Lake Catherine Footwear, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 27, 1961

133 N.L.R.B. 443 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

LAKE CATHERINE FOOTWEAR, INC. 443
hearing, the Employer testified that if has no permanent employees
and no policy of recalling employees who have been laid off, but it
also stated that its plant workers come from surrounding farms in the
area and are not migratory laborers. The seasonal nature of their
employment does not deprive the canning plant employees of their
right to the processes of collective bargaining. We find that they
constitute an appropriate unit for collective bargaining purposes.'
Accordingly, we deny the motion to dismiss the petition.
We and that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(b) of the Act:
All employees at the Employer's Northampton County, Virginia,
cannery, who are engaged in canning, processing, and labeling opera-
tions, including loaders, tractor operators, and fork-lift operators, but
excluding guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
9 California Spray - Chemical Corporation , 91 NLRB 897.
Lake Catherine Footwear , Inc. and United Shoe Workers of
America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 26-RC-1519. Sep-
tember 27, 1961
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued on January
31, 1961,' an election by secret ballot was conducted on March 2, 1961,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director, for the
Twenty-sixth Region in the unit found appropriate by the Board.
Upon the conclusion of the balloting the parties were furnished with
a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 215. eligible
voters, 208 cast ballots, of which 99 were for, and 108 against, the
Petitioner, and 1 ballot was challenged. The number of challenged
ballots was insufficient to affect the election results. Thereafter, the
Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of
the election.
After an investigation, the Regional Director on April 7, 1961,
issued his report on objections, in which he recommended that ob-
jections Nos. 6 and 7 be overruled, that objections Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and
5 be sustained, and that the election be set aside and a second election
directed. The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional
Director's report.
1 Not published in NLRB volumes.
133 NLRB No. 74.
444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has considered the Regional Director's report and the
exceptions thereto, and, upon the entire record in this case,' hereby
adopts the Regional Director's findings and recommendations 3 As to
objections Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, on the basis of the uncontradicted find-
ings of fact set forth in the Regional Director's report attached
hereto, we are in accord with the Regional Director that the Em-
ployer's preelection statements reasonably conveyed to its employees
the threat of plant closure and removal in the event the Petitioner
won the election and that such statements, together with the activity
of third parties in the community described in the report, created an
atmosphere of fear of reprisal rendering the exercise of free choice
impossible in the election.
Accordingly, we shall set aside the election and direct that a second
election be held.
[The Board set aside the election held March 2, 1961.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
MEmBER RoDOERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election.
2 As the Employer ' s exceptions and brief , the Regional Director 's report, and the record
as a whole adequately present the facts, the issues involved , and the positions of the
parties, we hereby deny the Employer 's request for a hearing or for oral argument.
8 As no exceptions were filed with respect to the Regional Director ' s recommendations
that objections Nos. 6 and 7 be overruled , such recommendations are adopted pro forma.
In view of our decision herein, we do not rule on the Employer 's exceptions pertaining
to objection No. 4.
REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board on January
31, 1961, an election by secret ballot was conducted among the 'production and
maintenance employees , including floor girls and odd lot girls, at the Employer's
plant in Hot Springs , Arkansas . The results of the election as disclosed by the tally
of ballots served upon the parties on March 2, 1961 , were as follows:
Approximate number of eligible voters ------------------------------- 215
Void ballots------------------------------------------------------ 1
Votes cast for United Shoe Workers of America , AFL-CIO (Petitioner)__ 99
Votes cast against participating labor organization-------------------- 108
Valid votes counted---------------------------------------------- 207
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------------- 1
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots------ -------------------- 208
Challenges are not sufficient in number to affect the results of the election.
A majority of the valid votes counted plus challenged ballots has not been
cast for Petitioner.
On March 3, 1961 , the Petitioner timely filed objections to the conduct of the
election and to conduct affecting results of the election, a copy of which was duly
served upon the Employer . The Petitioner's objections were as follows:
1. The entire contents of a letter dated February 27, 1961, which was re-
ceived by the employees by mail on or about February 28 or March 1, 1961,
exceed the bounds of permissible free speech . This letter contains promises of
benefits and threatening statements . This letter was signed by Plant Manager
Don Munro.
2. A leaflet entitled "An Urgent And Vital Message To The Employees Of
Lake Catherine Footwear , Inc.," and purportedly prepared and distributed by
the Garland County Industrial Development Corporation, contains threatening
LAKE CATHERINE FOOTWEAR, INC. 445
statements, promises of benefit, and otherwise creates a general atmosphere of
fear and confusion, precluding the holding of an election which would re-
flect the free choice of the voters. These leaflets were given to employees both
inside the plant and as they left and entered the plant. These leaflets were
distributed with the knowledge and consent oaf the Empolyer.
3. On the afternoon of March 1, 1961, a large advertisement appeared in
the Hot Springs daily evening newspaper, and the Hot Springs daily morning
paper on March 2, 1961. This advertisement was entitled "An Urgent And
Vital Message To The Employees Of Lake Catherine Footwear, Inc.," and was
purportedly prepared and inserted by the Garland County Industrial Develop-
ment Corporation. These advertisements contain threatening statements, prom-
ises of benefit, and otherwise create a general atmosphere of fear and confusion,
precluding the holding of an election which would reflect the free choice of
the voters. These two advertisements were prepared and inserted in these
newspapers with the knowledge and consent of the Employer.
4. Management and supervisory personnel made statements to a substantial
number of employees that the plant would close if the Union won the election.
5. Plant Manager Don Munro made a speech to the night shift employees
on February 28, 1961, and a speech to the day shift employees on March 1, 1961.
These speeches contained threatening, coercive, and intimidating statements,
and otherwise exceeded the bounds of permissible free speech. These speeches
referred to articles contained in the Employer's letter of February 27, 1961.
6. On March 1 and 2, 1961, management and supervisory representatives
of the Employer gave each employee an orange badge with black lettering which
stated: "Be Sure Vote NO." These badges were given to the employees as
they entered the plant, and also at their machines during work hours. As these
badges were given to the employees by the management and supervisory repre-
sentatives, intimidating statements were made to them which gave them no
choice, and caused them to have to wear the badges whether'they wanted to
or not.
7. On March 1, 1961, a rank-an-file employee spent a substantial part of
her work shift going through the plant during work hours passing out the "Be
Sure Vote NO" badges, in violation of usual Company policy in regard to
solicitation. The Employer did not allow pro-Union adherents the privilege
of soliciting for the Union during work hours.
By the above acts, and other acts, the Employer and the local businessmen
interfered with, restrained, and coerced eligible voters in the exercise of their
rights, and have made a free and representative election impossible. Accord-
ingly, the Petitioner moves that the election held on March 2, 1961, in the above-
styled case, be set aside and a new election held.
Pursuant to Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, the
Regional Director has cause an investigation of the objections to be made, during
which all parties were afforded an opportunity to submit evidence bearing on the
issues, and, having duly considered the the results thereof, reports as follows:
The Objections
Objections Nos. 1 and 5: A letter dated February 27, 1961, addressed "Dear
Fellow Employee," and signed by Plant Manager Don Munro, was mailed to each
employee in the voting unit to their home address on February 27, 1961. A copy of
this letter is attached to this report and made a part thereof as Exhibit A.
On February 28, 1961, at approximately 6:45 p.m., Munro made a speech to the
night-shift employees, and on March 1, 1961, at approximately 1 p.m., made this
same speech to the day-shift employees. Munro made these speeches from a pre-
pared copy, and did not deviate from this copy in any manner. A copy of this
speech is attached to this report and made a part' thereof as Exhibit B. In each
instance the speech lasted approximately 8 to 10 minutes. The election was held on
March 2, 1961, between the hours of 2 to 5 p.m.
On February 24, 1961, Munro made a speech to the day shift, and later in the
day made the same speech to the night shift. This speech was made from a prepared
copy, and Munro did not deviate from this copy in any manner.' This speech was
prefaced by the following remark:
1 Although this speech was not set forth in the Petitioner's objections, it is well
established that the Regional Director is not limited by the objections and may consider
evidence which comes to his attention during the investigation. International Shoe
Company, 123 NLRB 682, and Carter-Lee Lumber Company, 119 NLRB 1374
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
No doubt many of you have questions in mind about the forthcoming election,
and I thought it would be helpful to all of you if I took a few minutes to try
to answer them.
This remark was followed by the first 15 questions and answers contained in Mun-
ro's letter of February 27, 1961.
Particular reference is made to question No. 13 and the answer, and question No.
17 and the answer, in the letter dated February 27; paragraph 2 of Munro's speech
to the employees of February 28 and March 1; and question No. 13 and the answer
of Munro's speech to the employees on February 24, which are set forth below:
13. If the union is voted in would Lake Catherine Footwear close down?
Answer: In my considered opinion this factory would be forced to close if
we are faced with either a strike or with union demands.
[This question and answer were also contained in Munro's speech of Febru-
ary 24.]
17. Have I ever, at the representational [sic] hearing or elsewhere, stated
or suggested that Lake Catherine Footwear would not close if it was organized?
Answer: No, never. I could not make this statement. The transcript of the
hearing clearly shows that I did not, and is a matter of record, of which we have
a copy. My feeling in this matter is covered in my answer to question number
13.
You already know that I think union demands would force us out of business,
and that is the reason I am expressing our opinion so firmly.
The dividing line between an employer's exercise of its freedom of speech right
and those words and conduct intended to frustrate the will of the employees should
be determined by viewing the entirety of an employer's statements and actions?
On September 27, 1960, Munro made a speech to the night shift. This same
speech was repeated to the day shift on September 28, 1960. During this speech
Munro stated: "You all know that the expenses of starting up this factory we're so
proud of have been tremendous. Bigger than tremendous, but I can't think of a
word. In fact, in this month of August alone this factory lost over $20,000. I hope
you will keep this confidential, but I did want you to know how serious the situation
is." Later in the same speech Munro stated: "We must increase our production and
we must bring our costs down to that of our competition if we are to remain in
business here."
In a letter to the employees dated October 3, 1960, Munro stated: "We started
packing shoes in February. From February through May the shoes cost us $1.60
per pair for labor, which means that we were spending $1.00 an hour per employee
for labor, and getting work which would be worth approximately 330 an hour in a
normal factory in our grade." In this same letter Munro stated: "Even though we
have opened this factory and planned it based on an eventual production of eight
thousand pair a day; of course we did not expect to reach this production in six
months, or even the first year. We did count on reaching twenty-five hundred pair
a day by October 1st however, and we are not too far short of that goal. It will be
years before we can make up the losses we are suffering .. "
On February 13, 1961, Munro made a speech to the night shift, and repeated this
same speech to the day-shift employees on February 14, 1961. During this speech
Munro stated: "We are still a new plant and we still have a big job to do to get
our feet on the ground and win a place among our competitors. A great deal of
money is being risked to establish this plant in Hot Springs because we believe that
you people will make good employees." Munro further stated: "... but our future
in Hot Springs depends upon successful operation." Later in the same speech Munro
stated: "I believe you are entitled to know that the Company is still operating at a
loss, much more than was anticipated. We have got to get into the black quickly
if we are going to stay in business. I don't want to alarm you. I just want you to
know the facts...." and "The main union promise is always a pay increase, but I
am sure you know that a company cannot be forced to pay more than it can afford
to. If we cannot produce good shoes at competitive costs, our customers will go
elsewhere. If this happens, people will be laid off. The plant would have to be
closed down." In this same speech Munro stated: "We have a team here that we
think can do the job.. ." and ". . . I just want you . to know that we have
the confidence that working together we will make Lake Catherine successful."
In the letter of February 27, 1961, question No. 12 and the answer state as
follows:
2 The Lux Clock Manufacturing Company, Inc., 113 NLRB 1194.
LAKE CATHERINE FOOTWEAR , INC . 447
12. Are the losses we have had true losses or bookkeeping losses?-
Answer: Our statements are prepared by a Certified Public Accountant, and
we would not if we could use any tricks to make the figures look different than
they actually are. I have always been honest with you. Be honest with your-
self-just look around and see how much makeup is being paid.
In addition to the Employer's actions and statements, the investigation disclosed
other circumstances which were considered by the Regional Director.
During union meetings various employees asked about the benefits that the em-
ployees would get if the Union won the election. Rank-and-file employees stated
that they were told that they would probably get paid vacations, paid holidays,
seniority rights, changes in piece-rate quotas, and a wage increase, Union Repre-
sentative Herman Champine stated that the employees were told of benefits being
received by employees in organized plants. Champine stated that the employees
were told they could not expect to get all of these benefits, but they could reasonably
expect to get some of them. The statements of the rank-and-file employees varied
in regard to the amount of the benefits discussed at the union meetings. In general,
they discussed getting seniority rights, changes in piece-rate quotas, 3 to 6 paid
holidays , 1-week paid vacation after a year of service , and a wage increase.
Munro and other supervisors were voluntarily advised by rank-and-file employees
about the benefits discussed at the union meetings . Some of these employees under-
stood that these benefits would be requested, and so advised Munro and other
supervisors. During the 2- to 3-week period immediately preceding the election,
there was widespread discussion among the employees during lunch periods and
break periods in regard to benefits that the employees would get if the Union won
the election. The benefits discussed varied, but generally speaking were approxi-
mately the same as discussed at the union meetings . A number of rank-and-file
employees advised Munro and other supervisors about these discussions and rumors.
On March 1, 1961, from 3 until approximately 4:30 p.m., the Petitioner dis-
tributed a handbill to the night-shift employees as they came to work and to the
day-shift employees as they left work. Among other things, this handbill stated:
"Will you ever have seniority, job security, paid vacations, paid holidays, sickness
and hospitalization insurance plan, a decent first aid room, a real grievance pro-
ceedure [sic], shop stewards and the many other benefits that the union plants have
without a union? You can bet you will never have any part of these union benefits
without representation ." [Emphasis supplied.]
The investigation did not disclose any statements that the Union would insist on
such benefits being granted and would strike to secure them.
During one of the union meetings several employees asked if the Employer would
close the plant if the Union won the election. A union representative told the
employees present that in an off-the-record conversation at the representation hear-
ing Munro stated that the Company would not close the plant if the Union won the
election.
The Board has held that a prophecy that unionization might ultimately lead to a
loss of employment is not coercive where there is no threat that the employer will use
its economic power to make its prophecy come true.3 However, the statements of
Munro in his speeches of February 28 and March 1, 1961, and in his letter of Febru-
are 27, 1961, with respect to questions Nos. 13 and 17, are not considered as per-
missible prophecies. The natural byproduct of a union's winning an election is the
submission of requests or "demands" in bargaining. Thus the bare statement that
the plant ". . . would be forced to close if faced with either a strike or with union
demands," when made in response to the query "If the union is voted in would Lake
Catherine Footwear close down?" clearly carries the implication of automatic closing
in the event of a union victory. To further buttress the effect of such an answer,
the reply to question No. 17 denies that the Employer made the statement it would
not close in the event of organization. Thus the instant case is distinguishable from
the Chicopee case cited supra, in which the Employer stated it could not afford to
pay the wage scale the same union had secured at a sister plant. Although Munro
pointed out the financial problems of the Employer, he did so in September and
October, 1960, 4 or 5 months before the election. He again touched upon the
Employer's operation at a loss, and his belief the Union's main promise is always a
pay increase," approximately 2 weeks before the election. Yet his comments con-
cerning the closing of the plant, made in the week before the election, as found above,
did not premise the closing upon the Union's insistence on economic increases but
8 Chicopee Manufacturing Corporation, 107 NLRB 106.
448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
merely upon being faced with demands or, reduced to its essence , the necessity of
bargaining with the Union.
In view of the foregoing, it is found these comments of Munro constituted a threat
of plant closure should the Union be successful, and merit is found to these ob-
jections . Accordingly, it is recommended objections Nos. 1 and 5 be sustained.
Objections Nos. 2 and 3: There is a sidewalk used by most of the employees that
connects the parking lot and the entrance to the plant. On March 1, 1961, from
approximately 3 to 4:15 p.m., two men stood near the end of this sidewalk where it
joins the parking lot and gave the night-shift employees a leaflet as they arrived at
work, and the day-shift employees a leaflet as they left work. This leaflet was en-
titled "An Urgent And Vital Message To The Employees Of Lake Catherine Foot-
wear," in large bold-face print, and was signed by the Garland County Industrial
Development Corporation. A copy of this leaflet is attached to this report and made
a part thereof as Exhibit C. These two men did not make any comment to the
employees as they gave them the leaflet.
The investigatio, disclosed that at approximately 4:15 p.m., these two men
appeared at the back door of the plant nearest the point where they had been
handing out the leaflet and asked if they could go through the plant. A floor girl
allowed-them to enter the plant and escorted them through the cutting and stitching
departments. They also toured the lasting department, unescorted. Prior to
escorting these men through the cutting and stitching departments, the floor girl
observed these individuals had the leaflets in their hands, told them that they could
not hand out any of the leaflets in the plant, and, accordingly, they did not carry
the leaflets with them as they toured the plant; nor did they make any comments to
employees in regard to the Union or the forthcoming election . During the time that
these two men were in the cutting and stitching departments, they observed the em-
ployees performing their work and were given explanations of the work by the
floor girl. While in the lasting department, these men observed the work of the
-employees and asked several employees questions about their work. They then
left the plant. These men were recognized by a number of the employees as the
persons who had handed them the leaflets.
The Board in its Decision and Direction of Election found that the floor girls
were not supervisors. The floor girl did not consult with any supervisors prior to
allowing these two men to enter the plant. The supervisors were in a meeting at the
time the men were allowed to enter and tour the plant, and the investigation did not
disclose that any of the supervisors had knowledge of their presence in the plant.
The investigation disclosed that these two men were hired by the Garland County
Industrial Development Corporation, hereinafter called the GCIDC. None of the
plant personnel interviewed, including the supervisors and the floor girl, knew these
two men or had ever seen them before. The identity of these two men was ob-
tained from the employment security office, and the investigation did not disclose
any evidence to indicate that these two men were members or officials of the Em-
ployer, the GCIDC, or the Hot Springs Chamber of Commerce. The evidence
failed to disclose that these men asked or were given permission by the Employer
to distribute the leaflets on the Employer's premises.
The investigation established that the Employer has a very lenient visitation
policy. For example, relatives of employees and other interested persons in the
area have been allowed to visit and tour the plant. Most of the time, visitors request
permission to tour the plant, but there have been occasions when permission was
not requested. The Employer does not have a no-solicitation rule, either expressed
or established by practice. On the contrary, the Employer has an established
practice and policy of permitting soliciation in the plant. None of the union repre-
sentatives or prounion adherents had been restricted in any manner from soliciting
or campaigning for the Union. None of the union representatives have asked for
permission to have access to the plant or property, nor have they been in any way
denied access to the plant or property. The parking lot and lawn area around the
sidewalk leading to the employees' entrance is accessible to the public, and the
public is permitted in these areas.
On the afternoon of the same day, namely, March 1, 1961, a half-page advertise-
ment appeared in The New Era, which is the evening daily paper of Hot Springs.
Again, in the morning of March 2 the same advertisement appeared in the Sentinel-
Record, the morning daily paper of Hot Springs. These advertisements were en-
titled "An Urgent And Vital Message To The Employees Of Lake Catherine Foot-
wear, Inc.," in large bold-face print, and were signed by the Garland County In-
dustrial Development Corporation in large bold-face print. These advertisements
were the same as the leaflet distributed at the plant by the GCIDC, hereinbefore
LAKE CATHERINE FOOTWEAR, INC. 449
described, with a few minor word and clause changes. By the use of the large
bold-face print, much greater emphasis was placed on the last three statements in
the newspaper advertisements than was placed on them by the leaflet. These
statements were:
DON'T TAKE A CHANCE.
VOTE TO PRESERVE YOUR JOB
VOTE "NO" ON YOUR SECRET BALLOT THURSDAY.
The general circulation area of these two newspapers is Garland County, in-
cluding Hot Springs, and parts of Clark, Hot Spring, and Montgomery Counties.
The population of Garland County is 46.700 and the population of the city of Hot
Springs, is 33,000. The total circulation of both newspapers is approximately 20,000.
The total number of subscribers of both newspapers is approximately 17,000.
The board of directors of the GCIDC collectively drafted the text of the leaflet
and the newspaper advertisements. Mort S. Cox, secretary-manager of the Hot
Springs Chamber of Commerce and the assistant secretary of the GCIDC, placed
the newspaper advertisements and had the leaflet printed on behalf of the GCIDC.
The GCIDC paid for the advertisements and the printing of the leaflet at regular
rates. The Employer did not have a representative present at the time the text of
the newspaper advertisements and the leaflet was drafted, nor did the Employer
request the GCIDC to place the advertisements or prepare and distribute the leaflet.
The Employer was not advised or consulted in regard to the placing of the advertise-
ments and the preparation and distribution of the leaflet, did not have any knowledge
of the advertisements and the preparation and distribution of the leaflet prior to
their appearance, and did not in any way contribute toward the payment for the
newspaper advertisements and leaflet.
The Employer is not a member or stockholder in the GCIDC, nor a member of
the Hot Springs Chamber of Commerce.
The purpose of the GCIDC is to assist in the industrial development of Hot
Springs and Garland County by providing funds which can be used to buy or lease
land and erect buildings or other improvements, which in turn can be rented, leased,
or sold to a manufacturer or industrialist. It is a nonprofit organization, and funds
are raised through sale of memberships. The only relationship between the Em-
ployer and the GCIDC is a lease-purchase agreement concerning the property,
building, and water supply used by the Employer. The GCIDC does not own any
stock in Lake Catherine Footwear, Inc.
Mr. Cox testified that the purpose and reason of the GCIDC in placing the ad-
vertisements in the newspapers and having the leaflet distributed was as follows:
The GCIDC and the community had an unfortunate experience about two
years ago when another new manufacturing plant was closed after it was
prematurely organized by a labor organization. This plant had been open only
a few months and was undergoing the problem of training workers, a time
when most businesses in such a phase of operation do not get production in
keeping with wages paid and expect to suffer initial losses, but at the same time,
in order to complete this phase of operation expeditiously, need to have freedom
to manage without outside interference as undue demands of a labor organiza-
tion. As a result of this closing, the GCIDC has suffered a loss of revenue on
its investment in the building and property. The building still stands empty, a
white elephant, and a black mark against the community and its program of
industrial development to provide job opportunities for our citizens. Perhaps
more important, the community has lost forever over 100 jobs, along with
the money the company would spend for goods and services. The company
is now in the import business, supplying its customers with an expanded line
of merchandise from the Far East but involving no local labor in production.
In order to protect its investment and potentially some 400 jobs, the GCIDC
did not want to have a similar occurrence at Lake Catherine Footwear, Inc.
It was the opinion of the GCIDC that the union organization effort at Lake
Catherine Footwear was premature and could possibly result in the plant
closing.
Based on the uncontroverted facts set forth above, the Regional Director finds
that the actions of the GCIDC were spontaneous , motivated solely by self-interest
and what it deemed best for Hot Springs and Garland County.
It is found that the newspaper advertisements and the leaflet were calculated to
instill fear in the employees that the plant would close if the Union won the elec-
624067-62-vol 133-30
450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion , and that the advertisements and the leaflet threatened the employees with loss
of their jobs and its benefits if the Petitioner won the election .4
The Employer did not disavow the threats of the plant closing which were expressed
in the advertisement and leaflets of the GCIDC. It is as difficult to believe the Em-
ployer had no knowledge of the advertisements and the passing out of the leaflets
at its plant for 11/4 hours, as it is to accept as mere coincidence the entry of the two
leaflet passers into the plant at the precise time all supervisors were absent from
the working area by virtue of their attendance at a management meeting. The
presence of the two men in the plant could reasonably be expected to convey to the
employees the impression the Employer ratified the statements contained in the
leaflet, and that the leaflets were an affirmation of the Employer's already expressed
intention of closing should the Union be successful at the polls.
In light of the above , it is found that a pervasive atmosphere of fear was engendered
by these advertisements and leaflets so as to render a free and untrammeled elec-
tion impossible. The Board has held that whether the Employer was responsible
for the generation of the fear which interfered with the free choice of ballot is im-
material.5 Accordingly, it is found that these objections have merit, and it is recom-
mended that Petitioner's objections Nos. 2 and 3 be sustained.
Objection No. 4: Sometime after February 13, two employees were engaged in a
conversation with the supervisor of the lasting department, Joe Ziter, about a
house in which he might be interested. The first employees testified that Ziter
said not to bother looking for a house for him until after the election, and fur-
ther stated, "If the Union comes in, there will not be any need of my buying a house
as I will be going back North." According to the second employee, Ziter told the
first employee to "quit looking for him a house" until after the election , because he
did not want to buy a house and have it on his hands and have to sell it, and that if
the plant went union and had to close he would be moving. A third employee over-
heard the conversation and testified that Ziter told the first employee that he was
afraid that the plant would go union and close down , and he would have to move
again . Ziter denied making these statements or similar statements . Ziter's denials
are not credited.
The first employee who was engaged in the conversation with Ziter as related
above states that sometime after February 20, the night-shift supervisor of the stitch-
ing department , Bill Robinson , asked, "Did you go to the Union meeting today?"
to which the employee replied, "No, why?" According to this employee, Robinson
said that he wanted to know who had gone to the meeting. This employee averred
that during the same conversation Robinson stated , "I have my bags packed and am
ready to leave," and when asked, "Why?" Robinson stated, "Well, you cannot
operate a factory under union demands if you are opearting in the red."
The other employee in the conversation with Ziter of February 13, as related
above, stated that sometime during the week of February 20 Robinson said that
he was packing his clothes, and when asked, "Where are you going, Bill?" Robin-
son replied , "I will be going back home . If this place goes union the plant will
have to close."
Ordinarily, by themselves, such remarks would be too isolated to warrant setting
aside the election inasmuch as only these three employees out of 208 eligible voters
were involved. However, in view of the findings and recommendations with respect
to objections Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, it is found these remarks contributed to the aura
of fear and that this objection has merit. Accordingly, it is recommended objec-
tion No. 4 be sustained.
Objection No. 6: On March 1, 1961, between the hours of approximately 7 to
7:30 a.m., Plant Manager Munro stood near the plant entrance used by most of the
.employees and handed the day-shift employees an orange-colored badge approxi-
mately 21/4" x 31/2" in size, on which was printed "Be Sure Vote NO" in large black
print, with the word NO in letters approximately 3/4" in height. The badge was con-
tained in a stiff plastic cover to which was affixed a pin so that it could be attached
to the clothing of the employees. On the same day between the hours of 3 to 3:30
p.m., Munro handed out these badges in the lunchroom to night-shift employees as
they arrived at work. On the morning of March 2 between the hours of 7 and
7:30 p.m., Munro again passed out these badges to the day-shift employees as they
entered the plant to report for work. During the break periods of both shifts on
4 James Lees and Sons, Company, 130 NLRB 290; Monarch Rubber Co , Inc, 121 NLRB
S81; The Falmouth Company, 114 NLRB 896.
8 James Lees and Sons Company, supra; Monarch Rubber Co , Inc, supra, The Falmouth
Company, supra
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 451
March 1 and the morning of March 2 a dozen of these badges were placed on a table
in the lunchroom.
According to some of the employees interviewed , Munro made these statements
to them as he handed them the badges : "Here is something I would like for you
to wear"; "I want to be sure that everyone gets one. I don 't want to miss anybody";
"Here, I would like for you to take this" ; "Here, girls , I almost overlooked you
two"; "Here is something for you girls to wear tonight" ; "I want you to have one of
these"; and "I would appreciate your vote ." According to other employees inter-
viewed , Munro merely said "Good morning" or some similar remarks, or nothing
at all.
Munro stated that he made the statement to some of the employees as he handed
them the badges: "Here is a badge I would like for you to have," but states that
in many instances he did not say anything , particularly when they came up in groups.
He denied making any of the statements attributed to him as set forth above.
The investigation clearly disclosed that Munro was the only person who handed
out these badges.
It is found that Munro 's statements to the employees as he handed them a badge
did not contain any element of coercion or intimidation . Accordingly , this objec-
tion is found to be without merit, and it is recommended that objection No. 6 be
overruled.
Objection No. 7: No evidence in support of this objection was submitted by the
Petitioner , nor was any disclosed during the course of the investigation . Therefore,
it is found that this objection is without merit , and it is recommended that objection
No. 7 be overruled.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Having recommended that Petitioner's objections Nos. 6 and 7 be overruled and
that Petitioner 's objections Nos. 1 , 2, 3, 4, and 5 be sustained , it is further found
that objections Nos. 1 through 5 raise substantial and material issues affecting the
results of the election.
Accordingly , it is further recommended that the election be set aside and that
a new election be directed.
[Exhibits referred to in the Regional Director 's report are not attached as they
.are adequately presented in the report.]
General Motors Corporation and International Union , United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America , UAW-AFL-CIO. Case No. 7-CA-2560. Septem-
ber 29, 1961
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On February 20, 1961 , the National Labor Relations Board (Mem-
bers Rodgers and Fanning dissenting ) issued a Decision and Order
in the above -entitled case ( 130 NLRB 481), dismissing the entire
complaint , as amended , which alleged , in substance, that the Re-
spondent , herein called GM, refused to bargain with International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO , herein called UAW, con-
cerning terms of an agreement supplementary to an existing agree-
ment between the parties . Thereafter, the General Counsel and the
UAW, the Charging Party, filed motions for reconsideration and
briefs in support . Briefs in support of the motions were also filed by
the Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO ; the AFL-
133 NLRB No. 21.