Ferroxcube Corp. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1967

166 N.L.R.B. 63 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

FERROXCUBE CORPORATION OF AMERICA
Ferroxcube Corporation of America and Inter-
national Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine
Workers , AFL-CIO and Round Table Commit-
tee, Party in Interest. Cases 3-CA-2813 and
3-RC-3743
June 28, 1967
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On March 15, 1967, Trial Examiner Melvin Pol-
lack issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceedings, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. He further found the Respondent had not en-
gaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommended dismissal as to
them. In addition, the Trial Examiner found that the
Respondent had engaged in objectionable conduct
prior to the election held in Case 3-RC-3743, and
recommended that the said election be set aside and
a new election ordered. Thereafter the Respondent,
the General Counsel, and the Charging Party filed
exceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
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
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein.
As found by the Trial Examiner, Production
Manager Bubnack in October 1965 told employees
Minkler and Doyle that if the Union got in, negotia-
tions would start from $1.25 an hour and not from
the employees' present rate. The Trial Examiner
held that a similar statement by Respondent's pres-
ident that wage negotiations would start from
"scratch" interfered with the election. However, he
held that Bubnack's statement was not coercive
because he saw in it no implied threat that Respond-
ent would cut wages if the Union won the election.
We do not agree. Bubnack's remarks were only part
of a series of similar statements which can only be
1 Marsh Supermarkets Inc., 140 NLRB 899,901-902.
z As Rusack's threats were unlawful, they also interfered with the con-
duct of the election. Therefore, unlike the Trial Examiner, we rely on this
63
construed reasonably as threats of loss of present
benefits and economic reprisal if the Union were
designated.
In fact, the Trial Examiner found that by telling
a group of six employees attending a weekly class
in early November 1965 that if the Union got in it
was possible that the Respondent could take away
all the existing fringe benefits and reduce wages to
a minimum, Plant Engineer Rusack engaged in
coercive conduct. However, the Trial Examiner
reasoned that as he had found no other violations of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, this single incident did
not warrant a remedial order and had not so inter-
fered with the employees' free choice as to warrant
setting aside the November 23, 1965, election. In
our opinion, Bubnack's statement is substantially
the same as Rusack's coercive comment, and both
of them are remarks such as we have found to con-
stitute threats violative of Section 8(a)(1).1
Accordingly, we find that by virtue of Bubnack's
conduct in October, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, and that Rusack's unlawful
threats in November were not isolated.2 In this con-
nection, we note further that these threats by Bub-
nack occurred against the background of the
Respondent's conceded violation of Section 8(a)(2)
by its unlawful assistance to the Round Table Com-
mittee.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Ferroxcube Corpora-
tion of America, Saugerties, New York, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall take the ac-
tion set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order, as herein modified:
1. Add the following as paragraph 1(b), the
present paragraph 1(b) being relettered as para-
graph l(c):
"(b) Threatening its employees with loss of
benefits and economic reprisal for engaging in
union activities."
2. Add the following as the third indented para-
graph of Appendix A:
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
loss of benefits and economic reprisal for en-
gaging in union activities.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election con-
ducted herein on November 23, 1965, be, and it
hereby is, set aside.
[Direction of Second Election omitted from
publication.]
interference, as well as that found by the Trial Examiner, in setting aside
the election.
166 NLRB No. 12
64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MELVIN POLLACK, Trial Examiner: In this con-
solidated proceeding under Sections 9(c) and 10(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called
the Act), the issues to be decided are whether Respond-
ent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization,
and whether the objections filed by the Union to the
results of an election held on November 23, 1965, should
be sustained and the election set aside. i
A hearing was held before Trial Examiner Melvin Pol-
lack on December 6, 7, and 8, 1966, at Kingston, New
York. Briefs filed by the General Counsel, Charging
Union, and Respondent have been considered. Upon the
entire record,2 and my observation of the demeanor of the
witnesses as they testified, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a New York corporation, is engaged in
the manufacture, sale, and distribution of electrical com-
ponents and related products at its plant in Saugerties,
New York. During 1966, Respondent received goods and
materials from out-of-State suppliers valued in excess of
$50,000. I find, as Respondent admits, that Respondent
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act,
and that the assertion of jurisdiction is warranted.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Union and the Round Table Committee are labor
organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Factual Situation : Issues
Pursuant to a representation petition filed by the Union
on September 8, 1965,3 an election among the employees
of Respondent's plant in Saugerties, New York, was con-
ducted by the Board on November 23. The results were
that 388 votes were cast for and 417 votes were cast
against the Union. On November 29, the Union filed
timely objections to the election and on December 9 it
filed the charge which initiated the present complaint
proceeding. The issue, broadly stated, is whether
Respondent, by the statements of its supervisors, violated
' Pursuant to charges filed on December 9, 1965, and February 11,
1966, and objections to the election filed on November 29, 1965, the Re-
gional Director for Region 3 on March 4, 1966, issued an order con-
solidating cases, complaint, and notice of hearing. The complaint, inter
aha, charged Respondent with giving unlawful aid, assistance, and sup-
port to the Round Table Committee since on or about June 9, 1965, in
violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. Respondent amended its
answer at the hearing to admit these allegations of the complaint and the
parties stipulated that there had been no meetings of the Round Table
Committee since August 19, 1965.
The Regional Director overruled the Union's objections to the election
except for objection 2(a), stating "that the Employer by its president and
other supervisors threatened and attempted to coerce the Ferroxcube
workers at captive audience meetings held on and after October 13, 1965,
and in individual interviewing."
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and by these statements and by
statements made by President Ned Bouymaster in a se-
ries of preelection speeches and letters to the employees
so interfered with the free choice of its employees as to
require that the November 23 election be set aside.4
B. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
The General Counsel relies on the following incidents
to support his contention that Production Manager Harry
Bubnack, Supervisors Agnes Gardner and Mary Lou
Dengler, and Plant Engineer John Rusack engaged in
conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.s
1. By Production Manager Bubnack
Production Manager Harry Bubnack supervises the
operations of 200 employees in Respondent's ferrite
production department. In August, during the Union's or-
ganizing campaign, Bubnack told Blanche Dunn that he
was surprised at her for "always hanging around with
those guys" and, as her deceased husband had been a su-
pervisor, that she should appreciate how hard it was for
the Company to get along. Dunn said, as a widow, she
was interested only in "seniority, better wages, and a pen-
sion plan." Bubnack replied she would get it "but it takes
time." As nothing in the record indicates that Dunn con-
cealed her union activity, or that Bubnack's knowledge of
her union activity was obtained surreptitiously, I find no
merit in the General Counsel's contention that Bubnack's
remark about "hanging around with those guys" created
an "impression of surveillance." In the context of the en-
tire conversation, I consider Bubnack's comment that
Dunn would in time get improved working condition an
expression of opinion rather than a promise of benefits il-
legally conditioned upon the employees' rejection of the
Union.
During the summer of 1965, Bubnack said to Virginia
Tobiassen that he hoped she "wasn't for the Union."
Tobiassen replied that she "could go out the door in no
time without the Union" and Bubnack declared "it would
never happen" and that he did not think the Union could
do any good. As I do not believe that Tobiassen could
reasonably have taken this last remark as a threat that
Respondent would thwart collective bargaining by refus-
ing to bargain in good faith with the Union if the em-
ployees selected the Union as their bargaining represen-
tative. I consider the General Counsel's reliance on
Raytheon Company, 160 NLRB 1603, 1608, misplaced,
and find that Bubnack's remark was a privileged expres-
sion of opinion that union representation would accom-
plish nothing for the employees.
2 The General Counsel's motion to correct the record is granted.
3 All dates hereafter are in 1965 unless otherwise stated.
4 There is no contention that Respondent engaged in unlawful support
of the Round Table Committee (see In. 1, supra) after the filing of the
representation petition on September 8 which would warrant setting aside
the election. Although the objections to the election made no reference to
preelection letters, the letters are appropriately considered in determin-
ing whether the election should be set aside International Shoe Co., 123
NLRB 682, 684.
5 As the General Counsel does not contend that President
Bouymaster's preelection speeches and letters were violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, I have not considered them a basis for finding that
otherwise privileged supervisory statements are violative of the Act. Cf.
Greensboro Hosiery Mills, Inc., 162 NLRB 1275.
FERROXCUBE CORPORATION OF AMERICA 65
In the latter part of September , Margaret Dunn and
Doris Atkins asked Bubnack if they could be made lead
operators . Bubnack said lead operators were not neces-
sary in their department . Dunn and Atkins argued that it
was not fair for them "to train new girls and not being
paid for it as it is done in other departments ." Bubnack
said Respondent could do nothing , that its hands were
tied , but "once the election was over they would do it
then." He added that Respondent had a new president
and the employees "should give him a chance."6 I find no
coercive promise of benefit in the foregoing remarks of
Bubnack. His comments about leadgirls and his com-
ments about other, unspecified benefits after the election
embellished his appeal to Dunn and Atkins to give
Respondent 's new president "a chance" and could not be
reasonably viewed by them as commitments of promo-
tions and other benefits if the Union lost the election.
In October , Bubnack expressed his "hope" to Earl
Minkler and Jerry Doyle that the Union would lose the
election so that Respondent could prove what it had said.
Bubnack remarked in another conversation with Minkler
and Doyle that , if the Union got in , negotiations would
start from $ 1.25 an hour and not from the employees'
present rates of pay. Bubnack's reference to Respond-
ent's proving what it had said if the Union lost the elec-
tion is much too vague to constitute an implied promise
of benefits contingent upon defeat of the Union at the
election. His statement to the effect that wage negotia-
tions would start from scratch is not per se violative of the
Act, and I see no implied threat that Respondent would
cut wages if the Union won the election . Cf. Marsh Su-
permarkets , Inc.,- 140 NLRB 899. 901-902, and
Surprenant Mfg. Co., 144 NLRB 507, 516-517, where
"bargaining from scratch" statements in context con-
stituted threats to discontinue existing benefits if the em-
ployees voted for union representation.
In October , when Mary Brady asked Bubnack about a
raise, he replied that Respondent could do nothing at this
time because its hands were tied but that things would be
better when "the general situation was cleared up." I find
no coercive promise of benefits in Bubnack's remarks.
Brady would fairly understand from these remarks that
Respondent was deferring wage increases which might be
viewed as interference with the election but not that in-
creases would be given after the election only if the
Union lost the election.
A week or two before the election, Bubnack told Vir-
ginia Tobiassen that he wished she was on the side of the
Company instead of the Union and that "eventually
everything would be a lot better " by giving President
Bouymaster a chance. Tobiassen said she had heard that
before and was afraid to take another chance for another
year. Bubnack replied that "Mr. Bouymaster would do
what was right ." I consider Bubnack's statements to
Tobiassen a privileged expression of views rather than a
promise of benefits in return for abandonment of the
Union.
Between late October 1965 and the election . Bubnack
remarked several times to Blanche Dunn as he passed her
machine: "Don't forget now. Anything the Union can get
for you, the Company can get for you , too .... It takes
a little time." I find no coercive promise in Bubnack's
reiterated statement to the effect that the employees did
not need a union to obtain benefits.
Bubnack testified that he told employees that Respond-
ent's new management should be given an opportunity
to correct existing problems, such as inequities in the job
evaluation program and in wages. I find no merit in the
General Counsel's contention that these remarks implied
that benefits would be forthcoming if the employees re-
jected the Union at the election.
2. By Supervisor Gardner
Janet Hamilton, a second-shift employee, told Plant
Department Supervisor Agnes Gardner on Wednesday
night. September 22, that she would not be in the follow-
ing night because she was going to Albany the next day to
attend a hearing on the Union's representation petition.
Hamilton attended the hearing on Thursday but returned
to the plant that night and told Gardner the hearing was
going over to the next day but that she would report to
work if she got back from Albany at "a fairly early hour."
Gardner pointed to work at Hamilton's table and said,
"This is your work." Hamilton asked Gardner if she
could speak to her in a nearby office and Gardner and
Hamilton walked into the office. Hamilton told Gardner
that she needed her job and asked her whether going to
the hearing would affect her job in any way. Gardner said
it would not affect her job and asked Hamilton why she
favored the Union. Hamilton said she thought the Union
would do many good things for the employees. Gardner
said, "Well, I cannot stop you from being for the Union,"
and asked Hamilton not to discuss union affairs during
working hours. Hamilton said she did not do so.
In view of Gardner's assurances to Hamilton that going
to the Board hearing would not affect her job in any way,
I find no coercion in her remark to Hamilton. "This is
your work." and ascribe the remark to Gardner's displea-
sure at learning that Hamilton might be away from work
for a second night. I likewise find in these circumstances
that Gardner's inquiry why Hamilton favored the Union
was not coercive.
3. By Supervisor Dengler
About 2 weeks before the election on November 23,
1965. Planes Department Supervisor Mary Lou Dengler
told employee Gail Walton that she did not think the
Union would do any good and that the employees would
probably regret having the Union in. I see no threat of
economic reprisal, express or implied, in these remarks
of Dengler and find that they constituted no more than a
privileged expression by Dengler of her view that the em-
ployees would gain nothing by union representation.
4. By Plant Engineer Rusack
In early November 1965, Plant Engineer John Rusack
told a group of five or six employees attending a weekly
class that if the Union got in it was possible that the Com-
pany could take away all the existing fringe benefits and
reduce wages to a minimum. He added that he did not be-
lieve the Company would do this. Rusack's last remarks
did not entirely dissipate the coercive effect of his
gratuitous comment that Respondent might reduce wages
and take away existing benefits if the Union got in. How-
ever. I do not believe that this single incident of super-
6 Ned Bouymaster became Respondent ' s president on September 16 or
17,1965
66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
visory coercion over a period of several months warrants
a finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, or so interfered with the employees' free choice as
to warrant setting aside the November 23. 1965, election.
IV. THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION
A. President Bouymaster's Speeches and Letters to the
Employees
The Union filed its representation petition on Sep-
tember 8, 1965. Ned Bouymaster became Respondent's
president "around September 16 or 17." Bouymaster
held a series of 38 meetings lasting 30 to 45 minutes each
with groups of from 13 to 45 plant employees before the
election on November 23, 1965. The meetings were con-
ducted between October 13 and November 19, 1965.
At each meeting Bouymaster discussed the history of
the Company, its products, and the division of its "sales
dollar," including a comparison of "the amount that went
for wages with our company with how much went for
wages at other companies" and the cost of "fringe
benefits" to Respondent. Bouymiaster had a list of 32
"questions and answers regarding the Union activities"
and read from 1 to 6 or 7 of those questions and answers
at each meeting. The 32 questions included the following:
QUESTIONS
* * * * *
5. If the Union should win the election, will the
employees of the Company get the things the Union
has been promising?
Answer: There is no way for the Union to force this
Company to fulfill the promises that the Union has
made to you. The Company does not have to agree
to fill any promises made by the Union. The Com-
pany will make only those improvements in wages
and benefits which are reasonably and in the best in-
terest of you and your company.
6. If the Union should win the election. will the
employees have to go out on strike?
Answer: The only way the Union can try to force the
Company to agree to anything unreasonable that the
Union has been promising, is to make you go out on
strike. Promises are cheap, but it is something else
for the Union to fulfill these promises.
7. If the Union calls the employees out on strike,
will they be paid while the strike is going on?
Answer: No, if you don't work, you don't get paid.
The Company won't pay your wages and neither will
the Union. Sometimes Unions pay a few dollars to
strikers to carry picket signs. If strike benefits are
paid by the Union. the amounts are small. Get a
definite commitment in writing from the Union as to
what you will get when you are out on strike. Also.
remember, you don't get unemployment insurance
from the state for 49 days while you are out on strike.
8. If the Union calls a strike, can the employees
lose their jobs?
Answer: Yes, if the Union makes you strike to force
the Company to agree to the Union's promises, then
under the law, the Company is free to replace the
strikers. This means that after the strike is over, you
no longer have a job and the law does not force the
Company to re-hire you. You have seen this happen
in other plants. Remember, there are many un-em-
ployed workers who are looking for your jobs.
* * * *
16. Why shouldn't we join the Union and pay $4
or $5 every month just for insurance?
Answer: Union or no Union, this company will al-
ways pay competitive and fair wages and benefits.
The Union cannot force us to pay more than we can
afford to pay. This company has always recognized
the principal of seniority if the employee is able to do
the available work, so that a Union is not needed for
job protection. The Company can give you more in-
surance than the Union because it is the Company
that provided the work and strives to maintain full
employment. With the Union. there is always the
danger of strikes and work stoppages with con-
sequent unemployment. This is not insurance; this is
built-in insecurity. Before this Company came to
town, there was a lot of unemployment.
19. Won't I get more money if the Union wins the
election?
Answer: Not necessarily. Union demands for more
money are negotiable. The Company can always say
"NO". With or without a Union the Company will
grant fair wages consistent with its ability to pay and
with comparable wages in the locality. Special mone-
tary inducements such as incentives , bonuses, and the
like are often forbidden in Union contracts. Even if
a Union contract calls for more money, if your wages
are pegged too high, there may be fewer jobs.
20. The Union rate for jobs is higher than I am
paid now. Won't I get more money by getting the
proper rate for my classification?
Answer: There is no such thing as established Union
rate. This rate is frequently only the accumulated
promises of the Union organizers. In analysing the
job description for classifications, you may find that
you do not perform all of the tasks required for the
classification for which you think you belong. On
re-classification, the rate you may receive may be
lower than you are presently getting.
21. The Union agent tells us that with a Union
we'll get everything we have now plus more. Is this
true?
Answer: Bargaining on a Union contract does not
start from a base of the present benefits. All present
benefits are as much a subject of negotiation as are
demands for additional benefits. The Union may
trade present benefits for Union security, such as
Union shop and check-off. Employees may be guinea
pigs to Union principle and end up with less in terms
of wages and benefits , in addition to being required
FERROXCUBE CORPORATION OF AMERICA 67
to pay initiation fees, dues and perhaps even assess-
ments. Remember, the Union is very interested in
the $30,000 to $40,000 a year that they expect to col-
lect from you.
22. How do we as employees know that we will
continue to enjoy the benefits we have unless we join
the Union and negotiate a contract?
Answer: The contract is no better than the ability of
the Company to continue to remain in business.
Without a contract, the promises of the Company to
the employees set out in your employee handbook is
certainly every bit as good as a negotiated agreement
with the Union. Both depend on the ability of the
Company to continue the business and to make a
profit. Without a Union, the Company will not have
to face the threat of strikes or secondary boycotts
(where the employees of this Company are used to
organize employees of another Company). Without
a Union we can guarantee uninterrupted production
and delivery to our customers. The security of em-
ployees to the promises and benefits that a company
gives without a contract is every bit as good as with
a labor contract.
23. Why is the Company fighting the Union?
Answer: We do not think a Union is necessary or
beneficial to the best interest of either the Company
or the employees. The employees are entitled to hear
management's views on unionization. Many Union
demands, if fulfilled, could result in the Company
being non-competitive in its services or products.
This could result in fewer jobs. Where the Company
says "NO" to Union demands, the Union may
strike. These situations are not in the best interests
for all of us. Union policy may be served to the detri-
ment of both the Company and its employees. This
Union which is seeking to organize you has a long
and bitter strike record. Lately there have even been
questions of corruption in its operation. A good ex-
ample is the recent election for the President of the
Union. It has been alleged that the past President
rigged the ballots.
Bouymaster stated that he generally replied to em
ployee questions about the Union by reading answers
from the prepared list. A number of employees gave
credible testimony, however, that Bouymaster did not
limit himself to the answers on the list in his remarks
about the Union. At a meeting attended by Gail Walton,
Bouymaster commented that the Union could call out the
employees on strike at any time and, when Walton said
the Union's constitution required a majority vote, related
an incident where a standing strike vote was taken at a
meeting where there were only 100 chairs for 300 people
attending the meeting. At another meeting attended by
Ronald Wells, Bouymaster referred to the Union's "long
strikes" against "General Electric and some of the bigger
companies." Bouymaster told employees at a meeting at-
tended by Mary Callahan and Jane Vail that the Union
had "a long history of strikers" and mentioned the
Union's strike against General Electric in Schenectady.
Eight employees testified about a meeting held at 8:30
a.m. on October 13, 1965. According to Mary Brady,'
Bouymaster said the Company "was doing well" and
"was going to do all in [its] power to keep [the Union]
out." He said the Union could guarantee nothing, that if
it came in there was nothing to stop the Company from
reverting "to the minimum wage law in the state for
negotiating purposes," that the Union could not even
guarantee the employees present benefits, and that the
employees "could stand to lose some of these benefits"
because the Company paid out 63 or 68 cents of every
dollar to the employees. He said that the employees "also
stood to lose if the Union came in, because this Union is
notorious for strikes." Referring to a paper in his hand,
Bouymaster cited a number of strikes conducted by the
Union and how long they lasted. At this point, Brady
spoke up and said, "Mr. Bouymaster, excuse me, a union
never calls a strike, it's the members. Bouymaster replied,
"And how do they do that. They bring 300 people into a
hall that has a seating capacity for 100 people, and you
take a standee vote." Employee Jerry Doyle said the
Union represented the employees at Respondent's "sister
company" in Mt. Vernon and that there had not been a
strike in 15 years. Bouymaster replied that was possible.
Brady then said the employees "would not stand to lose
but would add to existing conditions." Bouymaster an-
swered, "Not necessarily." The meeting concluded after
some discussion on union dues and employee complaints
about their pay.
Brady's description of the meeting is substantially con-
firmed by the testimony of other employees present at
this meeting. Leroy Hasse testified that President
Bouymaster talked about fringe benefits and said
"negotiations would start from scratch." John Doyle
testified that Bouymaster "read off certain things about
benefits and what it cost for each person"; that
Bouymaster had "newspaper clippings" about the
Union's strikes "in different parts of the country"; and
that a few minutes after somebody asked a question about
benefits if the Union got in, Bouymaster said "we would
revert to the minimum and negotiate from there on up."8
Virginia Tobiassen initially recalled that Bouymaster said
that the Union was "notorious for strikes," that if the
Union got in, "we would have to ... probably revert to
about $1.25 an hour and work from there," and that the
employees would pay $48 to $50 in union dues. She also
said that Jerry Doyle spoke "about a place up in Vermont
. and in all the years the Union had been in there ...
they hadn't any strikes." Upon being shown a statement
she gave to a Board investigator, she further recalled that
Bouymaster said if the Union got in "it didn't necessarily
mean that we were going to get more than we were getting
now" and that the Union "couldn't guarantee anything
that we are getting now." Martha Dunn recalled that
Bouymaster gave reasons why the employees did not
need the Union, that he said the Union was "notorious
for strikes," that he spoke about a strike vote in a small
room "... with 200 standing, and 100 sitting, and they
asked for a standing vote, so they already had 200 votes,
nobody needed to stand up." She further recalled that
Bouymaster said union dues would cost $4 a month or
7 I paraphrase in the text a portion of Brady's statements in an affidavit 8 Doyle also confirmed Brady's testimony about Bouymaster's remarks
given to a Board investigator . Brady verified these statements as "true " at on union dues , the Union 's representation of employees at "some plant in
the time she made them. See Airfon Radio Corporation, LTD, dlbla Irvington," and "questions asked why don't we get more money."
KFSD-TV, 111 NLRB 566, 567, In 1.
68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
$48 a year, and the employees "could just as well get all
the Union was going to give without that, because we
would have to start at the beginning with negotiations for
approximately $1.25 an hour and benefits, too, we would
have to start from the beginning." Earl Minkler testified
that Bouymaster said that if the Union got in "they would
start negotiating from the bottom." Margaret Dunn
testified that Bouymaster said that negotiations would
start at $1.25 an hour if the Union got in and that the em-
ployees could lost their fringe benefits; that Bouymaster
"told about different places where they had all these
strikes"; and that he mentioned taking a strike vote by
"bringing 300 people into a room where there [was] only
enough room to seat 100 and 200 had to stand and they
already had a majority vote." Theresa Hamar testified
that strikes were discussed at the meeting and Jerry
Doyle mentioned that the Union had represented em-
ployees at another company plant for 15 years without a
strike, and that Bouymaster said he "felt things ... could
be worked out without a union" and that in the long run
the Company and the employees would both lose because
of strikes.
In addition to the series of meetings with the em-
ployees, President Bouymaster sent them letters dated
November 9, 16, and 18, 1965. The November 9 letter
closed as follows:
You have been told that the Union will force the
Company to grant higher wages and greater benefits.
As to that, I assure you that the Union will make no
difference. Remember, with a Union these things
have to be bargained for with the Company and you
don't get them automatically. Ferroxcube in any
event will do those things which in our judgment, are
good business practice and, therefore, good equally
for the employees and the Company.
Of course, I am also a new president. But I have it
within my control to determine wages, hours, and
working conditions. I don't think that you should
have to pay dues to make this the best place there is
in which to work. I am not just concerned with num-
bers. I am sincerely concerned with your needs and
your problems. This is the only way to make this
Company profitable and all of us successful. I hope
I'll have the opportunity to work with you directly in
the coming years. To make this possible. . . VOTE
NOON NOVEMBER 23.
The November 18 letter reads:
Strikes and threats of strikes are the main weapons
of any union. This is not to imply that strikes, threats
of strikes, or violence are inevitable, but the IUE
must live with its own record. Look over the at-
tached list-a small percentage of the IUE strikes
called during the last year or so.9
Also, please notice the newspaper clippings. Think
of what it must have been like in the peaceful town of
9 The list enumerates 48 strikes conducted by the Union in 1964 and
1965
10
The newspaper clipping on the Hillsdale strike is reprinted as Appen-
dix B to this Decision
I I reject Respondent' s argument in its brief that the Union conducted
an extensive election campaign and that it answered Bouymaster's argu-
Hillsdale, Michigan-a town of 7700 people. The
IUE came in-organized the plant and months of
violence and loss of income followed.10
Look at the dissension these hired men of the IUE
have already caused here. What possible benefit
can it bring us to have our Company slandered and
criticized on the radio before our neighbors, commu-
nity and our customers?
It's our Company and we can make it the best place
to work through close cooperation.
B. Analysis and Recommendation
The message conveyed by President Bouymaster in his
preelection speeches and letters was to the effect that: If
the Union won the election, negotiations over wages and
benefits would begin from "scratch." The Union could
get nothing for the employees that Respondent was un-
willing to give and negotiations could result in lower
wages and the loss of existing benefits. The Union was
"notorious for strikes" and the employees could lose their
jobs as the result of a strike.Bouymaster attached a list of
union strikes and a newspaper account of strike violence
to his November 18 letter.
In General Industries Electronics Company, 146
NLRB 1139, 1140, the Board held that such a message
and emphasis on strike violence "could only lead em-
ployees to understand that their selection of Petitioner as
their bargaining representative would inevitably lead to
a strike, violence, and likely loss of jobs if Petitioner
should attempt to achieve better conditions of employ-
ment than those currently in effect." The Board therefore
found that "an atmosphere of fear and of complete futility
in selecting Petitioner as a bargaining agent was thereby
created, and that such atmosphere prevented the em-
ployees' exercise of free choice in the election." As I con-
sider the present case governed by General Industries, I
conclude that President Bouymaster's preelection
speeches and letters prevented the employees from exer-
cising a free choice at the November 23, 1965, election
and recommend that the Board set the election aside. I t
V. THE REMEDY
As Respondent admits the allegations in the complaint
that it unlawfully assisted and supported the Round Table
Committee in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the
Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist from such
conduct and that it take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have found that Respondent's conduct improperly
affected the results of the November 23, 1965, election,
I shall recommend that the election be set aside and that
Case 3-RC-3743 be remand d to the Regional Director
for Region 3 for the purpose o ducting a new election
at such time as he deems that circumstances permit the
free choice of a bargaining representative.
merits and corrected any possible misstatements by him. While the Union
had an opportunity to present its case and to correct possible misstate-
ments by Bouymaster, it could not offer the employees assurances that
Respondent would accept the principle of collective bargaining if the
Union won the election and thus make possible the obtaining of wage in-
creases and other benefits without a strike.
FERROXCUBE CORPORATION OF AMERICA
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case , and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, it is recommended that Respon-
dent, Ferroxcube Corporation of America , Saugerties,
New York , its officers , agents, successors , and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Giving assistance and support to the Round Table
Committee by permitting elections for committee
representatives to be conducted during working hours
and by supplying materials with which to conduct these
elections, and by recognizing and negotiating with the
committee with respect to hours, wages , and other terms
and conditions of employment of its employees , unless
and until the committee shall have been certified by the
Board as the exclusive representative of such employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Withdraw and withhold recognition from the
Round Table Committee , or any successor thereto, as the
exclusive bargaining representative of its employees, un-
less and until said committee shall have been certified by
the Board as the exclusive representative of such em-
ployees.
(b) Post at its Saugerties , New York , plant copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix A."12 Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 3, after being signed by Respondent 's representa-
tive , shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision , what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith. 13
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act other
than found in this Decision.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election which
was held on November 23, 1965, be set aside and that
Case 3-RC-3743 be remanded to the Regional Director
for Region 3 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 A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
69
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board, and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
WE WILL NOT give assistance and support to the
Round Table Committee , or any successor thereto,
by, permitting elections for committee representa-
tives to be conducted during working hours or by
supplying election materials.
WE WILL NOT recognize and negotiate with the
committee with respect to wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment , unless and until
the committee shall have been certified by the Board
as the exclusive representative of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner inter-
fere with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the ex-
ercise of their right to self-organization , to form, join,
or assist International Union of Electrical , Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor or-
ganization, to bargain collectively through represen-
tatives of their own choosing or to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
FERROXCUBE CORPORATION
OF AMERICA
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 4th Floor, The
120 Building , 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York
14202 , Telephone 842-3100.
APPENDIX B
ESSEX WIRE TO FIGHT CLOSE OF HILLSDALE
UNIT AS GUARDSMEN EASE LABOR STRIFE IN
TOWN
BY RONALD G. SHAFER
12 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
1 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read. "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 3 , in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
STAFF REPORTER OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Hillsdale, Mich. - "Nobody minds having troops in
Hillsdale if that 's what is needed to keep people from
getting hurt."
Thus Mrs. Donald Conklin , a variety store clerk, sums
up the local reaction to Gov. Romney's dispatch of Na-
tional Guardsmen to this southern Michigan town, which
has been torn by labor strife.
The 230 troops moved in over the weekend to try to
prevent further violence in connection with the
three-month-old strike at the Hillsdale plant of Essex
308-926 0-70-6
70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wire Corp. The governor also ordered the struck plant
closed, an end to picketing and the disarming of company
guards.
The action seemed to ease the tension among the 7,700
residents somewhat, but company officials said over the
weekend that they would go to Federal court today to
seek an injunction against the closedown of the plant.
Walter Probst, company president, said he agreed to the
order "under protest."
The turmoil began Feb. 28 when 180 members of the
International Union of Electrical Workers struck the
plant over wages and grievances. Negotiations were held
sporadically and the plant continued to operate with su-
pervisory personnel and newly hired workers. At the time
of the closing, the job force numbered more than 90.
Violence Reached Near-Riot Stage
Violence had been increasing almost daily before the
troops arrived, reaching a near-riot stage last week. "The
troops should have been sent here two weeks ago. One
more night, and the state police never could have stopped
the crowd. Somebody would have been killed," says a
local restaurant manager.
The unrest had grown to include a bombing, knifings,
at least one shooting and destruction of automobiles.
There have been numerous clashes at the plant gates.
The weather-beaten, brick plant has been sealed off by
a ring of National Guardsmen with full combat gear, in-
cluding carbines. The troops will be there "as long as peo-
ple and property are in danger," Gov. Romney has said.
The strike is "the only thing that has ever got people
mad at each other around here, except for school elec-
tions," says John Bullard, a Federal livestock inspector.
Even so, most people not directly involved avoid taking
sides. "Most folks don't care who wins. People are just
sick of the whole thing and want to get it over with," says
W.B. Ewing, who has lived here for 30 years.
Racial Issue Cited
"Both sides are to blame," George Calhoun, a retired
factory worker, says. But, like many other townspeople,
he adds: "When the company began bringing in colored
workers that made a lost of people mad." Many of the
guards and newly hired workers were Negro, and some
law officials figure this may have sparked some of the
trouble. But Paul Albrechta, a company lawyer, denies
this. He says the violence began well before guards and
workers began coming in from out of town.
"Negotiations by both labor and management have
been poor, and both sides are to blame for the violence,"
says Mayor C. Audrey Paul, a 48-year-old insurance
agent and county chairman of the Republican Party.
"On the union side, the trouble is caused by a few radi-
cals in town and union members from other plants," says
Mr. Paul. "And when the company started from the
beginning of the strike to bring in workers from out of
state and armed guards it was like waving a red flag in
front of a bull. Right or wrong, that only means trouble for
Hillsdale."
Many people here hope the governor's actions will
force an early settlement. Gov. Romney announced
negotiations were to be resumed after more than a week
of no official contact between the parties.
But the people aren't optimistic. Many agree with one
city official who said: "If these troops are here until an
agreement is reached, they could be here a long time."