
nomically . . . . " but fails to note the clear implication that if the
Union were selected it probably could not do so, thus adopting the com`
munity's campaign theme. In sum, the general tenor of the Employer's
letter was calculated to affirm the possibility of a plant closure if the
Union won. The subsequent publication of this letter in the local
newspaper was a further act by the community to impart its message of
fear. And the publication of the community's open letter of March 21
once again emphasized the possible detrimental effects of selecting
the Union by warning employees not to rely on rumors but at the
same time repeating the assertions concerning probable economic loss:
A campaign of this nature and magnitude could not be counteracted by
the Union's telling employees that it would be unlawful for the Com-
pany to close because of the selection of a bargaining representative.
There can be little solace in the realization that the loss of a job might
result from illegal conduct.
Under these circumstances, we would set the election aside.
5 A. P. Green Fire Brick Co., 140 NLRB 1067, enfd. 326 F. 2d 910 ( C.A. 8) ; Surprenant
Mfg. Co.. 144 NLRB 507.
6 See The Fabnoitth Company, supra , at 899-901, where even a clear statement of intent
to continue operating was insufficient.
CLAYMORE MANUFACTURING CO. OF ARKANSAS, INC. .1405
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S REPORT ON OBJECTIONS TO ELECTION
Petitioner (herein called the Union ) lost a consent election held in this case on
March 28 , 1963, under Board auspices , and thereafter filed objections with the
Regional Director for the Twenty -sixth Region alleging conduct affecting the results
of the election . After investigation, the Regional Director on May 10, 1963, filed
his report on objections to election , and a supplemental report on June 19, 1963,
sustaining objections Nos. 3, 4, and 6 and recommending that the election be set
aside. After the Union and the Employer filed exceptions to his report , the Board
on August 9, 1963, directed a hearing before a Trial Examiner to resolve the issues
raised by said objections , the two reports , and the Employer's exceptions thereto, and
to prepare and serve on all parties his report on the facts with recommendations
as to disposition of said issues.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Eugene F . Frey at
Huntsville , Arkansas , on September 12, 1963 , in which all parties participated through
counsel and were given full opportunity to examine and cross -examine witnesses, to
adduce pertinent evidence , to make oral argument , and to file written briefs. The
parties called no witnesses but stipulated the facts each would have testified to if
called and sworn , and also stipulated much documentary evidence . All parties
waived oral argument , but the Union and Employer have filed written briefs with
the Trial Examiner which have been carefully considered.
On the basis of the stipulated testimony , documentary proofs, and the entire record
in the case , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Issues
The issues raised by the Union's objections are whether
3. Local townspeople , including public officials and businessmen , engaged in
intensive campaign contacting the employees and members of their families and
made statements that the employer 's officers and agents had stated the plant
would be moved or shut down in the event the Union won the election.
4. Local townspeople sponsored advertisements in local newspapers which
threatened plant removal in the event the Union won the election.
6. Employer disseminated letters to its employees which contained deliberate
misstatements , promises of benefits conditioned upon rejection . of the Union and
also contained threats of. removal in the event the Union was successful.
and whether such conduct was sufficient to require that the election be set aside.
B. Statements of townspeople
A few preliminary facts about Huntsville , the Employer 's plant , and the , course
of the campaign should be stated first. The Employer 's plant is the only substantial
industry in Huntsville, Arkansas , a city of about 1 , 050 population . On election day
the plant , employed about 96 people , most of whom lived in the city or its environs
and traded therein regularly . Since 1959 businessmen and townspeople had made
strenuous and expensive efforts by building a plant and otherwise to bring a large
industry into town in.order to afford employment to citizens and raise its economic
level so that it could attract more industry . These efforts were unsuccessful until the
Employer in October 1960 took over the plant where it has operated ever since.
.Employees at the plant were made aware of these facts by an open letter published
, in the local newspaper on March 21, 1963, which will be discussed hereafter.
The Union 's organizing campaign started sometime in 1962 , but its public cam-
paign apparently started (so far as this record shows ) with circulars mailed to
iemployees on February 8 and 17 , and a third mailed on the 28th , the day it filed its
petition for an election . In March it intensified its propaganda by mailing , or dis-
tributing 1.8 separate circulars or letters to employees up-to the election . In.this
period , it employed three women organizers to work more or less continuously among
the employees , and- also held meetings for employees in Huntsville on February 14
and 28, March 15, 21, and 26.
On February 15 and 19 , 1963, the Union sent the Employer telegrams . putting it
on notice that 40 employees named in them were members of its organizing committee
at the plant. The telegrams listed , among other, Hazel Vanhook , Viola Johnson,
Freida Wood , Shirley . Burnett , Wanda Shipp , Wanda Gifford, Lela . Welchel, Imogene
Barron, and Elizabeth Parsons.
1406 - DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ^ BOARD
Sometime before February -21, 1963, employee Hazel Vanhook called Mayor
Boyd Roberts at his home to question him about rumors of remarks he had made
about her. As he was not in, Vanhook told his wife, Ethel, that she heard that the
Mayor had told Vanhook's cousin, James Marshall, -that she (Vanhook) was the
"ringleader of the trouble at the plant" and that the plant would close. Mrs. Roberts
admitted she had heard that Vanhook was a "ringleader" and said that President Wil-
son had said the plant would close. Vanhook denied that she was a "ringleader" but
said she was for the Union, and she -was hurt because the word was being spread that
she caused the trouble. - Mrs. Roberts said the Mayor and she were worried because
they had money invested in the plant and would hate to see it close.'
On February 21, President Wilson addressed the employees in a group at the plant,
during which he mentioned the telegrams, and announced that copies of them would
be left in the office for anyone to-examine. Prior to the speech, employees had asked
Wilson about rumors they had heard that the plant would close and move out if the
Union won the election. In the speech, he told the workers that the Employer had
no intention of moving, saying that moving a plant was an expensive operation.
-Right'after the speech, Hazel Vanhook told Wilson that Mrs. Roberts had said the
plant would close if the Union came in, and asked if he had said that. He replied
that he had no intention of moving the plant, and that he had not talked to any
townspeople about 'it. - Throughout the campaign period, Wilson gave the same-
answers to any employees who raised the question,. also telling them that the only way
the Company'could'get its moneyback was by staying there and operating the plant.
About a month before the election, Lois Jackson (not an employee -at the plant)
overheard James Warren, proprietor of a grocery store in town, tell employee Lillian
Wood, a relative of his, in the store that the plant would close if the Union went into
it. Wood, who was on layoff from the plant at the time, replied that it should not
make any difference to Warren because if the Union went in it would mean just that
much more money that he would get.
, - About 3 weeks before the election, Pastor Noel Easterling of the Baptist Church in
town approached Goldman Barron while he was clearing land near the church site.
Barron is a chicken farmer and carpenter who lives outside town; his wife, Imogene,
was employed at the plant before and after the election. Barron talked about his
wife's nervous condition while working at the plant, and said the workers would be
better off if they got good working conditions there .2 Easterling commented that if
the Union got into the plant "this town is done for." Barron asked how the'pastor
knew this, and Easterling explained that "they" had had a business meeting, and
that one John Tyson was preparing to move a poultry processing and feed mill into
Huntsville from another town if the Union did not get into the Employer's plant.
Easterling also said if the Union came in, it would "kill" plans for a new sewer
project in town.3 Barron repeated that his wife was under doctor's care for her
nerves, and Easterling replied she could "quit rather than ruin the -town." Barron
related this talk to his wife that evening. Neither of them are related to Easterling,
nor are they members of his church.
On March 8, 1963, Viola Johnson heard one Clora Keck tell Supervisor Lois Steele
and worker Elizabeth Parsons -at noon hour in the plant "We don't need the Union,
but we do need the plant," and asked her listeners to tell that to the women em-
ployees. Employee Doris Thomas overheard this talk, and also heard Keck say that
if the Union came into the -plant, the Tyson plant would not move into town, the
sewer system would not be procured, and Respondent's plant would "close down
or move out." Later, Keck told Thomas that Mayor Roberts had sent her to the
plant to talk to the employees .4
' In her projected testimony , Vanhook placed this conversation vaguely as "about 3 weeks
before the election ," but I do not credit this because of her projected testimony that she
told Wilson on the 21st about Mrs. Roberts ' statement to her that the plant would move.
She does not say she had more than one talk with Mrs. Roberts.
'' Imogene Barron was well along in pregnancy during March , leaving the plant in April
to, have her baby.
Huntsville had recently sought Federal funds from Area Redevelopment Agency to
build a new water supply and sewerage system, and the townspeople generally felt -that
approval of the application might hinge on whether the Employer could continue opera-
tions in town, and on establishment of the Tyson poultry processing plant there.
Keck is former operator of a furniture store in town but in 1963 was selling brand-
name cosmetics house-to-house on a commission basis and in the course of that business
often solicited, employees at the plant on their own time, but apparently without specific
permission or knowledge of plant management . I do not credit Steele's . projected denial
CLAYMORE MANUFACTURING CO. OF ARKANSAS, INC. 1407
About 5 p.m. that evening Clora Keck called employee Wanda Shipp in her home,
and after some preliminary talk about cosmetics, Keck asked what Shipp thought
about the election. Shipp said she was "all for the Union." Keck said "we would
be sorry, that we would bmaking a mistake." Keck said she had talked to some
of the "top men" who told her they were going to close the plant and move it to
another county. Shipp replied they could not do that for union activity. Keck
argued that they could, that union activity "was reason enough." Shipp disagreed,
saying they would have to give a different reason. Keck also said the Tyson proc-
essing plant and the sewer system would not come into town if the Union got in.
Shipp asked what "top men" Keck had talked to, and Keck named Mayor Boyd
Roberts, and Clay McBroom, officer of a bank and also a director of Respondent.
Shipp told Keck that President Wilson of Respondent had made a speech to em-
ployees in February, in which he referred to rumors about the plant closing and said
the plant would not close and he hoped it -would be there for a hundred years. Keck
replied that Wilson was not the "main guy," was not from St. Louis, but Shipp as-
sured her that he was,5 and Keck said "well, that puts a different light on it," and then
apologized for "butting in" but explained she had been worried about the employees'
jobs at the plant.
About 2 weeks before the election day, employee Genevieve Denny walked up to
Clora Keck in the plant while Keck was talking to employees Cassie Lyman and
Almandine Reynolds. Lyman asked Keck to repeat to Denny what she had told the
other employees, and Keck told Denny that if they "put the Union in the factory
it would move out," that the "company was too young to stand the pressure of a
union right now," and that the employees should wait about 5 or 6 years, "then
maybe we could have a union then." She said the Company would move to Jasper
if the Union came in, that her husband had invested a lot of money when it opened
and she would. sure hate to see him lose it . She asked Denny to remember that on
"election day" when she went to vote.
About the same time , employee Frieda Wood met Keck walking out of the plant,
and Keck said "you girls don't know what you are getting into." At that moment,
employee Jessie Wilhite came. in, and Keck told both employees "You girls don't
know what you are getting into; this plant is going to move to Jasper." Wood re-
plied, "Oh, is that so?" and Keck said, it was, and "if the union gets in you can't
have any water and you won't get the sewer system in."
About 2 weeks before the election, while Viola Johnson was returning to the plant
from a coffee break, Pastor Easterling called her to his truck, and said that he
guessed she already knew it but "as a friend I will tell you this as a fact and a true
fact'without guesswork, that the plant will move if the union goes in," that "they
already had a location without any charges to the company." Easterling explained
that he knew this was not his business because he did not work there, but he was
talking to her as a friend, that he did have money invested in the plant, and the only
way he could get it back was for the plant to stay in town, and that if Viola had any
influence on anyone he would appreciate her helping him. That night Viola called
Pastor Easterling at his home and asked where he got the information that the plant
would move. He replied that he had overheard it in the talk of a couple of men
talking on the street, so thought he would tell "you girls" about it, indicating he had
also told it to his half-sister, Wilda Keck, because he knew both women needed work.
On March 12, 1963, Franklin D. Burnett, an employee of an implement dealer in
town, and whose wife Shirley worked at the plant, overheard Arlis Coger, proprietor
of a drugstore in town, talking to his own employee, J. B. Holt, whose wife also works
at the plant. Referring to the election, Coger told Holt, "they are just asking for it
if they vote the union in," that "the man would move, as this books showed that he
was losing money ever since he moved here." Coger said that if the plant moved
"it would sure hurt me as I had an extra $10,000 in that -part of it"; and that he "sure
would lose a good renter." 6 He also said he knew that the law said "the man can't
move" but "they can't keep him here if he is losing money." Burnett related these
remarks to his wife, Shirley, that evening . The Burnetts are not related to Coger.
of this talk , because if called sbe would have admitted seeing and overhearing a talk
between Keck and Frieda Wood,on°one noon hour in which the word "Jasper" was men-
tioned , and it is clear from other testimony of Wood noted below about this time Keck
did tell her the plant would move to Jasper.
5 Shipp was right, for Wilson lives in Clayton. Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis, where
the Employer 's administrative offices are located.
e Coger owned and rented to the Employer the land and building occupied by the plant-
744-670-65-vol. 14G-90
1408 • DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On Saturday, March 16, 1963, the Union distributed handbills around Huntsville
which were addressed to "Claymore employees" and emphasized in bold type that the
law protected their rights to organize and get a union, and that it was against the
law "for anyone-company, supervisors,, businessmen or town officials-to threaten
workers about their union activities" and also against the law "for a company to
CLOSE DOWN or refuse to bargain on. account of the union." That day one
Thomas Faddis, a retired sawmill operator, accosted Imogene Barron on the street
and said "you don't want to vote for a union, if you do, the plant will move."
She replied, "Oh, I don't think so." He insisted that it would "as a lot of people
have told me so." When she asked who, he replied "a lot of people," but would
not name them. Mrs. Barron is no relation to Faddis. On the same day, Loris
Welchel, whose wife worked at the plant, was called by County Judge Clarence
Watson into his office, where Watson spoke to him in the presence of Mrs. Watson
and a businessman, Austin Hull? In the discussion Watson brought up the union
campaign. Welchel said he thought it was "little" of the townspeople to "fight the
employees about the Union." Judge Watson replied that he had invested $1,250 in
the plant, and. the town had put $75,000 into it to create jobs for people, and that
he was afraid the plant would close if the Union got in. Welchel disagreed, saying
he understood it was unlawful to close or move a plant on account of the Union.
Judge Watson replied that "they handled the books and could close the. plant legally."
Welchel related this conversation to his wife that night.
About a week before the election, Herman Dethridge, owner of a hardware store
in town, had a talk with Goldman Barron just before he and his wife were leaving
for a union meeting. Dethridge, speaking confidentially to Barron as "a lifelong
friend," asked Barron what he thought about the election., Barron replied he had
been a union laborer all his life. Dethridge said it would "ruin the town if they
get a union plant," that the plant "might" move out if the Union came in, and he
would hate to see it 'close, as he had a small amount invested in it, but other people
had more invested and would lose it all. Barron repeated this to his wife' later that
night.
Lewis Johnson, a farmer and husband of employee Viola Johnson, was approached
on March' 26 or 27 by Ewell Easterling, an appliance dealer in town. Easterling
asked why the women in the plant did not go to President Wilson with their problems,
rather than bringing a union in. Johnson apparently did not reply. Easterling then
said the town was too small for a union and "we do not need a union." He said he
was interested in seeing the plant stay here, as businessmen had between $80;000.and
$100,000 invested in it. He also said that he "believed" the plant "could not stay
here" or that the plant "would move if the Union came in." Johnson related the
talk to his wife that night. Easterling is a distant relative of his wife.
C. The Company letters
On March 11,1963, one of the Employer's labor counsel, Sam Elson, received
a telephone call in St. Louis, Missouri, from an attorney of the Union who said he
had information that Pastor Noel Easterling had announced that: he had inside in-
formation that the Huntsville plant would' move to Jasper, Arkansas, if the Union
came into it. Elson replied he knew nothing about this, but would check' on it
The union attorney asked that the Employer issue a disavowal of any statements con-
cerning 'the plant's future, except those issued by the Employer's officers. On
March 14, the Employer issued a letter to the employees, signed by Wilson, in which
it noted the advent of the Board election, and advised that the letter was issued to
correct misleading circulars issued by the Union and "wild rumors that have been
called to our attention," and to give the employees the truth on these matters. After
emphasizing that it had cooperated with the Board to get a speedy election, and that
it wanted all ,eligible employees to vote in it on a decision- which could affect their
future. and their jobs, the letter stated: .
3. As we wrote you in April, 1962, we knew, when we opened our plant, in
October, 1960, that for a considerable period the plant would lose money, but
we hoped that as the management and our .employeesgained experience, we
could all improve and achieve good wages, working conditions and it healthy
company. The fact is that. although the plant has improved, the company's
operations have produced a deficit even to the present time. We still hope to
overcome this condition if we are permitted to remain competitive and stay in
the manufacturing business. Our employees are NOT.at fault for this condi-
s Judge Watson is the county judge for Madison County, Arkansas, and holds court in
Huntsville. He is a fourth or fifth cousin of Welchel. '
CIAYMORE MANUFACTURING -CO. OF ARKANSAS, INC. 1409
'tion ...-we sincerely believe. . that - most _ of our - employees have been loyal,
cooperative and have done their best.
4. Our plant has to be made to . operate profitably over the long pull if it is to
remain in business. The Union has promised you'the world with peaches and
cream as a frosting around it . Meeting even a small part of these promises
would put our plant out of business in a short time. Additional benefits can
only be paid out of profits. Union or no union, blood cannot`be squeezed out
of a turnip . all that would be left is a crushed turnip .r. . which means
no plant, no jobs and no wages . . . unless the Union would like to take over
and see if they can run the plant and make their promises come true. We can
tell you that the Union cannot compel us to. operate our plant into a condition
of bankruptcy.
5. A number of rumors have been called to our attention . . . such as that
the plant is about to be closed down or that the plant will be moved to some
other town . We cannot keep up with all the rumors and gossip and cannot
issue statements every day. WE CAN SAY THIS . please disregard A LL
rumors. The future of this plant will be decided by the officers and directors
of the company and only the statements issued by officers of this company as to
the future of this plant can be regarded as reliable and authentic.
It also pointed out other economic aspects of the plant's operation and future in
these terms: .
1. Although our plant is still young and not fully experienced, it is our policy
to pay fair wages for good work consistent with the economic condition of the
Company. We believe in good wages and working conditions and we are
constantly working to improve them. Last fall we started on a small scale with
idle holiday pay for the Thanksgiving Day and Christmas holidays. Some of
our people have talked to -us about a paid vacation plan. If conditions should
improve . . . if we can get enough orders for merchandise . . we will give
very serious and sympathetic consideration to those ideas and many others.
We would like to stay in business . and we would like to make our own
products in Huntsville instead of buying them from others.
3. When you vote, remember that your wages are paid by the Company and
not by the Union. Promises are cheap. Your :best chance for wage increases,
the protection of your jobs, and the creation of additional jobs comes when the
Company can meet competition and remain successful in business.
It will be impossible -for us, and we do not intend to answer every union cir-
cular and every misstatement. We have to devote'most of our time and energy
to finding customers who will buy. the products of our plant and keep your jobs
going. We will, as in the past,' have to depend on the common sense, the good
judgment and.the direct knowledge of our employees to recognize untruths or
misleading propaganda which may be pushed, at them. Our older employees
know from experience that we have dealt fairly and squarely with our people
on our working conditions: If we are permitted to stay in the manufacturing
business, we hope and confidently expect to do better with your.help and co-
operation. We have been personally interested in the people who work with us
and for us. Since we started in Huntsville our relationships have been peaceful,
cordial and close and we should like to remain in Huntsville and keep them that
way.
On March 26, Wilson mailed another letter to-employees which reiterated the im-
portance of each employee's vote in the election because the result "could affect your
own future and Huntsville's future." It then gave company answers to alleged mis-
leading'rumors about the Union's control of production, layoffs, work rules, work
changes, and job transfers, if it won the election, and asked employees to think about
certain aspects of the Union's long organizing campaign, and the costs of employees
of union representation. In its last paragraph it said:
The Company has tried hard to keep this plant in operation under difficult
conditions. Regardless of rumors, it is our intention to try our level best to
keep this plant going regardless of the outcome of this election. We under-
stand that you have been told that your piece-work rates would be changed to
a downward trend in case that you do not go union. This is a false statement.
It simply is not true. I have discussed this with many of you and I am sure
.that you know our feelings about. this. For the last several months the con-
fusion, uncertainty, and propaganda has of course, hurt our production. I have
1410 DECISIONS : OF- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
associated . with, Arkansas-,employees for many years. My experience has been
that they are fine , loyal people.
The letter closed with a plea for a vote against the Union.
D. Open letters in town newspaper
On March 21, 1963, a full-page open letter to employees of the Employer, paid for
by merchants and citizens of Huntsville, was published in the Madison County
Record, a local newspaper. The letter advised its readers about the importance of
the plant payroll to the city and its people in providing employment and raising
economic standards. It adverted to literature issued by the Union and Employer pro
and con unionization, and urged employees to consider only the facts and to disregard
rumors prevalent in the community, because "rumors are vicious and almost impos-
sible to trace to their source." After citing union circulars explaining the illegality
of threats, among other things, to close the plant if the Union came in, and the right
of the.employees to hear facts and opinions on both sides, it then expressed the
opinion of the businessmen collectively that a union in the city "at this time" was
not needed, that it would bring no benefits to the community, which had been taking
steps since 1959 to attract more industry and was in the process of seeking a new
water and sewer system for that purpose, and that advent of a union now might be
detrimental to the welfare of the community. It then detailed efforts of the com-
munity since 1959 to attract new industry by building a new plant at a cost of
$65,000 raised among local businessmen and townspeople, which was lost when two
industries installed in the plant failed in succession, before the Employer established
its operation there in October 1960. It noted that the Employer had since met its
financial obligations to creditors and employees and had expanded operations, pro-
viding more jobs locally. The letter ended by requesting employees to read Wilson's
March 14 letter which was reprinted on another page of the newspaper, and urged
employees to- consider these things carefully before voting, saying' "many of your
friends and neighbors in Madison County feel that a union in Huntsville at the
present time is not in the best interests of seeing the city and county grow and
prosper." In a lead news article on the first page of the paper, the author referred
to the Union's prior propaganda as well as the open letter and reprint of the Em-
ployer's letter in the issue, urged employees to vote, and reminded that, according
to the NLRB notice of election, the election would be secret, and in closing added
"there can be no reprisals from either side, no matter which way the election
may go."
Concluding findings , and contentions of the parties
The Union claims that the letters of March •14 and 26 were an obvious attempt by
the Employer to capitalize on the townspeople's threats of plant closure if the Union
won. However, the record shows that Wilson made the same denials of plant clo-
sure , and explanations why it would not close, to some employees just before
March 14, as he had made at the meeting of February 21. The March 14 letter
plainly states that rumors of plant closing had been called to the Employer's atten-
tion , and then advised employees to disregard all such rumors, and to consider as
reliable and'authentic only statements from officers of the Employer. In addition,
the letter came out 3 days after the Union's specific request for official disavowal of
plant closure rumors. Hence , it is quite apparent that the March 14 letter, which
plainly indicated the Employer' s intent to stay in business in Huntsville if it could do
so economically, was issued to counteract the rumors and warnings of the type cited
above, in part at the request of the Union. Recognizing these facts, the Union admits
the "purported motive" for both letters was to instruct employees to disregard threats
of plant closure as unreliable rumors, but argues notwithstanding that the letters
"lend reliability to these threats, which was accomplished through -thinly veiled im-
plications." It does not indicate what statements in the letters contain such im-
plications , merely saying they are "too obvious and numerous to require specific
designation." The probable effect of the letters cannot properly be evaluated by con=
sidering them in vacuo or by lifting single phrases or sentences from them and mag-
nifying-their importance as though they stood alone, written in bold type, or displayed
in other "standout" fashion which might be likely to impress employees to the ex-
clusion of all else ; they must be viewed in the context of prior and contemporaneous
events, including the remarks and actions of both sides as well as employees and others
on the subject of plant closing. - See Arch Beverage Corporation, 140 NLRB 1385;
Oak Manufacturing Company, 141 NLRB 1323, footnote 6, and The Lord Baltimore
Press, 142 NLRB 328. In considering prior events, the Board does not limit itself
to those occurring in the "critical period" between the date of filing of the petition
CLAYMORE MANUFACTURING CO. OF. ARKANSAS , INC. 1411
.and the election (here, February 28 to March 28),:but will appraise conduct in that
.period in the light of events before it. Blades Manufacturing Corporation, 144
NLRB 561.
Viewed in this broad context, the letters, as summarized in part and quoted in
pertinent part above, appear to be an honest and reasonable effort to set at rest any
doubts and fears engendered among employees. about plant closure and the security
of their jobs from remarks of townspeople. The plain import of the quoted para-
graphs emphasized that, while the plant operation was still in its growing stages and
not yet stable or profitable financially, it was improving and the Employer hoped to
-continue that trend if it was permitted to remain competitive and stay in business.
It plainly indicated that one possible obstacle to profitable operation over the long
pull was exorbitant demands from the Union which, if met even in small part, "would
put our plant out of business in a short time," 8 indicating in plain and homely terms
that additional benefits can only come out of profits, cannot be "squeezed out of a
crushed turnip" which would mean "no plant, no jobs and no wages." While these
remarks showed the probability of plant closure if the Employer had to accept the
union demands while it was still operating at a deficit, I do not consider this as a
warning that the Employer by its own action would close the plant if the Union
-came in, only that this was a possible consequence of unionization and surrender to
high union demands. These are legitimate comments. At the same time, the
Employer indicated its intent, aside from this consequence, to remain in business in
Huntsville. In closing its argument, the Employer emphasized that, to meet promises
-of higher wages, job protection, and additional jobs, the Company had to get cus-
tomers, meet competition, and remain successful in business. It repeated these
assurances in the March 26 letter, while denying rumors about the Union controlling
production, economic layoffs, and plant operations generally, if it won the election.
The whole thrust of these significant portions of the letters is, that the Employer had
to operate profitably in order to stay in business, but on the basis of its present
financial condition it could not hope to continue profitable operations if it had to
.accede to the Union's demands; however, it intended to "try our level best to keep
this plant going, regardless of the outcome of this election." Since these official
statements were merely repetition, in more detail but just as plain, of similar assur-
ances given by Wilson to many employees throughout the campaign since Febru-
ary 21, which some prominent union adherents had used personally in rejecting
opinions and warnings of townspeople about plant closure, I think that the Employer's
efforts in this direction was a reasonably effective effort to counteract such opinions
and rumors, and was well calculated to clear the air of any confusion or doubt in
the minds of employees on that point, so that they could reasonably gauge the
possibility of plant closing for economic reasons as only one possible disadvantage
of unionization, and. were also enabled .to appraise the unfounded remarks and
rumors from townspeople as mere personal opinion and unreliable rumor, as some of
them actually did. I find that the Employer's letters of March 14 and 26 were not,
where considered as a whole and in their context, such conduct as to create an
atmosphere of confusion or fear which would warrant setting the election aside.
'See Arch Beverage Corporation, supra; Decorated Products, Inc., 140 NLRB 1383.
For the same reasons , I conclude the reprint of the March 14 letter, with the open
letter in the local newspaper, had no more coercive or disruptive effect on employees
than the letter itself, particularly since ,the publisher at the same time added his own
admonition to employees to consider only the facts and disregard vicious or vague
rumors about plant closing, pointed out that the Employer was the first industry to
operate continuously in town , meeting its financial obligations and expanding, and
closed by emphasizing that neither Union nor Employer could take harmful action
against the employees, no matter how the election went. If anything, this public
announcement tended to repeat and support the Employer's prior assurances against
plant closure, and was reasonably calculated to remove any coercive aspects of that
subject from the employees' minds before voting.
Turning to conduct of townspeople noted 'above, it is clear that for more than a
month before the election prominent and influential townspeople, including the mayor
and his wife, the county judge, a local minister, and various businessmen, made an
organized and deliberate effort to talk to employees, either-directly or through their
e Here , the Employer was clearly alluding to union propaganda in' effect promising
through the medium oif'a union contract higher wages and improved . hours and working
conditions , including paid vacations , seven paid holidays, free insurance , waiting time
pay, weekly sick benefits , such as the Union claimed other union members enjoyed through
contracts . These benefits were stated in general form before the letters came out, but
-were stated in detail in union propaganda in the last 3'6r 4 . days before the election:
1412 DECISIONS '.OF NATIONAL. LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD '
husbands or relatives, in attempts to dissuade them from voting for. the Union in the
election.. At some-point in this period, some townspeople had asked President Wilson
if there was anything they could do to help the Employer during the campaign. He
replied he did not see how they could-help him, and there were no further discussions
between him and townspeople on the subject. Before the local newspaper reprinted
Wilson's letter of March 14 on the 21st, its editor advised the Employer's counsel of
his purpose to-do so,, and that official asked him not to do it, but he published it
notwithstanding. It was stipulated and I find that the activities and remarks of
tpwnspeople found above were not instigated or suggested by the Employer, and
cannot legally be attributed to it. However, the Board has held that even where
an employer is not responsible for such activities, an election can beset aside because
of conduct of third parties which creates a general atmosphere of confusion or fear
of reprisal such as to render impossible the free and untrammeled choice by em-
ployees of a bargaining representative .9 Hence, the final question is, whether the
remarks of townspeople found above created such fear of loss of jobs or other reprisal
in minds of workers as to prevent them from making a free and intelligent choice
in the election.
Clora Keck's warning early in March to a supervisor and three employees that the
plant would close down or move.out, without more, can reasonably be considered the
type of threat which might induce employees to vote against the Union without using
their judgment, especially where Keck indicated that she was speaking to them at
the request of the town's mayor. The same. impact can be inferred from Keck's
similar warnings about a week later to five other employees. ' On the latter date
she was more explicit in stating probable consequences of a union in the plant, and
indicated to'three workers that her warnings were prompted in part by self-interest
in the form of possible loss of.her husband's alleged investment in the plant. In
none of these talks did her listeners question or disagree with her remarks.
However, when Keck expressed the same warning to Shipp about 3 weeks before
the election, trying to make it impressive by saying her source was "top men" such
as the mayor and a bank official who was a director of the Employer, Shipp disagreed
strongly, questioned her closely as to the source of her statements, and then offset
the threat effectively by referring to Wilson' s assurances of February to the contrary
and the fact that he, not the townspeople, was the guiding officer of the Employer.
It is clear from the testimony of both Vanhook and Shipp, active union organizers,
that they had been impressed by Wilson's assurances that the plant would stay in
town regardless of the election, and this was still a potent factor in Shipp's mind
when she talked to Keck in mid-March and caused the latter to back down on her
warnings. In an active campaign like this one, it is reasonable to presume that both
union adherents used Wilson's remarks to counteract any similar rumors about clos-
ing which came to their attention at the plant or in union meetings, particularly since
the Union took active steps to do the same thing as early as its letter of March 8 to
employees in which it plainly warned employees they might expect the "usual" rumors
or stories that the plant would close (such as it had faced in other campaigns), and
,urged them not to let such stories scare or fool them. In addition, the Union's
circulars of March 13 and 16 further tended to dilute the impact of such stories from
townspeople by emphatically reminding employees that it was illegal for the Em-
ployer to close down or move its plant because it was unionized. Such propaganda
was known to committee members Wood, Parsons, and Johnson, of course, and
would be well calculated to instill the belief that such warnings, coming from an
outsider like Keck, arose more from mere personal fears than from reliable informa-
tion and were no more than unsupported rumors or opinion.
At first blush Pastor Easterling's remarks to Viola Johnson in mid-March, coming
from a minister and couched partly in terms of fatherly and, personal concern and
also based on an alleged selfish financial interest in the plant , were well calculated to
coerce her in making a voting choice. However, as an active and intelligent union
committee member, she apparently thought over his remarks enough to call him
that night and find out that they came only from his overhearing some vague, un-
identified talk in the street. I infer from her inquiry that Johnson was probably as
well aware as Vanhook and Shipp of the Employer's official stand against moving or
closing the plant , and also had the benefit of the Union's advice on the subject in its
circulars, and I think she called Easterling to find out if his remarks came from the
Employer. I conclude that the. pastor's remarks; while probably well-intentioned,
were in all the .circumstances, particularly the countervailing propaganda of both
sides. not reasonably calculated to coerce employees in making their decision at the
election. It does not appear that Johnson talked to Wilda Keck about -his similar
Monarch Rubber Co ., Inc., 121 NLRB 80, 83.
CLAYMORE MANUFACTURING CO. OF ARKANSAS, INC. 1413
remarks to Viola, but as she was also a committee woman and privy to the same
union counterarguments - as Johnson , the, same circumstances militating against a
coercive impact apply in her case.
Coger 's remarks to Holt in the presence of Burnett on March 12 , standing alone,
were at first glance calculated to be coercive , when relayed to employee Shirley
Burnett, since they came - from the owner of the plant property who stood to lose
heavily if the plant moved , and his position as landlord indicated he might have reli-
able information about the Employer's financial plight which would lend weight to his
words. However , he also mentioned the legal prohibition against removal of the
plant because of union activity, at the same time referring to the Employer 's legal
right to move for economic reasns. Shirley Burnett 's role as an employee organizer
exposed her to the same union arguments and admonitions of which Barron , Shipp,
and other committee members were aware , hence I conclude that Coger 's remarks as
a whole , if relayed verbatim to her, could indicate only the personal fears of a land-
lord about loss of his income and investment if the plant moved for economic reasons
after the Union came in. In this respect his remarks stated only possible economic
consequences of unionization of the plant , which in the context of the contrary prop-
aganda and assurances from both sides were not reasonably calculated to endure
as a coercive threat right up to the election such as to confuse Mrs. Burnett and
prevent her from making her choice freely in the polling booth.
Faddis' . warning on March 16 to Imogene Barron that the plant would move was
made to an active employee organizer who presumably knew about the union handbill
issued that day, which made it clear to employees that a plant closing because of the
Union would be illegal .. I am sure she also . knew about the Union 's circular of
March -13 which told employees the same thing, and its release of March 8 which
clearly advised employees not to be scared or fooled by the "usual " rumors, current
in union campaigns , that their plant would be closed; and-it is also a reasonable in-
ference that she, like Vanhook and Shipp , was well aware of Wilson 's February as-
surances to the contrary , so that she had the benefit of advice from the Union and
assurances from the Employer which she could compare in her mind with the un-
supported opinion of a retired citizen. I am convinced that it was her own recollec-
tion of statements and advice from these two reliable sources which prompted her to
dispute Faddis' remark and probably to pass it off as idle gossip , especially when
Faddis refused to disclose the source or basis for his remark when she pressed him
for it . I conclude that in these circumstances Faddis' warning was not reasonably
calculated to coerce Barron in the exercise of her voting right. For the same reasons
I must conclude that Dethridge 's similar warnings to Goldman Barron about a week
later were not coercive , even though passed on to his wife. I note that Dethridge's
remarks expressed his general fear that advent of the Union would "ruin the town"
and cause loss of his and others ' investments in the plant if it closed; there was no
mention of the loss of workers ' jobs as such . While Dethridge spoke in a confidential
manner which might normally impress the listener , he was in fact speaking to a life-
long union man, whose wife was Imogene Barron . There is no proof that the Bar-
rons were deterred by Dethridge's remarks from attending the union meeting that
evening. For these reasons . I am convinced that his remarks to the Barrons fell on
sterile ground ,. and could not have affected either her ability to vote intelligently or
the preelection atmosphere generally. I reach the same conclusion as to Ewell
Easterling 's remarks to Viola Johnson 's husband a day or so before the election, for
the same reasons ,' and also because his remarks were stated in alternate phrases which
were less connotative of a threat than of a mere belief or personal opinion stemming
from general concern for the community welfare.
I find nothing reasonably calculated to be corrosive of the laboratory purity of the
preelection atmosphere in the following incidents which must also be appraised in the
light of the counteracting , propaganda and activities of both sides noted above:
(1) Warren's single statement to Lillian Wood that the plant would close if the
Union came in. He did not explain the reason for the statement,. and the rest of
the conversation does not appear . Wood did not testify about this. As she was in
layoff status at the time , and she replied that (whether the Union came in or not)
should make no difference to Warren because he would make more money and get
more business out of it if the Union did come in. I am convinced that his remark
was not calculated to put her in fear about her own job , add that she interpreted it
as an expression of, fear about- the effect on his own business of the advent of the
Union " and hastened to allay that fear . There is no proof that Wood or Jackson
mentioned Warren 's remark to anv other employees.
(2) Noel Easterling's prophecies to Goldman Barron early in March that the town
would be "ruined" or "done for ," and its public improvement projects and chances
1414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of attracting more industry "killed ," if the Union came into the plant. These vague.
warnings related only to possible detrimental effect of advent of the Union on the.
town generally, as there was no mention of any effect on the plant or employees' jobs.
there , hence the remarks do not contain any threat of plant closing or loss of jobs,
in any event.
(3) Mrs. Robert 's confirmation to Vanhook in February that President Wilson
had said the plant would close, as the basis for Mayor Robert 's remark to Marshall
to that effect . Marshall did not testify , and it does not appear whether he was an
employee at the plant , so Vanhook apparently got this remark secondhand. I do
not consider that it was reasonably calculated to coerce her in exercise of her voting
rights, for she shortly received assurances directly from Wilson that the plant would
not move if the Union came in, and her replies to Mrs. Roberts indicate she was not
concerned about plant closing, but only about the probability that she was getting a
reputation as a "ringleader " in the union campaign, or a troublemaker . As an active
employee organizer, Vanhook was also well aware of the constant propaganda of the
Union emphasizing the illegality of a plant closing by any employer to avoid dealing
with a union , which would have tended to counteract the effect in Vanhook's mind
of remarks by outsiders such as Mrs. Roberts, and to enable her to recognize them
as wild rumors , without basis in fact , particularly where both the Employer and the
Union had made statements clearly indicating the disinclination of the Employer to
move its plant for other than purely economic reasons, and the illegality of such
action if contemplated .. Further, Mrs. Robert 's remarks indicated that she was con-
cerned about the possible plant closing solely because it might hurt an alleged family
investment in it; she did not mention loss of jobs by workers.
(4) Remarks of employee Betty Gillum to employee Frieda Wood on March 27
in which Gillum merely related remarks of Ethel Roberts about the townspeople's
attempts to talk to many workers , but did not disclose any remarks of Roberts which
contained threats of plant closing or other action which might , be construed as
persuading Gillum to remain away from a union meeting , or to vote against the Union.
(5) Businessman Everett 's suggestion to the husband of employee Doris Thomas
that she stay away from union meetings . The remark contained no threat of plant
closing or other reprisal if she went to meetings , and has no context which would
indicate that , even if coercive by implication , its effect would likely have endured
beyond the combined efforts of Union and Employer to counteract the effects of such
statements among employees.lo
In appraising the remarks and conduct of townspeople , I think the most significant
factor which tended effectively to counteract any direct or implied coercive impact
therefrom was the constant official assurances , both oral and written , from the
Employer , and similar written disparagement of townspeople 's remarks by the Union.
In considering conduct of third parties which is not attributable to any of the parties
in the case , the Board has held that it will not accord as much weight to such conduct
as to conduct of the parties themselves .il The soundness of this rule is well illus-
trated herein by the great reliance placed by several union organizers upon Wilson's
assurances in combating the warnings of various townspeople , particularly those of
Clora Keck.
In summary , I conclude and find that neither the activities of townspeople found
above, whether considered singly or collectively in the light of legitimate activities
of the Union and Employer , nor the two letters of the Employer , amounted to conduct
sufficient to confuse or coerce employees so as to prevent their free exercise of their
voting rights, or otherwise to affect the preelection atmosphere in such manner as to
make a free election impossible.
I therefore recommend that the objections Nos. 3 , 4, and 6 of the Union be over-
ruled , and that the results of the election of March 28 , 1963 , be certified by the Board.
1" I have considered and made findings on the Keck-Steele -Parson , Wood -Gillum, Everett-
Billy Joe Thomas , and Warren -Lillian Wood-Lois Jackson talks, over objection of the Em-
ployer that they were not presented by the Union to the Regional Director or considered
in his reports, as Rules 102 .64 and 102.68 ( d) direct the Hearing Officer to "inquire fully
into all matters in issue and necessary to obtain a full and complete record upon which
the Board-may discharge [ its] duties under Section 10(c) of the Act ." I also note that
the Union's objections which raised the issues before me are general in form, not specify-
ing exact times, placesoi persons involved in the conduct alleged therein.
n Orleans Manufacturing Company , 120 NLRB 630, 632; Allied Plywood Corp., 122
NLRB 957, 961.