Forenta, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1967

165 N.L.R.B. 641 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

FORENTA, INC.
Forenta , Inc. and United Textile Workers of
America, AFL-CIO. Case 10-CA-6260.
June 19,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND ZAGORIA
On April 15, 1966, Trial Examiner Charles W.
Schneider issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, granting the General Counsel's Motion
for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the
pleadings, exhibits, and certain documentary
evidence submitted by Respondent presented no
issue of fact requiring a hearing, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
certain unfair labor practices, and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's
Decision and the entire record in this case, including
the exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent
herewith.
As more fully set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Decision, the Union as part of its organizing
campaign sent the employees a union authorization
card accompanied by, a letter stating: "No one in
your Company will ever see this card or know who
has signed it." Thereafter, Respondent responded in
a letter cautioning employees not to be "deceived"
by the Union's assertion, since "knowledge of who
signed union cards is ordinarily as secret as the
country telephone party line ... " and noting that
"in fact only a very few have signed." The Trial
Examiner granted the General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment, finding that these statements
as to the lack of secrecy of union authorization cards
conveyed an implicit threat that employees who
signed such cards might anticipate employment
reprisals or discrimination from Respondent.
In finding that this conduct violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act, the Trial Examiner relied in part on
Hobart Brothers Company i and Sparton
Manufacturing Company.2 This case, however, is
distinguishable from both the Hobart and Sparton
decisions. For in those cases, the communication not
only informed the employees that the cards they
signed would not necessarily remain a secret from
the employer, but in conjunction therewith implied
641
the possibility that harm might flow from disclosure,
by adding: "Be careful about what you sign-don't
sign ANYTHING unless you KNOW what you are
signing and WHAT it might mean to you, your
family, or your fellow employees." The
communication in the instant case contains no
language of similar import. Absent language
suggesting reprisal as in Hobart and Sparton, or
other accompanying unfair labor practices-not
present here-from which an implied threat of
reprisal may fairly be inferred, we are not prepared
to find that the Respondent exceeded the privileged
area of free speech by conveying to employees the
information it did. Accordingly, the complaint herein
shall be dismissed.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint
herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
' 150 NLRB 956, enforcement denied 372 F.2d 203 (C.A 6)
2 150 NLRB 948, enforcement denied 355 F.2d 523 (C A 7).
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CHARLES W. SCHNEIDER , Trial Examiner: Upon a
charge and amended charge of unfair labor practices filed
on September 7, 1965, and on October 25, 1965,
respectively , by United Textile Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, the Union and Charging Party, against Forenta,
Inc., Morristown , Tennessee , the Respondent , and duly
served, the Regional Director issued a complaint and
notice of hearing on December 8, 1965, and an amendment
to complaint on December 20, 1965.1 The complaint, as
amended, alleged that the Respondent had committed
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. 141, et seq. On
December 13, 1965, the Respondent duly filed its answer
in substance admitting the allegations of the complaint
except those of a conclusory nature. The denied matter is
set out more specifically infra.
Under date of February 15, 1966 , the General Counsel
filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, on the
ground that the Respondent 's answer admitted acts which
constituted unfair labor practices. On March 16, 1966, I
issued an Order to Show Cause directing the parties to
show cause, if any, on or before March 30, 1966, as to
whether or not the Motion for Summary Judgment should
be granted.
On March 30, 1966 , the Respondent filed a Response to
the Order to Show Cause, to which the General Counsel
filed a reply, entitled Response , on April 7, 1966.
The Issue
On May 4, 1965, the Respondent issued and distributed
to its employees a letter, a copy of which is attached hereto
and marked "Appendix A."
' The amended complaint deleted one of the two allegations of
unfair labor practices alleged in the original complaint.
165 NLRB No. 74
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
The sole incident of unfair labor practice alleged by the
General Counsel is contained in paragraph 8 of the
amended complaint, in which it is stated that in the May 4
letter the Respondent,
... interfered with, restrained and coerced its
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act by ... Threatening its employees
that their signing authorization cards for the Union
would not be kept confidential.
Paragraph 9 of the complaint alleges that this conduct of
the Respondent constituted unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The Respondent's answer admits all allegations of the
complaint except paragraphs 8 and 9.
The gist of the alleged unfair labor practice is in the
following excerpts from the letter of Mr. North:
I have noted a copy of the letter from Everett Dean of
the United Textile Union to Forenta employees.
Everett Dean goes on to say that the card which he is
asking employees to sign will be filed with the
National Labor Relations Board, and that "no one in
your Company will ever see this card or know who
signed it." Don't be deceived. If you have not already
town [sic] the card up-as I am sure most of you
have-read the language on it. The card doesn't say
anything about a National Labor Relations Board
election. It is an application for membership in the
Union and appoints the Union your exclusive agent.
This language would take away from you your
individual right to discuss your problems with
management , and would place these rights in the
hands of outside people. While it is no doubt true that
the Union would never show me a copy of your card,
Unions frequently show these cards to other
employees and to other people all over town.
Frequently Unions use these cards in support of a
refusal to bargain charge, in which event the cards are
put in evidence in the case and sometimes the
employees who signed them are required to get the
stand and testify. Knowledge of who signed Union
cards is ordinarily as secret as the country telephone
party line. But Mr. Dean doesn't care.
... Mr. Dean states that "many of your fellow
workers have signed these cards." Everett Dean
knows that this is absolutely untrue. In fact, only a
very few have signed.
Additional Evidence
In its Response to the Order to Show Cause the
Respondent indicates its willingness to have the issue
disposed of upon the Motion for Judgment subject to the
receipt of certain documentary evidence. Thus the
Response states:
The Respondent herein, Forenta, Inc., believes the
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by
Counsel for the General Counsel in this cause to be
generally well taken. It is, however, imperative that if
a hearing on the issues of this matter is to be
2 As the letter of Appeals Director Herman indicates, that
charge was dismissed by the Regional Director and the Union's
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
circumvented, all of the material facts be before the
Board as it considers, and resolves, the matter.
Accordingly, and in order to complete the record on
which the Board may go forward, Respondent
respectfully submits as attachments to the Response
the following documents, each of which are attached
hereto and made a part hereof by reference:
(1) Everett Dean letter of April 19, 1965 (marked
Exhibit "A" to this Response) which was mailed to all
Forenta employees on the date indicated.
(2) Charge filed by Everett Dean, Southern Co-
Director of United Textile Workers of America,
against Forenta on November 15, 1965, bearing case
No. 10-CA-6368, (marked Exhibit "B" to this
Response.)
(3) Letter of Irving M. Herman, Director, Office of
Appeals, dated February 7, 1966, relating to case
10-CA-6368, (marked Exhibit "C" to this Response.)
Respondent respectfully Moves that, in the absence
of further responsive pleadings from Counsel for the
General Counsel, the attached documents be
accepted into evidence and considered as a part of the
record of this proceeding. Respondent further Moves
that, in the absence of further responsive pleadings
from the Counsel for the General Counsel, the record
reflect the fact that Everett Dean is, and at all times
material hereto was, Southern Co-Director of the
charging party, United Textile Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, and that in his capacity as agent of the
charging party, he mailed to all Forenta employees
then employed a copy of Exhibit "A" hereto, and filed
with the National Labor Relations Board, on or about
the date shown, the charge in case 10-CA-6368
(Exhibit "B" hereto).
In the absence of the Trial Examiner's favorable
ruling on the above motions, Respondent requests a
hearing in this cause so as to be able to introduce
evidence consistent with that here tendered.
In the General Counsel's reply, entitled Response, to
the Respondent's Response to the Order to Show Cause,
the General Counsel admits the factual authenticity of the
evidence offered by the Respondent, but objects to the
receipt in evidence of such matter on the ground that it is
immaterial.
Everett Dean is clearly an agent of the Charging Union.
His letter of April 19, 1965, is the letter which provoked
North's statements of May 4. The charge in Case
10-CA-6368, dated November 15, 1965, and Appeals
Director Herman's letter, dated February 7, 1966,
establishes that the Union ultimately filed a refusal-to-
bargain charge-a possibility suggested in North's letter
as one to be reckoned with by the employees.2 These facts
are thus relevant to the statements alleged as unfair labor
practices and relevant to the Respondent's defense. The
documents are therefore admitted into evidence and are
attached hereto as Appendixes B and D, respectively
[Appendix C omitted from publication].
RULING ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The basis for the General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment is that the May 4, 1965, letter of
General Manager North to the Respondent's employees is
appeal denied on the ground , Inter aha, that there was
insufficient evidence of the Union's majority
FORENTA, INC.
legally indistinguishable from the letters and speeches
found by the Board to constitute 8(a)(1) violations in the
cases of Sparton Mfg. Co., 150 NLRB 948, enforcement
denied 355 F.2d 523, and Hobart Brothers Co., 150 NLRB
956 (Board's petition for enforcement pending in Sixth
Circuit Court). Though denied enforcement, the Board's
decision in the Sparton case, if applicable, is binding.'
In Sparton a speech by the employer's general manager
to employees during the course of a union organizing
campaign contained the following statement at 951:
2. They [the union organizers] may ask you to sign
a union card saying that it is only for a union
representative or a representative of the N.L.R.B.
This is not necessarily the truth, in some instances
the signed card is used by the union in an attempt to
prove to the company that the union really has a
majority.
The union may get these cards from you then show
them to the company in order to force recognition
without an election. Be careful about what you
sign-don't sign anything unless you know what you
are signing and what it might mean to you, your
family, or your fellow employees.
In finding this statement to be violative of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act the Trial Examiner in the Sparton case said the
following at 952:
Etherington's written prepared speech as read
reveals in the first numbered paragraph 1 that the
employees should know that the signing of union
cards could mean the selection of an exclusive
bargaining representative without the right of a vote
and that the employees should be wary of statements
that the union card only asked for a vote so that
employees could have a choice. Under such
circumstances, the Respondent's statement in the
first paragraph number 2 was calculated to convey to
the employees that the signing of union cards would
not necessarily be only for the NLRB or a union
representative, that the employer might learn of their
having signed such cards, and that reprisals would
occur. Other statements in the speech concerning the
employees' jobs and job opportunity convey that the
reprisals would relate to the employees' jobs. I,
therefore, conclude and find that Etherington's
speech on January 8, 1964, constituted a threat to the
employees that the signing of union authorization
cards would cause their discharge. Such a threat
constitutes conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
The Trial Examiner further found the statement not
privileged by Section 8(c) of the Act.
The Trial Examiner's findings and conclusions in
Sparton were adopted by the Board.
In the Hobart Brothers case a letter of the Union to
employees during an organizational campaign stated, in
part at 961:
It is necessary that we have sufficient number of
these [signed cards] to assure the board you are
interested in a Union. You can rest assured that these
cards will be handled with the strictest confidence,
9 The Board has said
. it is not for a Trial Examiner to speculate as to what
course the Board should follow where a circuit court has
expressed disagreement with its views On the contrary, it
remains the Trial Examiner's duty to apply established Board
precedent which the Board or the Supreme Court has not
643
and your employer or foreman will have no knowledge
of it.
Shortly thereafter the employer in the Hobart case mailed
a letter to his employees in response to the Union's
communication. The employer's letter stated, in part at
962:
Don't be fooled into signing misleading cards that
are mailed in secrecy. It is said that when you sign
such a card, no one other than a Union Representative
or a representative of the National Labor Relations
Board will ever see this card. This is not the truth. In
many instances the signed card is disclosed to the
Company by the union, the NLRB, or both of them.
Be careful about what you sign-don't sign
ANYTHING unless you KNOW what you are signing
and what it might mean to you, your family, or your
fellow employees.
The Trial Examiner in the Hobart case found that this
portion of the letter constituted threats of reprisal and
were not privileged expressions of view, argument, or
opinion protected by Section 8(c) of the Act. The Trial
Examiner said at 964:
The Respondent, in my opinion, could have
legitimately pointed out to employees that the signed
union cards could result in the establishment of the
Union as exclusive bargaining representative without
the benefit of an election wherein the employees
could vote. The Respondent could have pointed out
the seriousness of signing union cards in that respect.
In this case, however, the Respondent's message was
unqualifiedly to the effect that the card would not be
secret or confidential. Under such circumstances the
statement of Respondent in the last paragraph of its
January 3, 1964, letter set out above, in my opinion,
was reasonably calculated to convey to the employees
that their signing of union cards would not be kept
secret or confidential, that the Respondent probably
would acquire knowledge of their signing cards, and
that Respondent would engage in reprisals against
them if they signed union cards. Such a threat
constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
In neither the Sparton nor the Hobart case were any other
unfair labor practices found by the Trial Examiner or the
Board to have been committed.
In an earlier case, Armstrong Tire and Rubber Co., 119
NLRB 382, 390, 398, the Trial Examiner, affirmed by the
Board, dismissed a contention -inter alma-that the
employer there engaged in interference, restraint, and
coercion of employees by the following statement in a
letter to them:
In 1953 a lot of our men made the mistake of signing
union cards
And don't think the union will keep your card secret.
Back in 1953 the organizers told the men that their
cards would be kept secret and next thing the signers
knew the cards were in evidence in a Labor Board
Hearing.
reversed Only by such recognition of the legal authority of
Board precedent, will a uniform and orderly administration of
a national act, such as the National Labor Relations Act, be
achieved [Iowa Beef Packers, Inc, Union, AFL-CIO (The
Prudential Insurance Company of America), 119 NLRB 768,
773 1
644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
*
THINK CAREFULLY-DON'T MAKE A MISTAKE.
The Trial Examiner in the Armstrong case found that the
employer's letter constituted a privileged expression of
view, argument , or opinion protected by Section 8(c) of the
Act. In the Sparton case (fn. 3) and in the Hobart case
(fn. 11 ) the Trial Examiner found the Armstrong case to be
factually distinguishable on the ground that the total
context of the Armstrong letter did not convey a threat of
reprisal if the Company learned of the signing of union
cards.
In all aspects material here, the instant case appears
controlled by the Board decisions in the Sparton and
Hobart cases. Though there are differences, they do not
seem to affect the applicable principle . Thus, in the
Hobart case the Trial Examiner discredited testimony by
the company official responsible for the statements there
involved, that he had not threatened employees with
reprisals. And in Sparton the Trial Examiner discredited
testimony by the author of the statements that he did not
endeavor to give the impression that signing of union cards
meant dismissal or discharge or would jeopardize the jobs
of those who signed. Where language or conduct are
equivocal , reasonable and credible evidence of specific
intent may bear on interpretation . However, where, as
here, the language or conduct are unambigous , motive is
generally immaterial.4
Another item of difference between the instant and the
decided cases is that in Sparton and Hobart the
employers ' statements suggested that the cards might be
submitted to the employer by the union or the Board,
whereas in the instant case Mr. North's letter states that,
.. it is no doubt true that the Union would never show
me a copy of your card ...." Since the implication of
Mr. North's full statement is that the Respondent would
nevertheless become aware of the names of the card
signers by some means, this distinction between this case
and Sparton and Hobart does not appear to be substantial.
It is to be noted that the Respondent does not seek to
distinguish the Sparton and Hobart cases on the ground
that they involved discredited testimony as to conduct or
intent, or that Mr. North did not expect the signed cards to
be shown directly to him by the Union.
Indeed, the Respondent does not seek in any way to
distinguish the Sparton and Hobart cases. The basic
defense of the Respondent is that the statements of
Mr. North are expressions of view, argument, or opinion
protected by Section 8(c) of the Act-a contention rejected
'iy the Board in those cases. As we have seen in the
Sparton case (fn. 3) and in the Hobart case (at 964)
Section 8(c) was found to be inapplicable to this type of
statement.
Several contentions urged here by the Respondent were
not expressly raised in Sparton and Hobart. Thus the
Respondent contends that Mr. North's declaration as to
what the Union would do with the cards could not be a
threat here , since it was not within the Respondent's
power to carry out; and at most could be no more than a
prediction as to what another person would do. In addition,
the Respondent states that the letter truthfully rebuts a
4 "It is well settled that the test of interference , restraint, and
coercion under Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act does not turn on the
employer's motive or on whether the coercion succeeded or
failed The test is whether the employer engaged in conduct
false assurance by the Union concerning the secrecy of the
cards, and that in view of the uses to which cards can be
and have been put, unions should not be allowed to
mislead employees in securing designations.
It is evident from the filing of the Union 's later charge of
refusal to bargain, that the assurance contained in
Everett Dean 's letter to employees to the effect that, "No
one in your Company will ever see this card or know who
has signed," is of little value. For, as the Respondent
correctly points out , if complaint has issued on that charge
and hearing held, the cards_ must inevitably have been
offered in evidence if the Respondent contested the
Union ' s majority . That this is a contingency forseeable by
experienced union officials is scarcely debatable . And that
an employer has the right to correct in a noncoercive
manner a relevant falsity or error in union campaign
pledges is also clear . We turn to those issues.
What makes the Respondent 's statements coercive here
is not the threat of what the Union may do, but the implicit
threat as to what the Respondent may do. Thus, Manager
North's statement denying the truth of the Union's
assurances , begins with the same basic assumption as the
Union-that employees will not want the Respondent to
know that they have signed cards. The basis for this
assumption can be nothing but fear by the employees that
the Respondent may engage in reprisals . Instead of
allaying this fear, Manager North ' s statement capitalized
on it by informing the employees that the knowledge that
they had signed the card would not be kept confidential.
That the Respondent deemed itself well informed as to
who signed and who did not is underscored by the later
statement in North 's letter that "only a very few had
signed" union cards-an avowal of knowledge which, in
the circumstances , the employees would scarcely find
reassuring . Nowhere in North 's statement is there any
assurance to the employees that no reprisals would be
visited on employees if they did sign a card . Thus the very
employee concern which Dean's letter sought, with
regrettable lack of candor , to allay, the Respondent 's reply
sought to heighten in order to discourage the signing of
cards. In these circumstances, absent the Respondent's
assurances that the signing of a card would not affect
employment , North 's letter could reasonably be viewed by
employees as a threat . It was thus an obvious deterrent to
union affiliation.
Unquestionably untruths in organizing campaign
arguments, whether the unions or the employers , should
be exposed; but such a desirable end must not provide the
occasion or the vehicle for the exercise of coercive
rebuttal . Here a simple and genuine assurance by the
Respondent that it would not impose reprisals or
discriminate against employees for signing union cards
would have removed any reasonable doubt in the minds of
employees as to the Respondent 's position. In the light of
the importance which the Respondent ' s comment
indicates it attached to the matter of confidentiality of the
cards, I deem the absence of such assurances the
significant and determining factor in evaluating the
probable coercive impact on the employees of Mr. North's
statement . I therefore find that North' s letter contained an
implicit threat that employees who signed union cards
which, it may reasonably be said , tends to interfere with the free
exercise of employee rights under the Act "American Freightway
Co , 124 NLRB 146, 147 See also Illinois Tool Works, 153 F 2d
811 (C A 7), The Red Rock Co , 84 NLRB 521, 525
FORENTA, INC. 645
might anticipate employment reprisals or discrimination
from the Respondent.
Upon the basis of the entire record I hereby make the
following additional:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Forenta, Inc., is, and has been at all times material
herein, a Tennessee corporation with an office and place
of business at Morristown, Tennessee, where it is engaged
in the manufacture and sale of drycleaning and washing
machine equipment.
During the past calendar year, which is representative
of all times material herein, the Respondent sold and
shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
customers located outside the State of Tennessee.
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is, and
has been at all times material herein , a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
2. Forenta , Inc., Morristown , Tennessee , is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
3. By threatening its employees with reprisals or
discrimination in employment for signing union
authorization cards the Respondent has interfered with,
restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX A
May 4,1965
To ALL FORENTA EMPLOYEES:
I have noted a copy of the letter from Everett Dean of
the United Textile Union to Forenta employees. While
I am sure that our employees will not be taken in by
the kind of malarky Mr. Dean has in his letter, he
makes such interesting statements that I feel
obligated to comment on them.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On or about May 4, 1965, the Respondent, by its general
manager and supervisor, William L. North, issued and
distributed a letter to its employees, a copy of which is
attached hereto, in which the Respondent informed its
employees inter alia, that their signing authorization cards
for the Union would not be kept confidential.
In the circumstances of this statement, and for the
reasons previously indicated above, the Respondent's
action constituted a threat of reprisals or discrimination in
employment against employees for union activity. By such
conduct the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and
desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
Mr. Dean starts out his letter by asking Forenta
employees to sign "the enclosed card and return it in
the postage free envelope." (For a five cent postage
stamp, Everett Dean believes that he can buy your
birthright, and bribe you into becoming a member of
his Union ! It's an insult to the intelligence of Forenta
employees.)
Everett Dean goes on to say that the card which he is
asking employees to sign will be filed with the
National Labor Relations Board, and that " no one in
your Company will ever see this card or know who
signed it." Don't be deceived. If you have not already
town [sic] the card up-as I am sure most of you
have-read the language on it . The card doesn't say
anything about a National Labor Relations Board
election. It is an application for membership in the
Union and appoints the Union your exclusive agent.
This language would take away from you your
individual right to discuss your problems with
management , and would place these rights in the
hands of outside people. While it is no doubt true that
the Union would never show me a copy of your card,
Unions frequently show these cards to other
employees and to other people all over town.
Frequently Unions use these cards in support of a
refusal to bargain charge, in which event the cards are
put in evidence in the case and sometimes the
employees who signed them are required to get on the
stand and testify. Knowledge of who signed Union
cards is ordinarily as secret as the country telephone
party line. But Mr. Dean doesn't care.
In the next paragraph of the letter Mr. Dean states
that "Many of your fellow workers have signed these
cards." Everett Dean knows that this is absolutely
299-352 0-70-42
646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
untrue. In fact, only a very few have signed . Before
you take his word for it , make him show you the cards.
It is an old trick to tell employees that the Union
"needs a few more" and that many have signed.
Frequently they start their organizing campaigns that
way. But these Union people are used to falsehoods
and misrepresentations and to them it is as natural as
breathing.
The rest of Mr. Dean's letter relates to your wages
and working conditions and job security . You are all
aware that Forenta has done everything within its
power to improve the position of its employees. And
the job security for honest employees who do their
work is better here than any other place in town. We
have provided constant employement [ sic] and
considerable overtime . As you know, no Union can
require this or any other Company to give higher
wages than it is able or willing to give or to continue
the employment of employees who do not properly
perform their work.
(I have just received a copy of the Union hand bill
passed out on April 23. The Union statements in this
are just as misleading and false as in the letter I have
just referred to. In the first place, the Union talks
about the conditions that "will exist" under the
contract . There is no contract and the Union can not
force the Company to agree to anything they are
talking about . Who do they think they are fooling? In
the second place, they talk about the things the
Company "can do" without a contract , such as
cutting wages ... at any time . As you know, this
Company has never cut wages-it has only increased
them . How dishonest can the Union get? If you have
read this hand bill , I am sure that you can notice all of
the statements made that are not appropriate to our
working conditions and this you can expect when they
are made by an outsider who really does not
understand us or our problems).
I have great confidence in Forenta employees. We
know that the kind of propaganda Mr. Dean
distributes is not going to be accepted here in
Forenta. We shall legally fight Mr. Dean's organizing
activities-and those of his henchmen and
supporters-to the fullest extent. In this, I know that
you are with me.
Dear Forenta Worker:
We take this means of asking you to join with other
workers in your plant in the United Textile Workers of
America, by signing the enclosed card and returning it
in the postage free envelope.
This card is filed with the National Labor Relations
Board along with our request for them to hold an
election. No one in your Company will ever see this
card or know who has signed.
Many of your fellow workers have signed these
cards. We need a few more in order to get a secret
ballot election. The election will be held by the U. S.
Government.
Most of you know that your fellow employees at
Enka have a contract with their Company through the
United Textile Workers of America, and that their
wages and working conditions have improved a lot
since they got their Union. More important to them is
the fact that they have job security, layoff and recall
must be by seniority, and no one can be discharged
without justifiable cause.
The officers and members of Local No. 815 in the
Enka Plant stand ready to assist you in any way they
can, both to form your Union and to get a contract.
You can help secure your own and your family's
future by signing the card, and by voting and working
for the Union.
Sincerely,
/s/ Everett Dean
Everett Dean
Southern Co-Director
APPENDIX D
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
Washington , D.C. 20570
February 7, 1966
Re: Forenta, Inc.
Case No. 10-CA-6368
Very truly yours,
FORENTA
/s/ William L. North
William L. North
General Manager
APPENDIX B
UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA
121-1/2 Spring Street
JOHNSON CITY, TENNESSEE
April 19,1965
Mr. Everett F. Dean
Southern Co-Director
United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO
121-1 /2 Spring Street
Johnson City, Tennessee 37602
Dear Mr. Dean:
Your appeal from the Regional Director's refusal to
issue complaint in the captioned case, charging
violations under Section 8 of the National Labor
Relations Act, has been duly considered.
The appeal is denied. Under all the circumstances,
the evidence was deemed insufficient to sustain the
burden of establishing that the Union represented a
FORENTA, INC.
majority of the Company's employees on October 20
when it demanded recognition . Further , in view of
Smith 's absenteeism in 1964 and 1965, including a 35-
day absence immediately preceding his discharge,
after having been warned a month previously
concerning his poor attendance record , insufficient
basis existed for a finding that Smith 's discharge was
attributable to his participation in union or other
protected activities . Accordingly , and since it did not
appear that the November speech of Plant Manager
North exceeded the bounds of Section 8(c) of the Act,
further proceedings were unwarranted.
Very truly yours,
Arnold Ordman
General Counsel
647
By/s/Irving M. Herman
Irving M. Herman - -
Director , Office of Appeals
cc: Director, 10th Region
Harold Humphrey , Esq., Maclellan Building