General Metal Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 18, 1967

164 N.L.R.B. 64 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Metal Products Company and
International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases
26-CA-2433 and 26-RC-2582.
April 18,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND ZAGORIA
On November 4, 1966, Trial Examiner Lowell M.
Goerlich issued his Decision in the above-entitled
consolidated proceeding,' finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
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. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent and certain townspeople
interfered with the Board election of February 18,
1966, in the representation proceeding, and
recommended that the said election be set aside and
that a new election be held. The Trial Examiner
further recommended that other allegations of the
complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent
and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs.
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 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 recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, with the following modifications:
1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that
Respondent by the following conduct violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act:
(a) Plant Superintendent Stevens unlawfully
interrogated employee Williams as to what he
thought of the Union.
(b) Attorney-businessman Warmath and his
associates, citizens of the community of Humboldt,
in which Respondent's plant was located, engaged in
the following conduct: (1) Warmath interrogated
i The Regional Director 's order consolidating cases and notice
of hearing was issued July 26, 1966, and not January 26 , 1966, as
stated by the Trial Examiner.
2 A copy of this speech was placed in evidence by the
Respondent at the hearing herein , was made part of the record in
the representation proceeding consolidated herewith , its contents
are not disputed by the Respondent, and the matter was fully
litigated . Moreover, the Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that
the speech constituted interference with the election . For these
reasons, the Trial Examiner 's action granting the Respondent's
employee Porter about the Union; (2) Warmath
bestowed a benefit on Porter as an inducement to
vote against the Union; (3) Boyte, Warmath's law
partner, interrogated employee Bolin concerning the
employees' union sympathies, and implied that if the
Union were successful, the Respondent would leave
Humboldt; (4) White, a business partner of
Warmath, interrogated employee Stevens
concerning the Union; (5) Cox, the manager of the
bank of which Warmath was chairman of the board,
intimated to employees Stevens and Cross that the
Respondent would move the plant if the Union were
successful; (6) Milligan, a local grocer, interrogated
employee Cross concerning the Union, told him the
Company might go to another town if the Union got
in, and reported the conversation to Warmath. We
adopt the Trial Examiner's finding, for the reasons
given by him, that the Respondent was responsible
for this conduct; we find, as did the Trial Examiner,
that Warmath and his associates discussed and
devised with the Respondent ways and means for a
common endeavor to defeat the Union, that they
acted on behalf and in the interest of Respondent
with the latter's knowledge and approval, and that
their conversations with employees led employees to
believe that Warmath and his associates were
speaking for the Respondent.
2. In addition, we find, in the context of
Respondent's other unlawful conduct including the
above-described conduct of Warmath and his
associates, that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) by Respondent President Mattick's
speech to the assembled employees on February 16,
1966, in which Mattick promised the benefits of
expanded operations without the Union, and
threatened a curtailment of operations if the Union
were selected as bargaining agent.'
3. In agreement with the Trial Examiner, we find
that the election was interfered with by the aforesaid
conduct, and by grocer Mills, who told employee
Sanders that "his information said that if the Union
came into the plant over here, that the Company
would close and [Sanders] would lose [his] job, and
it would be hard for [him] to find work afterwards";
and by Blankenship, a local banker, who
interrogated employee Bolin about how he felt about
the Union and why the men were so strong about the
Union, and told Bolin he was afraid the plant might
close down and move to Texas if the Union were not
voted out.3
motion to dismiss paragraph 9 of the complaint , which alleged this
speech to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, is hereby
reversed, and the motion is dented
3 In the absence of exceptions , we adopt pro forma the Trial
Examiner 's finding that Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by virtue of the conduct of Mills and Blankenship The
Trial Examiner 's Conclusion of Law 4 is modified to read as
follows "The election conducted on February 18, 1966, was
interfered with by the Respondent and the townspeople "
164 NLRB No. 1
GENERAL METAL PRODUCTS CO. 65
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and
hereby orders that the Respondent, General Metal
Products Company, Humboldt, Tennessee, its
officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as herein modified:
1. In paragraph 1(a) of the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order insert the word "unlawfully"
before the word "interrogating."
2. Substitute the following for the first two
indented paragraphs of the notice:4
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with reprisals
to discourage affiliation with or support of any
labor organization ; unlawfully interrogate
employees concerning union activities or
affiliations; aid, abet, assist , or cooperate with
any outside group of local citizens or
businessmen in any campaign designed to
interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization . WE DISAVOW any claim, assertion,
or implication made by such group that our
Humboldt operation will be curtailed or
discontinued as reprisal for our employees'
affiliation with or support of any labor
organization.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act
not specifically found herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on
February 18, 1966, in Case 26-RC-2582, be, and it
hereby is, set aside, and that said case be, and it
hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director for
Region 26 to conduct a new election when he deems
that circumstances permit the free choice of a
bargaining representative.
" Add the following after the street address of Region 26, at the
bottom of the notice attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Telephone 534-3161
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LOWELL M. GOERLICH, Trial Examiner : On January 25,
1966 , the International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the
Union , filed a petition for a representation election among
certain of the employees of the General Metal Products
Company at its Humboldt , Tennessee , plant. On
February 18, 1966 , pursuant to a Stipulation for
Certification Upon Consent Election executed by the
parties on February 8, 1966 , an election by secret ballot
was conducted under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for Region 26. Upon the conclusion of
the election , a tally of ballots was furnished the parties in
accordance with the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure,
Series 8, as amended. The tally of ballots showed that
there were approximately 28 eligible voters and that 25
ballots were cast, of which 8 were for the petitioner and 14
were against the petitioner; 3 ballots were challenged. The
challenges were not sufficient in number to affect the
results of the election.
On February 23, 1966, the Petitioner filed timely
objections to the conduct affecting the result of the
election . The Acting Regional Director investigated the
objections and thereafter on April 28 , 1966 , issued and
served on the parties his report on objections. In his
report , the Acting Regional Director recommended to the
Board that Objections 1, 2, 3, and 4 be sustained and that
the election be set aside and a new one directed.
Thereafter, on May 19, 1966, the Employer filed timely
exceptions to the Acting Regional Director 's report. In its
exceptions, the Employer contended that the Acting
Regional Director 's findings and conclusions respecting
Objections 1, 2, 3, and 4 were in error and contrary to
Board precedent , and it requested that a hearing be
scheduled for determination of the issues raised by the
objections.
The Board, having duly considered the Employer's
exceptions , was of the opinion that substantial and
material factual issues existed with respect to the
allegations contained in Objections 1, 2, 3, and 4, which
could best be resolved by hearing. The Board ordered that
a hearing be held before a Hearing Officer to be
designated by the Regional Director for Region 26 for the
purpose of taking testimony to resolve issues raised by the
Petitioner ' s Objections 1, 2, 3, and 4 , the Regional
Director 's report , and the Employer's exceptions.
Thereafter , on June 28 , 1966, the Regional Director caused
to be issued a complaint and notice of hearing in which the
General Metal Products Company was named as the
Respondent. The complaint was based on a charge filed by
the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, on May 23,1966.
The issues raised by the complaint were substantially
the same as those raised in the Petitioner 's objections to
the election.
On July 21, 1966 , the Board hiving been adminis-
tratively advised that a complaint had been issued in
Case 26-CA-2433 involving issues similar to those
raised by Petitioner's objections on which a hearing had
been directed, the Board ordered that its order directing
hearing be amended to the effect that "a hearing be held to
resolve the issues raised by the Petitioners' objections 1,
2, 3, and 4 and that such hearing be consolidated with any
hearing on the complaint issued in Case No. 26-CA-2433,
and held before Trial Examiner to be designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner." The amended order provided that
"the Trial Examiner, or the Hearing Officer, designated
for the purpose of conducting the hearing, shall prepare
and cause to be served on the parties a report containing
resolutions of the credibility of witnesses, findings of fact,
and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of
said issues."
On January 26, 1966, the Acting Regional Director for
Region 26, issued an order consolidating cases and notice
of hearing.
The consolidated cases came on to be heard before me
on August 10 and 11, 1966, at Humboldt, Tennessee. At
the hearing , each party was afforded full opportunity to be
66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
heard, to call, examine and cross-examine witnesses, to
argue orally on the record, to submit proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law, and to file briefs. All briefs
have been reviewed and considered by me.
The issues before me are whether the election of
February 10, 1966, shall be set aside and whether the
Respondent be found guilty of a violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by reason of the Respondent's misconduct and
that of certain townspeople.
Upon the whole record and from my observation of the
witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, General Metal Products Company, is
now and has been at all times material herein a Tennessee
corporation with a plant located at Humboldt, Tennessee,'
where it is engaged in the manufacture of metal stampings
and metal fabrications, tools, and dies.
During the past 12 months, the Respondent, in the
course and conduct of its business operations, received
goods valued in excess of $50,000 from points directly
outside the State of Tennessee, and during the same
period Respondent manufactured, sold, and shipped
products valued is excess of $50,000 from its Humboldt,
Tennessee, plant to points directly outside the State of
Tennessee.
The Respondent admits, and I find, that the Respondent
is now and has been at all times material herein engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
we get off work our hands are so greasy their not fitten to
drive a car home. They ain't got no soap to wash them
with." To which Stevens replied, "Well, a bar of soap
every month would be cheaper than paying union dues and
fines for not attending meetings." Stevens' version of the
conversation differed in some respects. He testified, "I
approached Billy and asked him if he had received the
letter that Mr. Mattick3 sent out. He replied he had. I
asked him what he thought about the letter. He didn't
make any comment. He began to complain about the soap
and towels, and I went on to tell him that that was the
Company policy not to furnish soap and towels." Stevens
denied that he had asked Williams "how he felt about the
Union" or "what he thought about the Union." Stevens
said that he inquired about the letter because "we wanted
to see if everybody received one."
In view of the testimony of Stevens which suggests that
the question in respect to what Williams thought of the
Union was posed, I am persuaded that this question was
also asked by Stevens.4 Like Acting Regional Director
Harrington, I find that Stevens' interrogation of Williams
was grounds for sustaining Objection 1. Moreover, in the
context of the Employer' s antiunion campaign, the
interrogation of Stevens served no legitimate employer
purpose, but allowed the Respondent to elicit important
information most useful to it in formulating a program
whereby it could draw its employees away from union
affection. The conduct of Stevens, detailed above, was of
such a character as to reasonably tend to restrain or
interfere with employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and was in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Rushton Company, 158
NLRB 1730.
It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND THE OBJECTIONS
TO THE ELECTION
The General Counsel cites the following incidents in
support of the objections to the election and the allegations
of unfair labor practices in the complaint.
A. The Stevens Incident
Employee Billie Ray Williams testified that on
February 16, 1966, Plant Superintendent Raymond
Stevens came to him while he was working and said,
"Billy, have you received any mail from St. Louis?"2
Williams responded in the affirmative, whereupon Stevens
said, "Well, what do you think about the Union?"
Williams replied, "I don't know" and commented, "when
' The United States Census of Population, 1960, U S
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census , lists Humboldt,
Tennessee , with a population of 8,482
2 The Employer 's main plant and offices were located in
St Louis, Missouri
9 Ralph Mattick was the president of the Respondent
' Based upon the demeanor of the witnesses , I have reached
the same conclusion
' The findings in this subsection are based upon what the Trial
Examiner considers to be the more plausible testimony
Demeanor of each witness was considered
B. The Incidents Involving the Townspeople5
1. The activities of Frank Warmath
Frank Warmath is a Humboldt attorney and a prominent
businessman who has connection with 43 different
corporations , including the First National Bank and the
local newspaper, the Courier-Chronicle. He owns the
Humboldt Motel and is associated with Robert White in a
finance company and a real estate and insurance agency.
He is interested in the industrial development of
Humboldt and is a member of the Tennessee State
Industrial Commission . In this capacity he urged the
Respondent to locate in Humboldt. He had money
invested in the physical properties acquired by the
Respondent in Humboldt.6 His construction company built
the plant. He was on friendly terms with the officials of the
Respondent.' He testified, "I've got every kind of business
there is here, except retail dry goods, and things like that.
Anything that happens to Humboldt affects me
ultimately." Warmath, like the Respondent, preferred that
6 Warmath testified that he had dealt with the Respondent "in
several and varied capacitities , as industrial representative for
the State of Tennessee , and, also [he ] had a personal interest in
the facility in which they were interested, the physical properties
in which they were interested [He] had quite a bit of money in
it'
I Warmath testified, "We get together every time they
[company officials ] come to town We are going to do the
same thing this afternoon, and if they're here tomorrow we are
going to do the same thing tomorrow "
GENERAL METAL PRODUCTS CO.
the Union remain away from the Respondent's Humboldt
plant , a fact which was also known to the Respondent.
Employee John Garland Turner conversed with
Warmath in his office in the First National Bank on
February 17, 1966. Warmath told him to consider his vote
before he voted and "go the right way."
On February 10, 1966, employee Danny Keith Porter
visited the mayor of Humboldt in reference to a traffic
ticket in the amount of $43.50. The mayor called Warmath.
At Warmath' s suggestion Porter appeared at Warmath's
office the next day. Warmath asked Porter whether the
Union "was going to come out to where [Porter] worked."
Porter responded that he thought " it was going to come
in." Warmath commented that a union was not needed
"out there" and that the plant had lost money. He told
Porter he had called him "over ... about this fine." He
advised Porter that he had "fixed" it for him and that he
would not have to appear. As Porter was leaving he said,
"Well, I did you a favor. Now, I believe you can do me
one."
2. The activities of G. Griffin Boyte
Attorney G. Griffin Boyte, Warmath's law partner,
called employee Vernon Utah Bolin" to his office on
February 16, 1966, and questioned him about the
employees' concern for the Union at the Respondent's
plant. He asked Bolin "how he thought it was going" and
"what his feelings were," and Boyte said that he did not
think the employees needed a union. Bolin outlined the
reasons why the men felt they wanted a union. Boyte
mentioned the Humboldt Hosiery Mill and dwelled at
some length on the fact that employees had lost their cars
and homes when the plant moved to Texas, inferring that
the same thing might transpire if the Union obtained
bargaining rights in the Respondent's plant. Boyte told
Bolin that "he wanted to talk to some of the people out at
General Metals, and that he might want to talk to [ Bolin]
again ." Boyte said that he "might talk to them down there
and see what the situation [was], if something can be done
about that."9
3. The activities of Robert L. White
Robert L. White, a partner of Warmath, was in the real
estate and insurance business. He rented a home to
employee Terry Stevens. During the election campaign
White phoned Stevens. White asked Stevens what he
thought about the Union and Stevens answered that he
was in favor of it, whereupon White asked Stevens what
the employees' complaints were and why he was in favor
of the Union. After a discussion on the complaints White
said that he did not think the Company was ready for a
union and asked Stevens not to vote for it.
White testified, "I told him I felt like if they would give
the company a chance to get settled, that they would make
any adjustment that should be made, if any should be
made."
4. Activities of Annie Lou Cox
Annie Lou Cox is the manager of Crossing Branch First
National Bank, of which Frank Warmath is chairman of
s Bolin was prominent in the union movement All the union
meetings except one were held at his home Such circumstance,
no doubt , explains the reason for Boyte's call
s Boyte denied that he had mentioned the Bolin conversation to
67
the board. She is also an alderman for the city of Humboldt
and has been employed by Warmath since July 1963.
During the election campaign Cox called employee Jack
Cross' home by telephone. Cross' wife answered. Cross
overheard the conversation between Cox and his wife. Cox
explained that she wanted to talk to Cross about the
Union. She said that "they were very concerned about it"
and "there might be a possibility that they would lose the
Company if the Union should come out there." She asked
Cross' wife to try to influence Cross to vote against the
Union.
Cox also called employee Terry Stevens on the
telephone in the middle of February. Cox said that "she
thought that the Company wasn't ready for a union, and
she would like to influence [him] anyway she could to get
[him] not to go to the Union, because she didn't think the
Company was ready for it, and she would appreciate it [if]
he would consider it." Cox said that the city government
was interested in the Respondent remaining in Humboldt
and that she would " appreciate it, if he could see fit to wait
until the Company was well established before voting for
the Union."
5. Activities of Otis Milligan
Otis Milligan, a local grocer visited employee Jack Cross
on February 15, 1966. Milligan said that "they sent him
down there to talk to [Cross] about the Union." Milligan
commented that the Respondent was a new company and
had lost money. He asked Cross what the "trouble" was
"out there." Cross related several grievances. Milligan
suggested that the election be postponed for about a
month at which time the Respondent would be more
agreeable to an election. Milligan also commented that
"they were very concerned about the Company; that there
was a possibility that if [the employees] did get a Union in
they might move out, or go back to St. Louis, or go to some
other town." Milligan asked Cross how he felt about the
Union; Cross replied that he had not made up his mind.
Milligan reported the Cross conversation to Warmath.
6. Activities of Larry Thomas Mills
Larry Thomas Mills, a grocer doing business at Medina,
Tennessee , in the first week in February sent a message to
employee James Crit Sanders, Jr., by his father,
requesting him to visit him at his store . Upon arrival at the
store Sanders inquired about Mills' conversation with his
father. He asked Mills whether he was trying to find out if
he was for or against the Union and "who he was trying'to
find out for." Mills-answered that "some people had got in
touch with him, and wanted him to find out." Mills further
commented that " his information said that if the Union
come into the plant over here, that the Company would
close and [Sanders ] would lose [his ] job, and it would be
hard for [him ] to find work afterwards."
7. Activities of Dossie Ray Blankenship
Dossie Ray Blankenship is the vice president of the
Merchants State Bank, Humboldt, Tennessee. Around
February 15, 1966, Blankenship asked employee Vernon
Utah Bolin to come to the bank. Upon Bolin's arrival
company representatives In view of Boyte's expressed interest in
the union election campaign and Bolin's prominence in the union
movement, Boyte's denial appears implausible.
298-668 0-69-6
68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Blankenship said he was "concerned about that Union
business ," and that "the people out there had called him10
and he had recommended [Bolin] and [his] brother to go
to work out there and that he felt it was his duty to talk to
[him] about it." Blankenship asked Bolin how he "felt
about the Union." Bolin replied that he "believed the
Union would come in." Blankenship mentioned the
Humboldt Hosiery Mill where employees had lost jobs and
said that "he was afraid that might happen to General
Metals ... the way that that plant closed down and moved
to Texas." Blankenship asked Bolin to talk to his brother,
Joe, and see if they "couldn't get [the Union] voted out
from here." During the conversation Blankenship asked
Bolin "why the men was so strong about the Union." The
reasons were discussed.
8. The alleged connections between the townspeople and
the Respondent
Warmath spearheaded the townspeople's agitation for
the defeat of the Union. Warmath discussed the
approaching election with his employee, Cox, and his law
partner, Boyte. Warmath suggested to his business
partner, White, that election issues be discussed with any
employees living in "our houses." Warmath discussed the
election issues with grocer Milligan and asked him to find
out what the employees "was wanting." Milligan reported
his conversation with employee Cross to Warmath.
Warmath himself talked to several employees.
Warmath testified that he had discussed the union
situation with company officials including Mattick and
attorney Gilpin ". . . in our meetings ; probably at dinner at
my house, or cocktail parties, or a drink . . . at my house."
The conversations concerned a union, the same as at
Paris, Tennessee," which "was attempting to organize or
contacted some members of the labor force ... and that
some of the labor force . . . and that some of them were
carrying cards." Warmath was told that in the light of the
Paris situation, union organization was "scaring them to
death." The company officials, including President
Mattick, informed him that "they weren't interested in
being organized at the time." Meetings between the
company officials and Warmath occurred whenever the
company officials visited Humboldt. Warmath assumed
the visits were in connection with the union organizational
campaign . Warmath testified that he offered to be helpful
to the Respondent to the extent that he was "definitely
not interested in seeing anything happen in Humboldt
wherein labor and management would get into anything
that would cause labor unrest...." Warmath discussed
"strategy" with the company officials in respect to "gen-
eralities about who workers were." According to Warmath
he "probably asked" the Respondent for a list of the
names of employees and received it. He told the Company
that "we of Humboldt, and me, particularly, weren't
interested in any labor disputes or anything connected
with labor disputes at Humboldt...... Warmath discussed
his talking to employees with company officials "generally
in the cocktail things." Warmath had been through the
10 By this remark Blankenship left the impression with Bolin
that he was speaking on behalf of the Respondent.
" The Paris situation referred to in the record concerned a
strike by the Union which was described as involving violence.
12 Boyte's statement to Bolin that "he wanted to talk to some of
the people out at General Metals"; Blankenship 's remark to Bolin
that "the people out there had called him", Milligan's statement
plant "different times." His bank handled the
Respondent's payroll accounts. He attended the Labor
Board hearing in the representation case involved herein.
His point of view in reference to the Union coincided with
that of the Respondent.
I cannot believe that the contribution of Warmath and
his associates to the Respondent's campaign to defeat the
Union was of a serendipitous kind for it is only reasonable
to conclude that Warmath and his associates were
engaged in a common endeavor with the Respondent, of
which the Respondent had knowledge and approved. It is
wholly implausible that Warmath, considering his like
interests with the Respondent, his supererogatory
characteristics, and his numerous meetings with the
company officials at his home and elsewhere, did not
discuss and devise ways and means for a common
endeavor to defeat the Union. This to some extent
Warmath admitted when he testified that at such meetings
he offered to be helpful, discussed strategy, obtained a list
of employees' names, and discussed talking with
employees. Moreover, Warmath's frequent meetings with
company officials at his home, his appearance at the Labor
Board representation hearing, his visits to the
Respondent's plant, his financial interests in connection
with the Respondent's property, his vast financial
interests in the community (which suggested that he held
interests in the Respondent), and his conversations with
employees might well have caused employees to believe
that Warmath and his associates were speaking for the
Respondent.12 Furthermore, the Respondent, who must
have known of the activities of Warmath and the
townspeople detailed above (both because of the
numerous meetings and discussions between the company
officials and Warmath and the size of the community in
which the events occurred), made no disavowals of the
antiunion election propaganda the townspeople
disseminated. 13
In view of the foregoing it is my opinion that in
accordance with the holding in The Colson Corporation,
148 NLRB 827, affd. 347 F.2d 128, 137, the Respondent
must be held responsible for the antiunion campaign
conducted by the townspeople.
9. Conclusions in respect to the townspeople
The record as a whole warrants a finding (I so find) that
the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by: (1) Warmath' s interrogation of employee
Porter as to whether the Union "was going to come out to
where [Porter] worked," (2) Warmath's bestowal of a
benefit upon Porter in the nature of a release of a parking
ticket in the amount of $43.50 as an inducement to vote
against the Union, (3) Boyte's interrogation of employee
Bolin in respect to why the employees felt they needed a
union and his remarks implying that if the Union were
successful, like the Humboldt Hosiery Mill, the
Respondent would leave Humboldt, (4) White's
to cross that "they sent him down there to talk ", and Mills'
answer to Sanders , Junior, that "some people had got in touch
with him and wanted him to find out," likewise created the
impression that the townspeople were speaking for the
Respondent.
13 Cf. The Russell Manufacturing Co , Incorporated, et al., 82
NLRB 1081, 1083-84
GENERAL METAL PRODUCTS CO. 69
interrogation of employee Terry Stevens as to what the
employees' complaints were and why he was in favor of
the Union, (5) Cox's intimation to employee Stevens that
the Respondent would move its plant if the Union was
successful, i.e., Stevens should vote against the Union
because the city government was interested in the
Respondent remaining in Humboldt, (6) Cox's remark
overheard by employee Cross, "There might be a
possibility that they would lose the Company if the Union
should come out there," (7) Milligan's interrogations of
employee Cross as to what the "trouble" was "out there"
and how he felt about the Union and Milligan's statement
to Cross that "they were very concerned about the
Company; that there was a possibility that if [the
employees] did get a Union in they might move out, or go
back to St. Louis, or go to some other town. "14
B. The Mattick Speech
Company President Mattick delivered a speech to
employees from approximately 3 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. on
February 16, 1966, during working time on company
property.
In his report on objections, Acting Regional Director
Harrington held that "that portion of the speech which
warns the employees not to destroy the opportunity
provided by the employer further buttresses the fears
aroused by the townspeople that unionization of the plant
would mean loss of jobs or economic benefits, and merit is
found to the objection."15
No doubt the Acting Regional Director was referring to
that portion of the speech, to wit:
All of this spells opportunity. Don't destroy it. Look
about you, examine the make-up of this which we call
opportunity. 40,000 sq. ft. of plant, just one-third or
less of what is in St. Louis; 20 acres of ground, 4 times
larger than St. Louis; $846,000 of money invested,
which is only the beginning of future investment to
follow as we grow. Oddly enough, it's called a branch
plant. The town of Humboldt calls it a branch. How
long are you and we willing to let it be known by this
identity? Don't trod on this opportunity. Don't destroy
those goals that lie ahead. They're here, and if we
work at it together, they'll be accomplished. We don't
need a witch doctor.'s He or it can not supplant
cooperation, working and planning together.
Remember, there is no magic formula for
success-nor will there ever be....
Remember, you twenty-eight fine people-you'll
decide, not we, on how fast plant no. 2 will change
from a branch plant to something else.... [Emphasis
supplied.]
Mattick's remarks, in the context uttered, can fairly be
interpreted to mean that if the Union was chosen, the
Respondent would continue the Humboldt plant as a
"branch" plant and curtail any plans to expand its
physical properties and production. This is a clear threat
that the choice of the Union meant the loss of job
opportunities and job benefits which were attendant upon
a growth of business. It is my opinion that the remarks of
Mattick above noted, in the context of the Respondent's
antiunion campaign," interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act. In his remarks Mattick went
beyond the permissible conduct allowed by Section 8(c) of
the Act. Mattick promised the benefits of expanded
operations without the Union and threatened a curtailment
of operations if the Union were selected as bargaining
agent.18
I have found that the Respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act during the
critical election period. Hence, I find that objections to the
election should be sustained and a second election
directed.19
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III
and IV, above, occurring in connection with its operations
set forth 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.
VI. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged
in certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that
the Respondent cease and desist therefrom, and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
In the instant case objectionable conduct tended to
cause employees to believe that if the Union were chosen
as the bargaining agent, the Employer might close its plant
14 No 8 (a)(1) violations have been made in respect to the
activities of Mills and Blankenship since the alleged agency
relationship existing between them and the Respondent was
somewhat ambiguous However , their conduct as follows
contributed to a destruction of the laboratory conditions which the
Board seeks to maintain in regard to its elections and thus
constituted unlawful interference with the election Mills'
statement to employee Sanders that "his information said that if
the Union came into the plant over here, that the Company would
close and [Sanders] would lose [hiss job, and it would be hard for
[him] to find work ," Blankenship 's interrogation of employee
Vernon Utah Bolin in respect to how he "felt about the Union"
and "why the men were so strong about the Union," and
Blankenship 's statement that like the Humboldt Hosiery Mill, the
Respondent might close and the employees lose jobs if the Union
were successful
i5 The Acting Regional Director commented "The contents of
Mattick's speech have been carefully read and have been
considered in context with the finding concerning Stephen's [sic]
interrogation described in Objection 1 and the activities of
townspeople as described in Objectives 3 and 4 "
iS "[W]itch doctor" obviously refers to the Union
1 i In the closing paragraph of a letter sent to employees on
February 14, 1966, signed by Mattick, the employees were
advised, "There is opportunity ahead for us, if we work together
Let's keep the record clean. So-VOTE NO-when the time
comes "
'N "When statements such as these are made by one who is a
part of the company management , and who has the power to
change prophecies into realities , such statements , whether
couched in language of probability or certainty, tend to impede
and coerce employees in their right of self - organization , and there-
fore constitute unfair labor practices " N L R B . v W C Nabors,
d/b/a W C. Nabors Company, 196 F 2d 272, 276 (C A 5)
19 "Conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) is a fortiori conduct
which interferes with the exercise of free choice in an election
Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc , 137 NLRB 1782, 1786
70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
resulting in the loss of jobs . Employees were told that the
Employer 's plans in respect to the future expansion of its
Humboldt facilities depended upon a rejection of the
Union . With these thoughts in mind employees were
unable to freely choose a bargaining agent under the
laboratory conditions to which the Board aspires. Thus, in
order to contribute to such laboratory conditions and
remove any employees ' doubts, I recommend that in the
notice marked "Appendix" there appear "We disavow any
claim , assertion , or implication that , if the International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, or any other union is chosen as our employees'
bargaining agent , we will , for such reason , close our
Humboldt plant or curtail any plans for the expansion of
our Humboldt plant."
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. General Metal Products Company is an employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
4. The Respondent unlawfully interfered with the
representation election conducted on February 18, 1966.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case,
it is recommended that Respondent , its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with reprisals to discourage
their affiliation with or support of any labor organization;
interrogating employees concerning union activities or
affiliations; or aiding , abetting , assisting, or cooperating
with any outside group of local citizens or businessmen in
any campaign designed to interfere with, restrain, or
coerce its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization.
(b) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-
organization , to join or assist International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain
from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following action which is necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its place of business in Humboldt,
Tennessee , copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."20 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 26, after being duly
signed by an authorized representative , shall be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days, thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to its employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.21
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the election heretofore held
on February 18, 1966, be vacated and set aside and that a
second election be directed.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act other
than those in this Decision.22
20 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 Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall
be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order "
21 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said
Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
22 At the close of the General Counsel's case, the Respondent
moved to dismiss paragraph 9 of the complaint on the ground that
the General Counsel had adduced no evidence in support thereof
I reserved the ruling on the motion The motion is granted on the
ground stated. It is my opinion that in the face of the
Respondent's motion to dismiss, the General Counsel may not
1 rely upon the Respondent 's exhibits to sustain his complaint.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner 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
employees that:
WE DISAVOW any claim, assertion, or implication
that if the International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other union is
chosen as our employees' bargaining agent , WE WILL
for such reason, close our Humboldt plant or curtail
any plans for the expansion of our Humboldt plant.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees regarding
their union membership, sympathies, or activities in a
manner violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
the right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations , to join or assist International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
such activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain or to
refrain from becoming or remaining members in good
standing of International Association of Machinists and
GENERAL METAL PRODUCTS CO. 71
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
organization . from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced,
GENERAL METAL PRODUCTS or covered by any other
material.
COMPANY If employees have any question concerning this notice
(Employer) or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 746 Federal
Dated By Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis,
(Representative) (Title) Tennessee 38103, Telephone 534-3161.