General Shoe Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 16, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 124 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of GENERAL SHOE CORPORATION and BOOT AND SHOE
WORKERS UNION, A. F. L.
In the Matter of GENERAL SHOE CORPORATION and BooT AND SHOE
WORKERS UNION, A. F. L..
Cases Nos. 10-R-1958 and 10-C-093, respectively.-Decided
April 16,1948
Ilir. William M. Pate, for the Board.
Mr. G. M. Heath, of Paducah, Ky., and M11r. Frank Cappel, of St.
Louis, Mo., for the Union.
Messrs. Cecil Sims and Fred S9nith, of Nashville, Tenn., for the
respondent.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On April 15, 1947, Trial Examiner T. B. Smoot issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, 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 copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. In the Intermediate Report, the
Trial Examiner further found that the respondent had interfered
with an election conducted by the Board July 31, 1946, among the
respondent's employees to determine representatives for the purpose
of collective bargaining, and he recommended that the election be
set aside. The Trial Examiner also found that the respondent had
not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices as alleged in the
complaint, Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and a brief in support thereof.
The Board has considered the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in the case. To the limited extent consistent with the Decision
'No exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner's findings with respect to these allega-
tions We shall dismiss the complaint as to them.
- 77 N. L. t. B., No. 18.
124
GENERAL SHOE CORPORATION 125
and Order herein, the Board adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
1. The record shows, as found by the Trial Examiner, that on an
unspecified date in July 1946, Foreman Bertrand approached em-
ployee Russell at work and expressed his interest in assisting Russell
to "get out of the Union" and advised Russell how to do so; that a
few days later Bertrand asked Russell whether he had effected his
resignation from the Union. The record further reveals that during
the same period Foreman Bonee interrogated employee White as to
whether he [White] had signed a Union authorization card 2 We find,
in accordance with established precedent,' that Bertrand's volun-
teered assistance to, and later inquiry of Russell as to Russell's possible
resignation from the Union, and Bonee's interrogation of White were,
per se, violative of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
^2. The Trial Examiner found that soon after the advent of the
Union in its plant the respondent embarked upon an intensive anti-
union campaign designed to discourage membership in the Union, in
violation of Section 8 (1) of the original Act.4 We are constrained
to disagree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the respondent's
activities in this respect constituted a violation of Section 8 (1) of
the Act. It is true that for 2 months before the election of July 31,
1946, the respondent engaged in a course of conduct consisting of
publication, through its supervisors, in letters, in pamphlets, in leaf-
lets, and in speeches, of vigorously disparaging statements concerning
the Union, which undeniably were calculated to influence the rank-
and-file employees in their choice of a bargaining representative.
However, these statements contained no threat of reprisal or promise
of benefit and appear to be only such expressions of opinion as are
excluded from our consideration in an unfair labor practice case by
reason of Section 8 (c) of the amended Act.
We do not find it necessary, in this part of the case, to pass upon
or adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that the respondent violated
the Act by the actions of its supervisors in visiting the individual
employees at their homes after working hours for the purpose of
dissuading them from selecting the Union as their bargaining repre-
sentative, or by the action of its president in summoning the em-
2 We base our finding as to this incident upon the undenied testimony of white which
we credit as did the Trial Examiner with respect to other conversations between him and
Foreman Bonee
2 See Matter of Sohio Pipe Line Company, 75 N. L. R B. 858, and cases cited therein
' See the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, amending the National Labor Rela-
tions Act. The provisions of Section 8 (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, which
the Trial Examiner herein found were violated, are continued in Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act as amended.
126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees, in groups of 20 to 25, to his office on the eve of the election
for the purpose of reading to them an anti-union speech.
3. We turn now to the separate question of the Union's objections
to the election held in the representation case, consolidated herewith.
As we recently said in the P. D. Gwaltney case,5 "When we are asked
to invalidate elections held under our auspices, our only consideration
derives from the Act which calls for freedom of choice by employees
as to a collective bargaining representative." Conduct that creates an
atmosphere which renders improbable a free choice will sometimes
warrant invalidating an election, even though that conduct may not
constitute an unfair labor practice. An election can serve its true
purpose only if the surrounding conditions enable employees to regis-
ter a free and untrammeled choice for or against a bargaining repre-
sentative. For this reason the Board has sometimes set elections aside
in unconsolidated representation cases, in the absence of any charges
or proof of unfair labor practice. When a record reveals conduct so
glaring that it is almost certain to have impaired employees' freedom
of choice, we have set an election aside and directed a new one.' Be-
cause we cannot police the details surrounding every election, and be-
cause we believe that in the absence of excessive acts employees can
be taken to have expressed their true convictions in the secrecy of the
polling booth, the Board has exercised this power sparingly.? The
question is one of degree.
We think that the Board should apply no different standards in those
occasional representation cases which happen to be consolidated with
unfair labor practice proceedings for purposes of hearing and de-
cision. On this record, therefore, although the respondent's activities
immediately before the election, as described in the Intermediate Re-
port, are not held to constitute unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of the amended Act, certain of them created an atmosphere cal-
culated to prevent a free and untrammeled choice by the employees.
This case discloses no mere campaign speech by an employer official to
a large assemblage of employees, in the American Tube Bending
tradition. Nor do we rely upon the fact that the speech was delivered
on company premises as in the Clark Brothers case.° The significant
element is the, method selected by this Company's president to express
his anti-union views to the employees on the day before the election.
He had them brought to his own office in some 25 groups of 20 to 25
individuals, and there, in the very room which each employee must have
6 Matter of P D Gwaltney, Jr., and Company, Inc, 74 N. L. R. B. 371
6 Matter of Continental Oil Company , 58 N L R B 169.
7 Matter of Maywood Hosiery Mills, 64 N L. It. B 146.
8 N. L R B. v American Tube Bending Co , 134 F. (2d) 993 (C. C. A. 2).
1 Matter of Clark Bros . Co , Inc ., 70 N. L R. B. 802.
GENERAL SHOE CORPORATION 127
regarded as the locus of final authority in the plant, read every small
group the same intemperate anti-union address. In our opinion, this
conduct, and the Employer's instructions to its foremen to propa-
gandize employees in their homes, went so far beyond the presently
accepted custom of campaigns directed at employees' reasoning facul-
ties that we are not justified in assuming that the election results rep-
resented the employees' own true wishes.
We do not subscribe to the view, apparently held by our two dissent-
ing colleagues, that the criteria applied by the Board in a representa-
tion proceeding to determine whether certain alleged misconduct inter-
fered with an election need necessarily be identical to those employed
in testing whether an unfair labor practice was committed, although
the result will ordinarily be the same.- In election proceedings, it is
the Board's function to provide a laboratory in which an experiment
may be conducted, under conditions as nearly ideal as possible, to deter-
mine the uninhibited desires of the employees. It is our duty to estab-
lish those conditions; it is also our duty to determine whether they have
been fulfilled. When, in the rare extreme case, the standard drops
too low, because of our fault 11 or that of others, the requisite laboratory
conditions are not present and the experiment must be conducted over
again. That is the situation here.
We find that the circumstances surrounding the election of July 31,
1946, raise substtintial doubt as to whether the results of the election
reflect the employees' free choice of a collective bargaining representa-
tive 12 Accordingly, 3ve shall order it set aside. When the Regionalt, in
Director advises the Board that the circumstances permit a free choice
of representatives, we shall direct that a. new election be held among the
respondent's employees.
10 The dissenting opinion seems to be predicated on the general proposition that only
conduct declared unlawful by the Act is a valid ground for setting aside an election held
under the Board ' s auspices Yet, in apparent inconsistency , our colleagues concede that
ceitam circumstances , for example , those present in the Gwaltney case, may afford "un-
questionable justification " for setting aside an election "as not reflecting the free choice
of representatives contemplated by the Act," notwithstanding the fact that they do not
constitute unfair labor practices
It should be noted that Congress only applied the new Section 8 (c) to unfair labor
practice cases Matters which are not available to prove a violation of law , and therefore
to impose it penalty upon a respondent , may still be pertinent , if extreme enough, in deter-
mining whether an election satisfies the Board 's oiin administrative standards This is
borne out , despite suggestions to the contrary in the dissenting opinion , by the very fact
that the Boaid occasionally ( as in the Continental Oil case , supra ) set aside an election
under the original Wagner Act l,ecause of union misconduct at a time when that misconduct
could not have constituted a violation of law
11 Cf Matter of NAPA New York Warehouse, Inc., 75 N. L. R. B. 1269, Matter of Knox
Metal Products, Inc., 75 N L R B 277.
12 In reaching this conclusion , the Chairman and Mr 'Murdock , unlike Mr. Houston, dlo
not rely upon the two eailier and isolated instances of interrogation which , although per se
violations of Section 8 (1) of the Act , did not have such a close conection with or effect
upon the election to constitute grounds for setting it aside.
128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board,
and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended , we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union affiliation
and activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist Boot and Shoe Workers Union, A. F. L., or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
GENERAL SHOE CORPORATION
Employer.
Dated------------------------- By --------------------- --------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, General Shoe
Corporation, Nashville, Tennessee, and its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating its employees as to their union membership and
other organizational activities;
(b) In any like manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
,its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Boot and Shoe Workers Union,
A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, as
amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act, as amended :
(a) Post at its plant at Pulaski, Tennessee, copies of the notice
GENERAL SHOE CORPORATION 129
attached hereto, marked "Appendix A."" Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the respondent 's representative , be posted
by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty ( 60) consecutive clays thereafter , in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to 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 the Tenth Region, in writing,
within ten ( 10) days from the date of this Order what steps the re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
1T IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint , insofar as it alleges that
the respondent violated Section 8 ( 1) of the Act by conduct other than
interrogation of employees concerning their union affiliation and
activities , be, and it hereby is , dismissed.
IT is FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on July 31, 1946, among
employees of the General Shoe Corporation , Pulaski, Tennessee, be,
and it hereby is, set aside.
MEMBER HOUSTON , concurring :
I wish to join my colleagues , Chairman Herzog and Member Mur-
clock, in Issuing this order. In doing so, however, I think we also
ought not to disregard the actual violations of Section 8 (1) which
we have found. They are, for me , an additional cogent basis for our
conclusion that the requisite freedom of atmosphere did not exist
when this election was held.
MEMBERS REYNOLDS and GRAY, dissenting in part :
We do not concur in the opinion of Chairman Herzog and Member
Murdock that the respondent's preelection activities warranted setting
aside the election of July 31, 1946.14
Although our colleagues rightly find that the oral and printed anti-
union statements attributable to the respondent do not exceed the
bounds of legitimate expressions of opinion privileged under the
constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech, they nevertheless reach
the conclusion, in effect, that the "method" employed by the respondent
in expressing its views went "far beyond the presently accepted custom
of campaigns directed at employees' reasoning faculties." Clearly
if the calling of small groups of employees into the respondent's office
and visiting of individual employee's homes by supervisors is to be
In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals, these
shall be inserted before the words "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words "A DECREE
OF THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING "
14 We agree, however, that the instances of interiogation which we, like our colleagues,
find violative of the Act are too remote to have affected the requisite freedom of the
election See footnote 12, sups a
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
deemed conduct precluding the free expression of choice by employee
in an election, it would be only logical to conclude that the employment
of such "method" by an employer to express its views is sufficiently co-
rercive to be violative of the Act. But no such conclusion is reached by
our colleagues. Indeed, in our opinion,, it is difficult to see how such a
finding could be made in the face of a contrary intent by Congress in
amending the Act. In enacting Section 8 (c),15 Congress evinced a
definite awareness of the Board's decision in the Clarlc Brothers case,
and made it abundantly clear that an employer's privileged efforts to
persuade to action with respect to joining or not joining unions should
not be restricted by the time or place of such efforts, so long as they
were not accompanied by any threat of reprisal or force or promise of
benefit.16
Up to'the, present time, the Board has consistently overruled ob-
jections to elections predicated upon the anti-union utterances of an
employer prior to an election where such expressions of opinion could
not be found violative of the Act.17 While it is true that the Board
ii Section 8 (c) provides "The expression of any views, argument, or opinion, or the
dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or lisual form, shall not consti-
tute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this Act,
if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or pronuse of benefit
16 Senate Report No 105, 80th Congress, 1st Sess , pp 23-24
"Section 8 (c) Another amendment to this section would insure both to employers
and labor organizations full freedom to express their views to employees on labor matters,
refrain from-threats of violence, intimidation of economic reprisal, or offers of benefit.
The Supreme Court in Thomas v Collins (323 U S 516) held, contrary to some earlier
decision of the Labor Board, that the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech on either
side in labor controversies and approved the doctrine of the American Tribe Bending case
(134 P. (2d) 993). The Board has placed a limited construction upon these decisions by
holding such speeches by employers to be coercive if the employer was found guilty of some
other unfair labor practice, even though severable or unrelated (Monumental Life Insur-
ance, 69 N L R B 247) or if the speech was made in the plant on working time (Clark
Brothels, 70 N L R B 802) The committee believes these decisions to be too restrictive
and, in this section, provides that if, under all the circumstances, there is neither an ex-
pressed or implied threat of reprisal, force, or offer of benefit, the Board shall not predicate
any finding of unfair labor practice upon the statement The Boai d, of course, will not
be precluded from considering such statements as evidence" House Conference Report
No 510, 80th Congress, 1st Sess , p 45
"Both the House bill and the Senate Amendment contained provisions designed to protect
the right of both employers and labor organizations to free speech. The conference agree-
ment adopts the prosisions of the House bill in this respect with one change derived from
the Senate amendment It is provided that expressing any views, arguments, or opinion
or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, is not
to constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice if such expression contains no threat
of force or reprisal or promise of benefit The practice which the Board has had in the
past of using speeches and publications of employers concerning labor organizations and
collective bargaining arrangements as evidence, no matter how irrelevant or i nnurteinrl,
that some later act of the employer had an illegal purpose gave rise to the necessity of this
change in the law The purpose is to protect the right of free speech when what the
employer says or writes is not of a threatening nature or does not promise a prohibited
favorable discrimination."
1T See Matter of M T. Stevenson Sons Company, 68 N L R B. 229, wherein the Board
]held .
`But even if we accept the interpretation placed by the Trial Examiner on the respond-
ent's statements, we do not concur in his conclusion that, in the complete absence of any
unfair labor practices, such statements, isolated as they were, tend to coerce employees
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act . . Thus, however viewed, the respondent's
GENERAL SHOE CORPORATION 131
in the P. D. Gwaltney case, relied upon by our colleagues, set aside
an election because of preelection conduct which was not found vio-
lative of the Act, the acts complained of in that case consisted of the
most flagrant threatening and intimidation of employees and union
organizers. Such coercive conduct clearly would have been held vio-
lative of the Act if the Board had found it attributable to the par-
ticular employer involved therein. However, the fact that it was
impossible to place responsibility for such conduct upon the employer,
obviously did not lessen its coercive effect upon the employees who
subsequently cast ballots in the election. Unquestionable justification
existed, therefore, for the action of the Board in setting aside the
election held in that case as not reflecting the free choice of represen-
tatives contemplated by the Act. The instant case, however, presents
no conduct such as the Act prohibits on the part of an employer, but
rather the kind to which it specifically lends protection.,, It is para-
doxical, to say the least, that now, after Congress has so strongly
rejected the Board's prior construction of the Act in its relation to
the Constitutional guarantee of free speech, that this Board should
construe privileged expressions of opinion as creating an atmosphere
which prevents employees from freely expressing their choice of repre-
sentatives in a Board-conducted election. If the expression or dis-
semination of views, arguments, or opinion by an employer is to be
afforded the full freedom which the amended Act envisages, it follows
that the Board cannot justify setting aside elections merely because
the employer avails himself of the protection which the statute specif-
ically provides.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. William M. Pate, for the Board.
Mr O. M Death, of Paducah, Ky., and Mr. Ftank Cappel, of St Louis, Mo , for
the Union.
Messrs. Cecil Sins -and Fred Sintth, of Nashville, Tenn., for the respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 19, 1946, Boot and Shoe Workers Union, A. F. L., herein called the
Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia),
statements are not unlawful coercion under the Act and afford no basis for the Union's
Objection to the Election [Emphasis supplied ] Accordingly , we shall order that the
complaint in its entirety and the Union's Objections to the Election and its Petition for
Investigation and Certification of Representatives be dismissed " See also Ai tansas-
Missouri Power Corporation, 68 N L R B 805 , Matter of Ebco Manufacturing Company,
67 N L R . B 210; Matter of Charles Bacon Company, 55 N L R. B 1180 ; Matter of
Columbia Broadcasting System , Inc., 70 N L R B 1368 at page 1369 ; and Hercules
Motors Corporation, 73 N L R. B. 654
18 While on other rare occasions the Board has not applied the same criteria to preelection
conduct that it normally applies in testing the commission of unfair labor practices, in
such instances the issue of free speech was not involved ( See Matter of Continental Oil
Company, 58 N 1, R B 169 ) In our opinion , those cases are, therefore , clearly dis-
tinguishable from the instant proceeding
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, a petition for
certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act, alleging that a question con-
cerning representation affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act had
arisen with respect to the employees of the Pulaski, Tennessee, plant of the
General Shoe Corporation, herein called the respondent. On July 26, 1946, the
Regional Director notified the parties that he would conduct an election to
determine whether or not the employees of the Pulaski plant desired to be
represented by the Union. The election was held on July 31, 1946, and the Union
was defeated. On August 13, 1946, the Union filed the objections to the conduct
and results of the election and on October 14, 1946, the Union filed a charge against
respondent alleging violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act, and thereafter on Febru-
ary 25, 1946, the Board ordered these cases consolidated.
Pursuant to the charge, the Board, through the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region, issued its complaint dated February 26, 1947, against the respond-
ent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the
Act. The same day the Board issued notice of consolidated hearing. Copies of
the complaint accompanied by notice of hearing of the consolidated cases were
duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practfces the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent had interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act by, since about
June 1, 1946: (1) vilifying, disparaging and expressing disapproval of the
Union, (2) interrogating its employees concerning their union affiliation and
activities, (3) urging, persuading, threatening and warning its employees to
refrain from assisting, becoming members of or remaining members of the
Union and from voting for the Union in an election conducted by the Board,
(4) on or about June 1, 1946, announcing to its employees a plan whereby they
would receive six holidays per year with pay, and (5) in July 11,46, gi anting
increases in pay to its employees.
Thereafter, the respondent filed its answer denying the commission of the
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Pulaski, Tennessee, March 12, and
13, 1947, before T. B. Smoot, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and respondent were represented
by counsel and the Union by two officials. All participated in the hearing and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses and to present testimony bearing upon the issues. At the conclusion of
the hearing an unopposed motion was granted to conform the pleadings to the
proof in formal matters. The parties waived oral argument and were allowed
until March 28, 1947, to file briefs, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law The respondent filed a brief.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
General Shoe Corporation is a Tennessee corporation with its principal office
at Nashville, Tennessee, and with some 16 plants in Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia
and Tennessee. In Pulaski, Tennessee, it has a plant employing from 600 to
650 employees where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution
of shoes and related products. In the course of its business operations at its
GENERAL SHOE CORPORATION 133
Pulaski plant during the year ending February 15, 1946, respondent purchased
raw materials of value in excess of $1,000,000, approximately 90 percent of
which was purchased outside Tennessee. During the same period the respond-
ent sold finished products produced in the Pulaski plant of value in excess of
$1,000,000, approximately 90 percent of which was sold and shipped to customers
outside Tennessee.
Respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
II THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Boot and Shoe Workers Union, A. F. L, is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1. Prefatory statement
Respondent has 16 plants in 4 southern States, Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia,
and Tennessee, employing approximately 10,500 production workers. Its Pulaski,
Tennessee, plant, with which this case is concerned, employs from 600 to 650
persons in a productive capacity. Pulaski has a population of from 5000 to 6000
and is the county seat in an agricultural community. Maxey Jarman is president
of respondent, Henry Boyd is vice president and secretary-treasurer, and Fred
Smith is Director of Employee Relations. These officials are located with the
headquarters of respondent in Nashville, Tennessee.
About May 15, 1946, the Union commenced organizing among respondent's
Pulaski employees. On June 19 it filed a petition with the Board, and on June
26 it requested recognition as bargaining agent for the employees Respondent's
attorney on June 26 replied, saying that inasmuch as the Union had filed a peti-
tion and as they could not get together on a consent election, the matter would
have to proceed formally. On July 2G, the Regional Director of the Board ordered
an election and on July 31 it was held with 589 valid votes cast, 418 being against
the Union, 163 for the Union, and 8 challenged.
Meanwhile in June, the Union's organizing efforts had come to the attention
of the management and Maxey Jarman and Fred Smith began devoting attention
to the matter and within a short time they inaugurated an extensive campaign
to defeat the Union in the election Respondent in its answer and at the hearing
denied committing any unfair labor practices but averred:
It is true that the respondent, in the exercise of the right of freedom of
speech and the right to assembly, guaranteed to it by the Constitution of the
United States, did assemble certain data and facts relating to or reflecting
upon the merits and value of union organization, including Boot and Shoe
Workers Union, A F. of L., and relating to respondent's previous relations
with its employees and to the history of respondent's handling of personnel
pi oblems and improvements voluntarily initiated for the benefit of its em-
ployees, all for the purpose of the dissemination of information and facts
having an important bearing upon the proposed selection of the Union as the
exclusive bargaining agent to represent respondent's employees at Pulaski,
Tennessee, and also reflecting upon the advantages and disadvantages of
unions in general and the Boot and Shoe Workers Union, A F. of L, in
particular, all as will be shown in more particular detail at the hearing.
. . . Respondent avers that in such discussion and in the presentation of all
such information it was exercising its constitutional rights as aforesaid and
as expressly approved by the Supreme Court of the United States. . . .
778886-49-vol 77-10
134 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In view of this defense, the details of respondent's campaign will be thoroughly
discussed and analyzed. The component parts of the campaign are inseparable
and must be considered as part of a connected and logical whole to be understood
in their impact upon the employees' minds. The campaign started and progressed
rather slowly until the last week before the election when it culminated in a series
of leaflets, a full page newspaper advertisement, foremen activity, and a speech
by Maxey Jarman delivered to 25 or so groups of employees.
2 Respondent's campaign up to July 23
On June 10 , June 18 , July 1, July 15, and July 23, respondent issued letters to its
employees signed by Maxey Jarman which were either mailed to or handed to
each employee The first letter endeavored to correct "certain misleading state-
ments-made to our employees " by pointing out that ( 1) no employee would lose
his job by failing to join a union , ( 2) three pay increases since V-J Day demon-
strated that respondent paid the best wages it could , and (3 ) the Advisory Com-
mittee and the Grievance Committee in the plant were for the employees' bene-
fit and "good people" should be put on the committees . Jarman then advised the
employees not to believe rumors , but to ascertain the facts from the supervisors
He also said he was more interested than "any outsider " in his employees. The
June 18 letter points out the advantages of working for respondent by detailing
the paternalistic benefits employees obtained , such as steady work , more pay in-
creases than certain unionized companies , grievance and advisory committees.
sickness benefits, partial help with hospitalization , help on surgical and doctors'
bills, accident insurance , a pension plan, a credit association , and promotion
make-up pay . The July 1 letter introduced the "Employees Handbook" containing
the respondent ' s guaranteed "policies , practices and procedures ." The July 15
letter advised the employees of the coming Board election " to determine whether
you want to change the relationships that have existed in General Shoe Corpora-
tion for so many years " The July 23 letter merely referred again to the "Em-
ployees Handbook" and complimented the employee ' s grievance committee and
announced that all vacancies would be posted thereafter so any employee could
apply for any vacancy These letters were not a change in company policy as
Jai man had been writing letters to employees since February 1941; however, five
letters in 5 weeks were an unprecedented number of letters for that period of
time.
Other activities proceeded apace with the letters . About the middle of June,
probably the 17th or 18th, all supervisors were called together in the plant and
addressed by Henry Boyd , vice president and secretary -treasurer of respondent,
who issued instructions "to give the facts to the employees ." They were each
Instructed to interview the employees working under them, either at the em-
ployees' homes or at work , but preferably at their homes . A chart was given
them which analyzed eight union contracts and compared them with respondent's
policies , the comparison being very favorable to respondent . During the month
of July, the supervisors interviewed a substantial number of the employees at their
homes or at the plant during working hours and went over the comparison chart
with them. On a few occasions the foremen went further than this. Foreman
Bonee said to employees McNeese and Mute that all unions were "fit for was
to cause strikes and trouble making," to "go ahead and vote for it if you wish"
but he thought they would "be sorry afterward " Another time Bonee asked
White " if 1 would like to work beside of a nigger , and I told him I wouldn't,
and he said if we got a union , that is what would happen " Foreman Bertrand
approached employee Russell at work and said that lie had heard that Russell
wanted to getout of the Union and gave him the name of an employee who cou'd
GENERAL SHOE CORPORATION 135
l!elp him get his "card back." A few days later Bertrand asked Russell if he had
made any attempt to get his card back. This creditable testimony was not denied.
3. Respondent's campaign from July 23 through July 31
The election was scheduled for July 31. During the last week respondent ac-
celerated its campaign ; it issued three leaflets, placed a full-page advertisement
un the town's only newspaper, issued a niimeographed two-page letter signed by
Drew Brently, superintendent of the Pulaski plant, issued a printed "personal
.message" signed by Maxey Jarman, and on the day before the election, Jarman
read a prepared speech 25 or so times to small groups of employees who were
brought before him in the plant by foremen during working hours, and the fore-
men's inteiviews at the plant and at the employees' homes continued.
All the leaflets were headed "Let's Have the Truth" ; two were signed by 'Maxey
Jarman and one was unsigned. One of the leaflets was sub-entitled "A letter
back from Garcia" and was an "answer" to a union leaflet. The respondent's
leaflet contained a large cartoon ridiculing the A. F. L. and the printed material
was in refutation of union claims and asserted the advantages of employment
with respondent. It concluded as follows:
WHY DOES THE UNION MENTION THE many lives lost in the last war? It
would seem that ORGANIZED LABOR WOULD Nor WANT TO REMIND YOU of THEIR
RECORD during this last war. You read the papers . . . You heard the
radio . . . You know what the facts were. You know that men were
brought back who- had been wounded to stand in front of unions and BEG
them to do their share of the work.
You KNOW men stayed overseas unnecessarily for many months just be-
cause unions were on strike.
YOU KNOW men were killed because materials and ammunition did not get
to them because of strikes.
Is this the "Right direction" that the Union is asking you to vote for?
You ALSO KNOW that not one pair of shoes failed to get to our men over
there due to General Shoe employees striking.
WE ARE THANKFUL that our conscience is clear.
From the facts, it will appear that many of the union's ideas of employee
benefits have come from General Shoe rather than from their own
leaders . . . We still intend to stay out in front.
The second respondent's leaflet was sub-entitled "Is a union bad for the Com-
pany." It also had a large cartoon disparaging the A F. L. The printed matter
answered the question in the title in the affirmative by arguing the following
five points: (1) Unions mean strikes and employees and the Company lose
money; (2) Unions make workers dissatisfied and unhappy workers do not make
good shoemakers; (3) Unions penalize the better employees by not recognizing
merit: (4) Unions cost money contributed by workers to promote jobs and poten-
tial power for union leaders, and (5) Unions set employees and management at
war with each other and are thus bad for both The leaflet concluded:
Let me add this further word The unions cannot give you anything. They
can only ask. Jobs and wage increases are the results of efficiency and
better handling of the business. These are things you and management must
do but a union cannot do.
The third leaflet ridiculed a union leaflet entitled "go over the top" and pointed
out that the plant referred to in the union leaflet had been closed by a strike.
It quoted newspaper articles about the wages the workers lost in the strike
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and compared, favorably to respondent, conditions at the two Companies This
leaflet concluded :
Here are eleven things Union City and Humboldt shoe workers got when
they "went over the top." There are many more but this is proof enough.
Why doesn't the union organizers "tell us these things"?
Maybe it's because they want you to "think" . . Yes, think that their
lies are the truth.
If the union would tell you these things it would save the management
the embarrassment of having to tell the good things that have come to all
of us because of the many years we have spent together in friendly co-
operation and harmony.
Where is this "top" they are inviting you to go over? Haven't we passed
it a long time ago? Doesn't this prove General Shoe is pointing the way
and the union leaders are following along shouting "me too" for their
people.
One employee put it good. In good old GI language it sounds more like
"going over the hill" than like "going over the top "
The mimeographed letter signed by Drew Brently, superintendent, was
entitled "Reply to Unions handbill of Thursday Morning, July 25, 1946." The
Union's handbill referred to was in criticism of the respondent for the activity of
the foremen mentioned above. Respondent's "reply" asserted the Union "decided
to make a southern drive and have been working overtime in an effort to create
dissension and doubt in the minds of our employees" It accused the Union of
attempting to poison the minds of the workers and asks "Are you going to be a
creature of their way of thinking, or are you going to show the Southern Spirit
of Independence and the will to think for yourselves?" It states that the Wagner
Act and Government give the worker a right to reject a union "Free from the
intimidation or coercion of union organizers." The letter concluded
These outsiders from other sections of the country must think we Southerners
are pretty dumb to ask us to start thinking. We have been thinking all the
time By cooperation and thinking together we have come out with more
benefits and better policies than the unions I do not have to ask you to
think as I know you are.
The full-page advertisement in the local newspaper inserted by respondent was
headed "What can a union get for General Shoe Employees that these employees
haven't already gotten or could get for themselves?" It then set out a comparison
of working conditions in respondent's plant and the eight unionized plants. This
was formulated by analyzing the eight union contracts upon which respondent
had prepared the chart for each supervisor's use
The "personal message" of Maxey Jarman was a three-page pamphlet with one
page containing a sample ballot plus a sentence in large type "A VOTE OF NO IS
A VOTE OF CONFIDENCE IN TILE COMPANY " The printed material advised
the facts of the election and then stated:
The ballot is marked Yes and No. A vote for Yes is a vote for the AFL to
do all your talking in "all matters pertaining to wages, hours and working
conditions." A vote of No is a vote of confidence in your present manage-
ment and a vote to continue the philosophy, policies and relationships under
which we have been working together for so many years
It then pointed out "three extremely important things to remember " They
were (1) Be sure to vote (2) Having signed a union card does not compel an
employee to vote for the Union (3) No employees will be discriminated against
GENERAL SHOE CORPORATION 137
because of his vote. Then the "personal message" began. It asserted (1) No one
in the South requested the Union's southern drive; (2) Harmonious relationships
between management and employees existed and "our Pulaski workers produc-
tion stands out like a beacon light against the dark background of endless strikes
and work stoppages that have occurred in the union plants ;" (3) "It boils down to
a question of leadership;" (4) Employees were requested to ask themselves five
questions as follows.
Ask yourself if your status under company leadership is something you
can improve by paying outsiders to act as your leaders.
Ask yourself what kind of leadership you want. Is it unselfish leadership,
interested in your personal welfare, or is it self-seeking?
Ask yourself why it is these outsiders have become "interested in your wel-
fare."
Ask yourself why it is these union organizers are willing to resort to "pres-
sure methods"-lies and name calling to accomplish their ends.
Ask yourself why it is that no other General Shoe plant has felt the need
of a union to deal with the management even though the unions have tried
to organize every plant we have at one time or another. Many of them time
and again. Each time the employees have answered with an emphatic
NO.
Respondent's campaign was culminated by Maxey Jarman on the day before
the election. He had the foremen take employees away from their work in
groups of 20 to 25 and brought to his office where he read to each group a
six-page speech.
His speech (rendered 25 or so times) opened as follows :
I asked your superintendent, Drew Brently, to arrange for you to come in
here in small groups so that I could meet together with you for a few minutes.
You will receive make up pay to cover the time you are here.
He argued (in his speech) that union organizers are only "fighting" respondent
in order to obtain 10 or 12 thousand dollars a year in dues, "plus unknown as-
sessments" and that they wanted political power. He then said:
. . if you visit shoe factories in St. Louis and other centers today you
will find a good percentage of negro employees working side by side with
white people The A. F. of L. and Mr William Green, the President of the
A. F of L. have publicly taken the stand that white people and negroes should
be on an equal basis. These ideas are advanced by some people, but you and
I know that they are ideas which are not practical in the South and which
we do not want to be brought here as so called improved ways in which to
operate our plants. Organizers from St. Louis haven't said much to you
about that matter. Certainly they are not being fair and open with you
unless they tell you everything they advocate.
He then gave three reasons why unions were "not to the best interest of em-
ployees nor of the company." They were [in brief] (1) Unions cause trouble
inside the plant, ( 2) Unions cause strikes, (3) The Union does not provide jobs.
Then Jarman discusses rumors. He asserted only 8 percent of the working
people belong to the A. F. L. He said,
incidentally, if a union were such a good thing, why would the government
have refused to permit the employees at Oak Ridge to belong to any union
during the atom bomb production? It wasn't because they distrusted em-
ployees or they wouldn't have kept them. Who was it they didn't trust?
It must have been the leaders of the labor union, Or possibly the govern-
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment knew that unions meant trouble and they couldn't afford to have it
while they were producing the atom bomb. Is there anything more important
to you than your own job? If the government refused to let them organize
Oak Ridge during the atom bomb production, what makes any one think
the union is a good thing.
He then said that no one would ever have to be in the Union to work and that
no one would be discriminated against for the way he voted. Further, he
stated it was not true that the Union was a non-striking union nor that it would
be controlled by local employees. He adds:
Incidentally, this man Burke of St. Louis, is not really named Burke, but
Berg, a Jewish man from Brooklyn, New York. The Union formed here in
Pulaski would be under his jurisdiction.
He then referred to the benefits of working for respondent and urged the em-
ployees to vote their convictions, saying that they will be bound by the results
whether they vote or not, that having previously signed a union card (lid not
mean an employee had to vote for the Union and that there would be no dis-
crumnation on the part of respondent against any person. He concluded:
If you vote yes for the union, this in effect means that the management
has lost your confidence. If you vote no union, this is a confirmation of your
belief in our sincerity, our willingness and ability to do a good job for you.
If you do not want a union you must vote no on the ballot. It is a mistake
to think that if you do not vote at all it will be known that you are against
the union. You must actually vote no so that your vote will be counted
We know that we can count on your fair-mindedness, and we have every
confidence in the results. I am looking forward to working with you for
the many more years ahead.
This ended the i espondent's campaign The next day the Union was defeated
overwhelmingly in the election.
4. Conclusions
The respondent rests its defense completely on its constitutional right of free
speech The Supreme Court in N L. R B v. Virginia Electric Power Co, 314
U S. 469, emphasized that while an employer is entitled to express his N iews
on organizational nutters, he is not entitled to coerce his employees in their
free choice. "And in determining whether a course of conduct amounts to re-
straint or coercion, pressure exerted vocally by the employer may no more be
disregarded than pressure exerted in other ways. For `slight suggestions as to
the employer's choice between unions may have telling effect among men who
know the consequences of evincing that employer's strong displeasure' Interna-
tional Association of Machinists v. N. L R B , 311 U S. 72, 78." The question then
before the undersigned is whether respondent was merely exercising its right
of free speech or whether it was engaging in a course of conduct which restrained
and coerced its employees or, stated another way, whether respondent in its
utterances on organizational matters excluded the coercive influences which flow
from its supreme economic power.
This exclusion is not necessarily shown because respondent interspersed in its
leaflets, letters and speeches, statements that it would not discriminate against its
employees, because "imponderable subtleties," no less than outright utilization
of economic power in connection with organizational activity may belie such an
avowal. In fact, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has suggested
that such subtleties might lie in an "organized campaign or a protracted dis-
tribution of propaganda." Peter J. Schweitzer, Inc. v. N. L R B, 144 F. (2d) 520.
GENERAL SHOE CORPORATION 139
In the instant case certainly an organized campaign was instituted by re-
spondent. Its foremen were instructed to interview their employees, preferably
at the employees' homes, but if not there, at work This was done. The foremen
during the 5 weeks preceding the election and apparently right up to the day
of the election took employees off their machines during working hours, took
them into an office, paid them for this time and gave them a talk on organizational
matters. Foremen also went to the employees' homes after working hours and
talked organizational matters to them The foreman in each case contrasted un-
favorably to unions the differences in woiking conditions at respondent and at
certain unionized plants. As the Board has recently said "the rights guaranteed to
employees by the Act include the full freedom to receive aid, advice and informa-
tion from others, concerning those rights and their employment Such freedom is
meaningless, however, unless the employees ale also free to determine whether
or not to receive such aid, advice and information. To force employees to re-
ceive such aid, advice and information impairs that freedom ; it is calculated
to and does, interfere with the selection of a representative of the employees'
choice. And this is so wholly apart from the fact that the speech itself may
be privileged under the Constitution " Matter of Clark Bi os. Inc., 70 N. L. R B.
802 An employee ordered to leave his machine by his foreman and proceed into
an office to listen to his foreman talk on organizational matters is "forced" to
listen to the utterance. And lie is also "forced" when the foreman comes to his
home. Any employee could with impunity slam the door of his home in the
face of a union organizer. But few employees would have the temerity to slam
the door in the face of his foreman who comes to discuss organizational matters
with hinm.
The undersigned finds that respondent exercised its superior economic power
in coercing its employees to listen to speeches by foremen relating to their or-
ganizational activities at the employees' homes and in the plant and thereby
violated Section 8 (1) of the Act.
On three occasions, foremen went beyond discussing organizational matters
whei e, as related above, one foreman said unions were only fit to cause strikes
and trouble making and although he told the employee he could "go ahead and
vote for [the Union] if you wish" he said the employee would "be sorry after-
ward " The same foreman on another occasion appealed to racial prejudice in
disparaging the Union, while another foreman expressed his interest in helping
an employee "get out of the Union" and advised him how to do so. Such state-
ments by foremen when considered in connection with the entire campaign
against the Union, were coercive and in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act
and it is so found.
On the day before the election, Maxey Jarman, president of respondent,
ordered all employees to appear before hun in groups of 20 to 25 and there he
read them his six-page speech. This conduct of the respondent in compelling
its employees to listen to a speech on self-organization under the circumstances
hereinabove related, independently constitutes interference, restraint and co-
ercion within the meaning of the Act, and it is so found. Matter of Clank Bros.
Inc, supra. But further than the compulsory audience, the speech of Jarman
was in itself coercive and thus not protected by the First Amendment. In that
speech, Jarman stated that the A. F. L. had publicly "taken the stand that white
people and Negroes should be on an equal basis," and then said that this
is "not practical in the South and which [ideas] we do not want to be
brought here as so called improved ways with which to operate our plant."
After this appeal to racial prejudice, Jarman proceeded to "incidentally" ap-
peal to another prejudice, that of anti-semitism, and further stated that the
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Government refused to allow workers at the Oak Ridge atom bomb plant to join
unions, saying, 'Who was it they didn't trust' It must have been the leaders
of the labor union. Or possibly the government knew that unions meant trouble
and they couldn't afford to have it while they were producing the atom bomb.
Is there anything more important to you than your own job? If the government
refused to let them organize during the atone bomb production, what makes
anyone think a union is a good thing?" (Emphasis added.) These portions of
the speech taken with the speech as a whole which disparages and criticizes
unions and which puts the entire issue as a choice for or against respondent
renders "suspect in the eyes of the employees the sincerity of the respondent's
assertions that it would refrain from discrimination " Matter of Clark Bros.
Inc., supra. The undersigned finds that the speech in and of itself is in viola-
tion of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
Lastly, as to the entire course of respondent's conduct, the undersigned is
convinced that it was an "organized campaign" and a "protracted distribution
of propaganda." As was so well stated by Justice Learned Hand in N. L. R. B.
v. Federbush Co., 121 F. (2d) 954: "Words are not pebbles in alien juxtaposition;
they have only a communal existence, and not only does the meaning of each
interpenetrate the other, but all in their aggregate take their purport from the
setting in which they are used, in which the relation between the speaker and
the hearer is perhaps the most important part. What to an outsider will be no
more than the vigorous presentation of a conviction, to an employee may be the
manifestation of a determination which it is not safe to thwart." In the instant
case viewed in the setting in which they were made, respondent's utterances
achieved a coercive effect. Respondent repeatedly disparaged the character
of the Union leaders and their motives, indicated that a union victory would
disrupt the harmonious relationship existing between management and labor,
said that the advent of the Union would cause strikes and subsequent loss of
earnings to employees, claimed that the Union could not obtain any benefits
that the employees did not have, saying that the Union could only "ask";
and stated that the Union would only force employees to pay dues and "un-
known assessments" which it claimed was all, plus political power, the Union
really wanted. Respondent by repeatedly referring to strikes during the war
and by their statements about such strikes made apparent that it considered
joining the Union to be unpatriotic. Such a campaign occurring in a "county
seat in an agricultural community" which had a population of only 5,000 or 6,000
and in which respondent controlled 600 to 650 jobs could not but exploit the de-
pendence of the employees upon respondent for employment. These oral and
written manifestations of hostility to the Union's selection as bargaining repre-
sentative tended to coerce employees to act in self-organizational matters in ac-
cordance with respondent's desires and the undersigned finds this conduct to
be in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act. Respondent repeatedly declared
in its utterances that they were but in answer to some union publication. An
examination of the bulletins which respondent claimed to be answering, and its
own, reveal that respondent "went far beyond what might have been thought
necessary to reply to possible misstatements of fact" by the Union. Matter of
Clark Bros. Inc., supra.
At the hearing respondent introduced elaborate exhibits to evidence that its
utterances were "statements of fact." Actually an analysis of these exhibits
reveals them to be briefs and arguments based in the main on newspaper articles
and other types of hearsay. There is no showing as to when these materials to
bolster the utterances were obtained, whether before the utterances were issued
or merely before the hearing for use at the hearing, although the latter was prob-
GENERAL SHOE CORPORATION 141
ably the case as they were obtained by Director of Employee Relations Smith
at the direction of counsel for the Company. But no matter when they were
accumulated, an analysis of these exhibits, instead of showing that respondent's
utterances were based on the truth, shows only the great length to which Smith
went to obtain some scintilla of exemplification for the statements made by re-
spondent. There is no need here to analyze each exhibit; one is typical. This
exhibit purports to show the "facts" behind the respondent's "Let's Have The
Truth" leaflet entitled "Is a union bad for the Company?" Four points are argued
in the leaflet and are summarized in one sentence in the exhibit with the "proof"
of the statement below each sentence as follows :
2 History of labor unions, strikes, work stoppages, constant bickering,
bullying by strong arm men.
Ans.: See typical statements of union papers and excerpts taken from
union material in Pulaski.
3 Unions ordinarily do not like to recognize merit in the individual employ.
Ans : Unions are usually inclined to go strictly on seniority and set a work
pace where all earn practically the same amount.
4. Unions cost money.
Ans : Estimated income to unions from members
5. To sum it up, a union tends to set employees and management at war
with each other.
Ans.: For example, a recent article in the union publication MESA states
"The signing of a union contract is not'an armistice in the industrial warfare,
but rather a truce before another battle."
Under 2 above, the "typical statements" and "excerpts" mentioned are four clip-
pings from union newspapers, none relating to the Union involved in this case,
and as a matter of fact none relating to strikes, work stoppages, or bullying by
strong arm men. One clipping could be interpreted to refer to bickering. None
of the clippings, incidentally, refer to respondent. Under 3 above, the "fact"
is apparently supported by Smith's belief alone. Under 4 above, that unions cost
money, the argument made in respondent's leaflet was that organizers of unions
were merely interested in creating jobs and political power for themselves. The
"answer" above hardly supports this argument. Under 5 above-the "answer"
refers to "the union publication MESA" as if that were a publication issued by
the Union involved in this case, when as a matter of fact it is a publication of
the Mechanics Educational Society of America, an independent union with head-
quarters in Detroit, Michigan. It is not shown whether the quotation is a state-
ment of that union's policy or merely a portion of a news story and in any case
does not prove the point Smith is attempting to make.
The exhibit just analyzed and the other exhibits of respondent along the same
line, instead of exonerating respondent for its utterances, actually disclose the
type of hearsay and misrepresentation on which respondent based its campaign.
5. Holidays and pay increases
The complaint alleged that respondent violated Section 8 (1) of the Act by,
on or about June 1, 1946, announcing to its employees a plan whereby they would
receive six holidays per year with pay, and in July 1946, by granting increases
in pay to its employees. As to the pay increases, it was shown that there was
no general increase in pay granted in July 1946, but that adjustments in pay for
various operations, which amounted to wage increases for certain employees,
were put into effect at that time and for many months prior thereto. It was
also shown that adjustments of similar nature were made in all of respondent's
142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
16 plants beginning in November 1945, and continuing after the date of the elec-
tion. The undisputed testimony of the Director of Employee Relations of respond-
ent was that these adjustments which were granted at the Pulaski plant in
July, were also granted to all other plants operated by respondent where similar
operations were conducted. The undersigned finds that the adjustments were
put into effect as a normal routine and not as an inducement to discourage union
activities, and that this action did not constitute an unfair labor practice.
As to the pay for holidays, the evidence is that the study of the problem of
granting pay for holidays was begun on September 14, 1945, at which time office
employees were receiving holiday pay but plant employees were not. An exhibit
of respondent indicated that the respondent had investigated between September
1945 and June 6, 1946, and found that 114 shoe manufacturers were giving pay
for holidays in August 1945, and that subsequently 14 additional manufacturers
adopted the plan and it was determined by the respondent's executive committee
on June 6, 1946, as an over-all policy applicable to all of the respondent's plants,
that all employees would be paid for six holidays per year beginning with July 4,
1946 The total approximate cost of this holiday pay policy to the respondent
was $300,000 per year and less than 10 percent of this amount was applicable to
the Pulaski plant It is the finding of the undersigned that neither the announce-
ment of the holiday pay, nor putting it into effect was in order to influence em-
ployees at the Pulaski plant in the selection of the Union as their bargaining agent
and therefore is not in violation of the Act.
IV THE AFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
v. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce, it will be recommended that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which the
undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act
The unlawful activities on the part of the respondent, above referred to, took
place at a time when employees were being asked to indicate their free choice
of a bargaining representative in an uncoerced election and illegally interfered
with this free choice. It will therefore be recommended that the results of the
election'held on-July 31, 1946, be vacated and set aside.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS of LAW
1 Boot and Shoe Workers Union, A. F. L, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2 By interfering with, restraining , - and coercing its•employees ' in`the ' exercise-
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
GENERAL SHOE CORPORATION ' 143
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent, General Shoe Corporation, Nashville,
Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Engaging, in conjunction with any election contest held to designate bar-
gaining representatives of its employees, in any campaign or other conduct for
the purpose of interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of their right to select representatives of their own choosing ;
(b) Compelling its employees during working time or after working time at
their homes, to listen to speeches relating to self-organization and the selection
of a bargaining representative ;
(c) Interfering with its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization and to join or assist the Boot and Shoe Workers Union, A F. L,
or any other labor organization.
2 Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Mail to each of its employees at the Pulaski plant a copy of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix A";
(b) Post at its plant at Pulaski, Tennessee, copies of the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix A" Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's
representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
ind maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices
aye not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing, within ten
(10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
slate of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies the
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda-
tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent
to take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203 39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or
counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) clays from the date of service of
the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.38 of said
Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25,
D C , an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such
exceptions to the Intermediate- Report or to any other part of the record or
proceeding (including rulings upon'all motions or objections) as he relies upon,
together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof; and
any party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period, file an original
and four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately
upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party or counsel
for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other
parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. Proof of service on the
other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as re-
quired by Section 203.65. As further provided in said Section 203 39, should any
party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of
the order transferring the case to the Board.
Dated April 15, 1947.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
T. B. SMOOT,
Trial Examiner.
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT engage, in conjunction with any election contest held to
designate bargaining representatives for our employees, in any campaign
or other conduct for the purpose of interfering with, restraining, or coercing
our employees in the exercise of their right to select bargaining representa-
tives of their own choosing.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist BOOT AND SHOE WORKERS UNION, A. F. L, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. All our em-
ployees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other
labor organization.
GENERAL SHOE CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated--------------------------------- By--------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.