Mohawk Bedding Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 20, 1973

204 N.L.R.B. 277 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

MOHAWK BEDDING COMPANY
Mohawk Bedding Company and Textile Workers
Union of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 3-
RC-5414
June 20, 1973
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING,
JENKINS, AND PENELLO
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon con-
sent election approved on April 27, 1972, an election
by secret ballot was conducted on May 17, 1972, un-
der the direction and supervision of the Acting Re-
gional Director for Region 3 among the employees in
the stipulated unit. Upon the conclusion of the elec-
tion the parties were served with a copy of the tally of
ballots, which showed that of approximately 25 eligi-
ble voters, 25 ballots were cast, of which 9 were for
the Petitioner and 16 were against. Thereafter, the
Petitioner timely filed objections to the election.
Pursuant to Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Acting Region-
al Director conducted an investigation and on July 10,
1972, issued his "Report on Objections" in which he
recommended that the objections be overruled and
that certification of results be issued. Thereafter, the
Petitioner timely filed exceptions to the Regional
Director's report and a brief in support thereof. The
Board then considered the Petitioner's objections and
exceptions, the Acting Regional Director's report,
and on December 6, 1972, the Board, while reserving
a determination as to Objections 2, 3, and 4, issued an
order directing hearing with respect to three alleged
statements made by the Employer's manufacturing
manager and shipping room foreman to several em-
ployees which had been disclosed by the regional
investigation of the Petitioner's objections.
Subsequently, on February 20, 1973, the designated
Hearing Officer issued his report wherein he found
that while the alleged statements had been made, they
were nevertheless, in his opinion, an insufficient basis
for setting aside the election. Thereafter, the Peti-
tioner filed exceptions and a brief in support thereof.
Upon the basis of the entire record in the case, the
Board makes the following findings of fact:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and
277
(7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the fol-
lowing employees constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act.
All production and maintenance employees in-
cluding shipping employed by the Employer at
its 811 Broad Street, Utica, New York facility;
excluding all office clerical employees, truck
driving employees, professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Acting Regional
Director's Report on Objections, the Report of Hear-
ing Officer on Objections to Election, and the
Petitioner's exceptions and briefs and finds merit in
the Petitioner's exceptions.
On April 20, 1972,' shortly after the Union filed its
petition, the Employer began an antiunion campaign
by posting a bulletin promising the employees the
"TRUE FACTS." Thereafter, the Employer issued a
series of letters and speeches which, taken cumulative-
ly, conveyed a threat of adverse economic conse-
quences as the inevitable result of the employees'
selection of the Union as their bargaining representa-
tive. In the first letter dated May 2, the Employer
stated:
You will recall that before we took over this
plant, it was operated by Foster Brothers. Foster
Brothers was organized by the Steel Workers
.... FOSTER BROTHERS WENT OUT OF
BUSINESS AND ALL THE EMPLOYEES
LOST THEIR JOBS.
On or about May 5, the Employer issued a second
letter wherein it took up the subject of job security,
which was to become the theme of its entire cam-
paign. The letter in pertinent part stated:
The unemployment rate in the Utica-Rome Area
in February, 1972 was 10.3%-13,600 PEOPLE
OUT OF WORK This unemployment rate was
one of the highest in the United States. It includ-
ed many employees who used to work in union-
ized shops and had to pay substantial union dues
to hold their jobs. WHAT SECURITY DID
THESE PEOPLE GET FROM THEIR
UNIONS? . . . The recent bitter strike at the
Divine Company right here in town is just one
example of union IN-security.
Between 1955 and 1971, TWUA lost about 86,
000 members or 42% of its total membership.
Much of this loss was due to the closing or mov-
ing of companies organized by TWUA.
Again picking up the theme of job security, a May 9
letter stated:
1 All dates are in 1972, unless otherwise indicated.
204 NLRB No. I
278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Look at the THOUSANDS of dues-paying work-
ers who lost their jobs in recent years when their
unionized employers closed down or left this
area . Many of you used to work for such compa-
nies . You know from experience that the former
employees of these companies gained absolutely
nothing from all the money they were required to
pay over to the unions.
In its final letter , dated May 12, the Employer stated:
We hope you have not been misled by the Union.
Your jobs , earnings , and benefits depend solely
on your Company's ability to remain in business
in this area . Judging by the experience of those
other companies , [referring to five other local
companies in the same industry that had closed
down or moved after being unionized] there is
considerable reason to wonder whether or not
unionization of Mohawk Bedding would hurt our
ability to survive.
Would it be sensible for you in these days of mass
unemployment and inflation to take the gamble
and pay union dues to boot : We think not.
In addition to the foregoing , a representative of the
Employer in a captive audience speech on May 16, the
day before the election, informed the employees that
in order to protect their jobs they must not vote for
the Union . He reiterated the implied theme of the
prior publications that the plant would close if the
Union were voted in.
In the aforementioned speech, having spoken of the
past history of local plants that moved from the area
after being organized by this Union , the speaker again
reminded the employees of the high local unemploy-
ment situation . Then, couched in the language of a
disclaimer , he underscored the threat by saying:
Well, I don't want to threaten you, but its very
important for you to understand something. If
the Union wins the election tomorrow, and if in
bargaining with us they really try to make good
on the fantastic figures mentioned in the leaflets,
then we could all be in for serious trouble. I
repeat, this is not a threat , its just a realistic opin-
ion. A company can remain in business , especial-
ly this business, only if it is competitive. We can
remain competitive only if we can keep our sell-
ing prices and our local costs fairly well in line.
If our labor costs ever get out of hand , whether
on account of having a Union or for any other
reason , and if our ability to run this plant was
crippled by the kind of unreasonable work re-
strictions and rules you find in some Union con-
tracts , then , under those circumstances, there
would be a question as to whether this company
could remain in business here . I repeat, I am not
threatening to close this plant if the Union wins
the election and for that reason . I am saying that,
if the Union in bargaining really tries to deliver
on its fantastic promises , it could well create a
serious problem for the future of this operation.
Many unionized plants in this area have had
trouble under the Union and I cannot assure that
Mohawk Bedding would be an exception.
The Supreme Court has set out the standard by
which we are to determine whether or not an
employer's prediction of the possible effects of union-
ization is permissible under the Act.
[The employer] may . . . make a prediction as to
the precise effect he believes unionization will
have on his company . In such a case , however,
the prediction must be carefully phrased on the
basis of objective fact to convey an employer's
belief as to demonstrably probable consequences
beyond his control or to convey a management
decision already arrived at to close the plant in
case of unionization . . . . If there is any implica-
tion that an employer may or may not take action
solely on his own initiative for reasons unrelated
to economic necessities and known only to him,
the statement is no longer a reasonable pre-
diction based on available facts but a threat of
retaliation based on misrepresentation and coer-
cion , and as such without the protection of the
First Amendment. We therefore agree with the
court below that "[c]onveyance of the employer's
belief, even though sincere , that unionization will
or may result in the closing of the plant is not a
statement of fact unless , which is most improba-
ble, the eventuality of closing is capable of
proof." [N. L. R. B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395
U.S. 575, 618 (1968).]
Through the Employer's repeated reference to the
Union causing other plants to close and the high un-
employment situation locally , the employees could
reasonably infer that their employment would be
jeopardized if they supported the Union and that the
Employer was willing to use its economic power to
make the threat an actuality. General Electric Wiring
Devices, Inc., 182 NLRB 876. The implication that
such actions would be in retaliation for supporting the
Union is evident from the way it chose to convey its
message . Thus, the Employer spoke of other local
companies that moved or went out of business after
being unionized and clearly implied that it would do
the same, but failed to base its implication on "de-
monstrably probable consequences beyond [the
Employer's] control ." Nowhere in its letters or speech
were there presented any cost comparisons or finan-
cial data of any kind which might possibly provide a
factual basis for proving that the plant would be
forced to close if the Union represented the employ-
MOHAWK BEDDING COMPANY 279
ees.
Additionally we note that approximately 6 weeks
before the election, Shipping Room Foreman Lazarek
and employee Mathews had engaged in a conversa-
tion in the plant where Lazarek stated that ". . . if the
Union had come in, Mr. Ginsburg had planned to
close the corporation in Utica." The record further
shows that sometime prior to the election, in answer
to inquiries from two employees whether the plant
could be turned into a warehouse if the Union got in,
Manufacturing Manager Bernson replied in the affir-
mative?
We find that the Employer's campaign speeches
and literature as well as the two statements related
above,' taken as a whole, created an atmosphere of
apprehension in the minds of the voters and destroyed
the laboratory conditions necessary for the conduct of
a free and fair election.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the election conducted on
May 17, 1972, among certain employees of Mohawk
Bedding Company, Utica, New York, be, and it here-
by is, set aside.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN MILLER , dissenting:
I would overrule all of the objections and certify the
results of the election for the reasons given by the
Acting Regional Director in his original report and
the subsequent report of the Hearing Officer dated
February 20, 1973, both of which are attached as
Appendixes A and B.
2 Contrary to the Hearing Officer , we find that these statements , taken in
the context of the entire campaign , do add to the overall picture presented
to the employees by the Employer which amounted to a threat of closing the
plant if the Union won the election , and therefore do not find them "isolated"
as first characterized by the Acting Regional Director
3 Member Penello would not find that the speeches and literature alone
constitute grounds for setting the election aside However, he joins in this
decision because he finds that when considered with the statements made by
Bernson and Lazarek a different conclusion is warranted . For those later
statements clarify and amplify the previous somewhat ambiguous observa-
tions. It has long been recognized that statements and words which , standing
alone , might be noncoercive, take on the character and quality of coercive
comments which are part of the context in which the former occur. See Oak
Manufacturing Company, 141 NLRB 1323, 1325
APPENDIX A
ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR'S
REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent
Election approved by the Acting Regional Director on April
27, 1972,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted in Case
No. 3-RC-5414 on May 17, among the employees of the
Employer in the following-described appropriate collective
bargaining unit:
All production and maintenance employees including
shipping employees employed by the Employer at its
811 Broad Street , Utica, New York facility; excluding
all office clerical employees, truck driving employees,
professional employees, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
A Tally of Ballots served upon the parties on May 17,
disclosed the following results:
Approximate number of eligible voters ...............25
Void ballots ............................................................... 0
Votes cast for Petitioner ......................................... 9
Votes cast against participating labor organization 16
Valid votes counted ................................................ 25
Challenged ballots .................................................... 0
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots....... 25
Challenges are not sufficient in number to affect the
results of the election.
A majority of the valid votes counted plus chal-
lenged ballots has not been cast for Petitioner.
On May 22 the Petitioner filed timely objections to the
conduct affecting the results of the election.2
Pursuant to Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules and Reg-
ulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director has
caused a full and complete investigation to be made of the
objections. All evidence adduced during the investigation,
including sworn statements of witnesses, documentary evi-
dence and the parties' statements of position have been fully
and carefully considered by the Acting Regional Director
who reports thereon and recommends as follows:
OBJECTIONS 2, 3 and 4
As these objections pertain to the series of the Employer's
election campaign literature and a captive audience speech
which are inter-related, they will be considered together.
The investigation revealed that the Employer's election
campaign consisted of distributing a series of six letters 3 to
the employees and a speech on March 16 I
In substance, the Petitioner alleges in these objections
that the Employer's series of letters and captive audience
speech of May 16, considered in their total context, created
an atmosphere which made a free election impossible and
implied the possibility that if the Union won the election the
Employer would close the plant.
The Supreme Court in Gissel Packing Company 5 stated:
1 All dates herein are 1972 unless otherwise specified.
2 Although the Objections were not addressed to Regional Director in
accordance with Section 102 69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations but to
the Assistant to the Regional Director , they will be considered A copy of the
Ob3jecnons is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
Letters are attached hereto as Exhibit 2(a) through 2(f) respectively. The
first letter dated April 20, and addressed to all employees was posted on the
bulletin board . Thereafter the 4 letters dated May 2, 5, 9 and 12 with cartoons
attached , addressed to "Dear fellow Employees," were mailed to the employ-
ees. The last letter (undated), in the nature of a leaflet with a pictorial
message, was delivered to various employee work stations in the plant on
May 17 [Nontextual material deleted from reported decision.)
4 A prepared text of the Employer's speech of May 16, headed "Mohawk
Bedding Corp.-Points for Interviews," attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
5 395 U.S. 575, 618.
280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
That an employer is free to communicate his general views
about unionism or his specific views about a particular
union, so long as the communications do not contain a
"threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefits." He may
also make predictions as to the precise effects he believes
unionization will have on his company . These must be care-
fully phrased on the basis of objective facts to convey an
employer's belief as to demonstrable probable conse-
quences beyond his control. Thus, an employer is free only
to tell "what he reasonably believes will be the likely eco-
nomic consequences of unionization that are outside his
control", and cannot threaten economic reprisal to be taken
solely on his own volition. N.L.R.B. v. River Togs, Inc., 382
F.2d 198, 202 (C.A. 2d Cir. 1967).
The undersigned concludes, after careful examination,
that the literature in question is devoid of any expressed
threat of reprisals, nor does it imply force or loss of jobs or
promises of benefits or a refusal to bargain. The Employer's
literature merely attempts to call to the attention of the
employees, the Employer's economic position in a highly
competitive industry and that job security is dependent
upon the Employer's ability to keep delivery promises to its
customers and remain competitive . The literature also de-
scribes the collective bargaining process and mentions that
strikes may occur .6
The Petitioner also objects to the contents of the May 12
letter with its attached cartoon, Exhibit 2(e). The
Employer's letter of May 12 was in response to a letter the
Petitioner sent to the employees on or about April 28 .7
The Board ruled in Hollywood Ceramics Company, Inc.,
140 NLRB 221, that an election will be set aside "where
there has been a misrepresentation or other similar cam-
paign trickery, which involved a substantial departure from
the truth, at a time which prevents the other party or parties
from making an effective reply, so that the misrepresenta-
tion, whether deliberate or not, may reasonably be expected
to have a significant impact on the election." The under-
signed concludes, after careful examination , that the
Employer's letter of May 12 with attached cartoon does not
contain material within the Board 's definition of a "misre-
presentation" which would render the election invalid. In
addition, the Petitioner had sufficient time to make an effec-
tive reply.
The Petitioner specifically objects to the fact that the
Employer distributed a leaflet in the plant the date of the
election . The Board's ruling in Peerless Plywood, 107 NLRB
427, provides that employers and unions alike are prohib-
ited from making election speeches on company time to
massed assemblies of employees within 24 hours before the
scheduled time for conducting an election, but does not
interfere with the rights of unions and employers to circu-
late campaign literature on or off the premises at any time
prior to an election, nor does it prohibit the use of any other
legitimate campaign propaganda or media . I, therefore,
6 See Shure -Brothers Incorporated, 147 NLRB 43, TRW Electtontcs Compo-
nents Division, TRW Inc, 169 NLRB 21, 22; Trent Tube, a subsidiary of
Crucible Steel Co., 147 NLRB 538, 539, T. M Ducke Nut Co, Inc., 174
NLRB 457, 458 and Wagner Industrial Products Company, Inc, 170 NLRB
1413.
r Letter dated August 27, 1968 attached hereto as Exhibit 4
conclude that the Employer's distribution of a leaflet urging
the employees to vote "No" is permissible campaign propa-
ganda and does not constitute objectionable conduct.
The Petitioner specifically objects to the fact that the
Employer's President made statements to the employees at
the meeting held on May 16, in keeping with its printed
literature, threatening the closing of the Employer's plant.
The investigation revealed that the Employer's President
made two speeches in the plant on May 16, both sessions
ending more than 24 hours prior to the election.
The speeches were read from a prepared text, Exhibit 3,
and were for the most part a reiteration of the material
covered in the Employer's campaign literature.
The undersigned concludes that the speech in question, as
was the literature, is devoid of any expressed or implied
threat of plant closing, nor does it imply force or loss of jobs
or promises of benefits or a refusal to bargain. It should be
noted that Petitioner responded to the Employer's speech of
May 16 by passing out a leaflet, Exhibit 5, among the em-
ployees at the plant on May 17, prior to the election.8 Since
the Employer's speech occurred more than 24 hours prior
to the scheduled time for the election, it does not fall within
the Board's prohibition enunciated in Peerless Plywood, su-
pra.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the Employer's litera-
ture did not contain any coercive statements and reviewing
the literature in its total context together with the
Employer's speech of May 16, it is concluded that it did not
create an atmosphere of fear or danger to preclude the
employees' free choice as to whether or not they desired
representation by the Petitioner. I find the literature and the
speech to be within the limits of permissible campaign pro-
paganda that the employees could readily evaluate and,
therefore, recommend that Objections 2, 3, and 4 be over-
ruled.
Although not specifically referred to in the Objections,
during the course of the investigation, evidence was ad-
duced that the Employer's manufacturing foreman made a
racial slur regarding the Petitioner to a group of approxi-
mately five employees congregated in his office waiting to
punch out. These employees state that the manufacturing
foreman referred to the Petitioner as being a nonwhite
man's union but are Puerto Ricans from New York City out
for the employees' money. The Employer's manufacturing
foreman denies making such a statement.
On the basis of the foregoing, the undersigned concludes,
assuming the racial slur did occur, that it was too isolated
to have a substantial effect on the results of the election
since there is no evidence to indicate that the Employer
made appeals to racial prejudice a theme in the electoral
campaign. It is, therefore, recommended that the above
Objection be overruled.
Although not specifically referred to in the Objections,
during the course of the investigation evidence was adduced
that the Employer's shipping room foreman told an employ-
ee that in his opinion the Employer would close the plant
down if the Petitioner prevailed in the election. The employ-
ee stated that during a casual conversation with the shipping
room foreman the latter told him that in his opinion the
8 Petitioner 's leaflet dated May 17, attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
MOHAWK BEDDING COMPANY
Employer 's President would close the plant down if a union
were brought in. The employee said this would be foolish
since the Employer would then be out of money . The ship-
ping room foreman replied that the Employer 's President
told this to the employees before and that he is a man of his
word . The Employer 's shipping room foreman denies mak-
ing such a statement.
The undersigned concludes , assuming the above to have
occurred , that it was too isolated to have a substantial effect
on the results of the election and, therefore , recommends
that it be overruled.
Also, during the course of the investigation , evidence was
adduced that the Employer 's manufacturing foreman, in
response to a question from one of two employees on May
16, as to whether the Employer's president could turn the
plant into a warehouse if the union prevailed , said yes be-
cause of the amount of stock on hand and an existing plant
lease . The employees said the manufacturing foreman men-
tioned that Simmons Mattresses turned a plant into a ware-
house in the Syracuse area. The Employer 's manufacturing
foreman admits answering a question , but denies that the
question ever mentioned the union and that his answer was
prefixed by , "It could be possible."
On the basis of the foregoing , the undersigned concludes
that the evidence is too inconclusive to find an expressed or
implied threat to close the plant if the Petitioner prevailed
in the election . Assuming that the manufacturing foreman
made such a statement as related by the employees, it was
too isolated to have a substantial effect on the results of the
election . It is, therefore , recommended that the above acts
do not constitute objectionable conduct.
During the course of the investigation, the Petitioner al-
leged that the Employer interrogated employees regarding
a discussion with a union representative on or about April
5 and interrogated an employee on or about May 18, in an
effort to ascertain whether the Petitioner was starting legal
proceedings against the Employer . Since both alleged acts
of interrogation occurred outside the critical period, they
will not be considered as objectionable conduct .9
Accordingly, I recommend that the above objection be
overruled.
Also during the course of the investigation , the Petitioner
alleged that the Employer threatened , harassed and kept
under surveillance before and after the election a leading
female worker for the Petitioner , with the aim and objective
of making her quit employment.
The Petitioner failed to produce evidence of specific inci-
dents of threats , harassment or surveillance by the Employ-
er toward this employee . Further, the investigation failed to
reveal that she was treated differently than any employee on
the Petitioner 's shop committee or any other employee. The
alleged incident that the Employer 's harassment caused this
employee to be hospitalized occurred outside the critical
period and will not be considered as objectionable conduct.
Accordingly , I recommend that the above objection be
overruled.
OBJECTIONS I AND 5
As these objections are summaries of the above objec-
tions which I have recommended be overruled , I recom-
mend that Objections I and 5 be also overruled.
SUMMARY
281
Having found that the Objections of Petitioner do not
raise substantial or material issues with respect to the elec-
tion, the undersigned recommends that the objections be
overruled and that Certification of Results be issued.
9 Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 138 NLRB 453
EXHIBIT 2(a)
APRIL 20, 1972
BULLETIN TO ALL EMPLOYEES
FROM: HOWARD T. TURNER
On Wednesday, May 17, 1972, the National Labor
Relations Board will hold an election on whether the
employees of Mohawk Bedding want to have a Union.
The election will be held in the rear showroom between
4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. All production, shipping, and
maintenance employees will be eligible to vote during
working hours.
The vote will be by SECRET BALLOT and will be
counted only by the National Labor Relations Board.
Even if you have signed a card for the Union, it does
not mean you have to vote for the Union on May 17,
1972. The only thing that will count is how you mark
your secret ballot. Nobody will know how you will vote
except yourself.
If the majority of the employees vote `NO'; then the
Union CANNOT come in . The Company will keep you
fully informed of the TRUE FACTS and these will
convince you to vote "NO".
EXHIBIT 2(b)
May 12, 1972
Dear Fellow Employee:
A business can only succeed where there is coopera-
tion, good will, and respect existing between the Man-
agement and its employees. You will recall that before
we took over this plant, it was operated by Foster
Brothers. Foster Brothers was organized by the Steel
Workers. Some of our current employees were employ-
ees of Foster Brothers. In our opinion, as a result of the
unionization of Foster Brothers, there was no coopera-
tion, no good will, and no respect existing between the
Management and its employees. FOSTER BROTH-
282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ERS WENT OUT OF BUSINESS AND ALL THE
EMPLOYEES LOST THEIR JOBS.
Your Company has had a hard struggle to meet compe-
tition . The mattress business is very competitive. We
believe that we have been successful at least in operat-
ing the business and providing jobs. We believe that
what is good for our employees is good for our Man-
agement . We believe further that if anything is to be
good for Management, it must be good for our employ-
ees.
You and I spend a great deal of hours when we are
awake working in this plant . You can rest assured that
your Company will always try to make those hours as
pleasant and enjoyable for its employees as it can. A
spirit of friendliness between Management and its em-
ployees is the most important thing in making an enjoy-
able place in which to work . At the present time, that
spirit exists here.
Unions can organize employees only by creating mis-
trust between Management and employees . Unions
can exist only when there is dissension between Man-
agement and employees . Unions can exist only by
sponsoring one group against another and causing ha-
tred and distrust between Management and the em-
ployees . UNIONS CAN EXIST ONLY BY
CREA TING A WALL BETWEEN THE MANAGE-
MENT AND THE EMPLOYEES.
employed-REGULARLY EMPLOYED. Your Com-
pany provides REGULAR EMPLOYMENT all year
around. Can you think of a unionized company in this
community that provides employment all year around
without lay-offs? We take pride in providing regular
employment. THAT IS TRUE JOB SECURITY.
We maintain full employment because we manufacture
for inventory in slow times and because we have a
record of keeping delivery promises to our customers.
No company can be certain of maintaining its delivery
dates when it is unionized. Illegal work stoppages
caused by unions are common. Often, these work stop-
pages are over minor matters. Often, these work stop-
pages are in violation of union contracts. We are the
only source of supply for many of our customers. In
our opinion, if we became unionized, and if at any time
our delivery promises were not kept, these customers
would probably secure other suppliers-resulting in
less business for us to handle-and in less work for you.
I believe that bringing in a union would damage the
real job security which you now enjoy.
Fortunately, AT PRESENT, Mohawk Bedding em-
ployees do not have to worry about job security. Under
your Company's voluntary policies of many years, you
all enjoy 52 weeks a year of steady work, wages, and
benefits . You have never needed a union, or compulso-
ry union dues, or union strikes to get your present
TRUE JOB SECURITY.
Since we opened this plant after Foster Brothers went
out of business we have felt a fine spirit of cooperation
and understanding and respect for one another existing
between Management and the employees. We hope
that you will keep it that way.
We urge you to vote "NO" in the coming election.
Serta Mattress Division
Mohawk Bedding Corp.
EXHIBIT 2(c)
May 5, 1972
Dear Fellow Employees;
I want to you to be on guard against the union organiz-
ers' sales pitch.
In the leaflet they handed out the other day, these
organizers asked you to believe that a worker has no
security, without a union. They asked you to believe
that union's don't like to call strikes.
Whom do they think they are kidding?
No union can give any employee job security. In fact,
in most cases , union 's result in job IN-security.
Job security is provided by a company which keeps you
The unemployment rate in the Utica-Rome area in
February, 1972 was 10.3%13,600 PEOPLE OUT OF
WORK This unemployment rate was one of the high-
est in the United States. It included many employees
who used to work in unionized shops and had to pay
substantial union dues to hold their jobs. WHAT SE-
CURITY DID THESE PEOPLE GET FROM
THEIR UNIONS? Do you want the kind of job securi-
ty that the unionized employees of the Divine Compa-
ny have? The recent bitter strike at the Divine
Company right here in town is just one example of
union IN-security.
Between 1955 and 1971, TWUA lost about 86,000
members or 42% of its total membership. Much of this
loss was due to the closing or moving of companies
organized by TWUA . This is what is behind the
TWUA drive at Mohawk Bedding make no mistake
about it. They want your money to refill their treasury.
Don't let these professional union organizers pull the
wool over your eyes.
Make sure you vote on May 17, and vote "NO" in order
to protect your job security.
SERTA MATTRESS DIVISION MOHAWK BED-
DING CORP.
MOHAWK BEDDING COMPANY 283
EXHIBIT 2(d)
Dear Fellow Employee:
supporting this Union. Don't fall for the Union's sales
pitch. There is only one way to prevent compulsory
May 9, 1972 dues from coming into Mohawk Bedding. That is to
make sure to vote on May 17, and to VOTE "NO".
If the TWUA's professional organizers tell you that the
Union means "security" , LOOK OUT.
They are talking about THEIR OWN security-not
yours.
Under most Union contracts , every worker is RE-
QUIRED to join the Union within a certain time, and
keep paying his regular monthly dues , or else the Union
can have him or her fired . This is usually called
"UNION SECURITY", and it is easy to understand
why. It means that the Union 's professional representa-
tives , organizers and all the rest , have a guaranteed
income from the worker 's hard earned wages , whether
the worker wants this or not.
If the TWUA is voted in here , you may be sure that one
of their first proposals would be for the Company to
agree to a "Union security" contract. Don't forget-
this Union has lost so many members in recent years
that they are desperate to get as many new members as
possible in order to refill their treasury. It is well known
that the one thing unions will go on strike for is to force
companies to agree to "Union security" contracts.
If the TWUA brought compulsory unionism into Mo-
hawk Bedding and you were compelled to pay an initi-
ation fee plus $6 or $7 a month in union dues (We are
not sure of the exact amount.) in order to keep your
job, would you be the gainer or lesser? In our opinion,
the answer is that you would be the lesser . Remem-
ber-under most "Union security" contracts, monthly
dues are automatically deducted from the worker's pay
envelope.
Look at the THOUSNADS of dues-paying workers
who lost their jobs in recent years when their unionized
employers closed down or left this area . Many of you
used to work for such companies. You know from ex-
perience that the former employees of these companies
gained absolutely nothing from all the money they were
required to pay over to the unions.
At the present time, without a union, you have TRUE
JOB SECURITY. You don't have to kick back one
penny to any union in order to keep your job with
Mohawk Bedding, and to support your family. You
don't have to kick back one penny to support the
TWUA's strikes at other plants. You have a relation-
ship with your Employer which guarantees you fair
treatment . Your own common sense should tell you
that you are far better off right now without being
required to contribute to the salaries and expenses of
the TWUA's professional salesmen.
You have far better things to do with your money than
SERTA MATTRESS DIVISION
MOHAWK BEDDING CORP.
EXHIBIT 2(e)
Dear Fellow Employees:
May 12, 1972
In a recent leaflet, the TWUA organizers suggested
that you look around at other companies in the area
and see whether union recognition has resulted in these
companies moving.
Have you looked? If you have, then you know that a
number of companies have closed down or moved out
of the area after being unionized. Utica Knitting Mill-
Utica and Mohawk Cotton Mill-Julliard Mill-Onei-
ta Knitting Mill-Beaunit Fibers-these are just a few
examples . THOUSANDS of dues paying union mem-
bers lost their jobs as a result.
Have the TWUA organizers explained to you how or
why this happened? To our knowledge they have not.
Evidently they don't have any logical explanation.
They spend most of their time telling lies about your
Company, and making promises they know they can't
deliver.
We hope you have not been misled by the Union. Your
jobs, earnings, and benefits depend solely on your
Company's ability to remain in business in this area.
Judging by the experience of those other companies,
there is considerable reason to wonder whether or not
unionization of Mohawk Bedding would hurt our abili-
ty to survive.
Would it be sensible for you in these days of mass
unemployment and inflation to take the gamble and
pay union dues to boot? We think not.
There are enough problems for you and your Company
as it is . This additional problem you and your family
do not need. If ever there was a time when the workers
and Management of Mohawk Bedding should stick
together, now is that time.
Please make sure to vote next Wednesday, and vote
"NO".
SERTA MATTRESS DIVISION
MOHAWK BEDDING CORP.
284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
EXHIBIT 3
MOHA WK BEDDING CORP.
POINTS FOR INTERVIEWS
you in order to get you to sign cards for the Union. I suspect
that many of you who did sign cards, did not really want
to do so, but did it on account of pressure and coercion from
the Union promoters. Well, tomorrow in the secret voting
booth, you will not have to worry about any of this. You will
not have to worry about the Union organizers looking over
your shoulder as you mark your ballot. You will be able to
vote exactly as your intelligence and your conscience tell
you. By the way, if any Union pressure and coercion is still
going on, I want to know about it, because we'll put a stop
to it. Don't forget, under the law you have an absolute right
to refrain from Union activities and to vote against the
Union if you desire.
Second, if any of you have signed cards for the Union in
the past, it does not mean that you have to vote for the
Union tomorrow. The only thing that matters in this elec-
tion is how you mark your paper ballot tomorrow. You can
vote against the Union by putting your "X" in the right
hand box with the word "NO" over it. This is true whether
you didn't want to sign the card in the first place, or whether
you have since changed your mind.
Next, and perhaps most important of all, it is absolutely
essential for everyone actually to vote tomorrow. Some of
you may not want to bother. Some of you may feel that, if
you don't vote, then the Union can have nothing to do with
you even if it wins the election. Well that's absolutely not
true. The election will be decided by a majority of those who
actually come to vote. Even if the Union gets one more vote
than 50% of those voting, then under the law it has the right
to represent everybody in the unit, including those who
voted against the Union, and those who didn't vote at all.
So you can see for yourself, that, if you want to keep the
Union [out] of here, and I believe that a majority of you do,
then it is essential for you to make sure to vote tomorrow.
Now, unless there are any questions about the voting
procedure, I want to go on about something else.
3. I am asking you to vote "no" and you may be asking
why? The answer is that, right now, without a Union, with-
out compulsory Union dues, and without strikes, you are far
better off. It is to your own self interest to keep it that way
in the future.
If I were you, I would pay very little attention to the
propaganda which the Union professional salesmen have
been putting out in the last few weeks. Sure, they claim that
this Union is the strongest Textile Workers Union in the
world. They claim that they will get you all kinds of fantas-
tic improvements in wages and benefits if you vote for them.
Well the actual facts show that they are talking through
their hats. Many employees who fell for that kind of sales
talk in the past in this area, would never make the same
mistake again. If the TWUA is the strongest Textile Work-
ers Union in the world, then how come that, between 1955
and 1971, according to official figures, they lost close to half
their membership? The figures come from the AFL-CIO
Executive Council report dated November 18, 1971.
If the TWUA Union does such a tremendous job for its
members, then how come so many TWUA members have
lost their jobs when their companies closed down and
moved out of here. Let me give you just a few examples.
Utica Knitting Mills, with 3,000 employees. Utica and Mo-
hawk Cotton Manufacturing Company, with 3,000 employ-
1. Tomorrow's election is a very serious matter. The out
come will have a lot to do with the kind of future there will
be here for this Company and for you.
You may wonder why I haven't sat down with you before.
It's like the Presidential election-too long-too tiring. So,
I'll talk to you this once and I hope it will be meaningful to
you.
In our meeting with you today, we intend to discuss the
Company's feeling about this. It gives the Company the
chance to present the facts, which up to now have not been
explained to you.
My message is very simple. I believe the majority of Mo-
hawk Bedding employees want to do everything possible to
help this Company remain competitive and successful. This
is essential in order to protect and improve your jobs, earn-
ings, benefits and conditions. In order to accomplish this,
you owe it to yourselves and to your Company to vote
"NO" tomorrow.
2. A few words about the actual voting procedure.
The voting will take place right here in this area, between
4:00 and 4:30 tomorrow. You will be released in small
groups from your work places to come here and vote. A
representative of the NLRB will actually conduct the vot-
ing. He will be assisted by representatives of the Company
and of the Union. When you come into this area, you will
identify yourself, and your name will be checked off an
official voting list. The NLRB representative will then give
you a paper ballot, which will look like this. (Hold up offi-
cial notice, and point to sample ballot.) As you can see, the
ballot will consist of two things. First, a punted question:
"Do you wish to be represented for purposes of collective
bargaining by Textile Workers Union of America? Second,
just below this printed question, there are two little boxes.
Over the box on the left hand side is the word "YES" and
over the box on the right hand side is the word "NO". You
will take the ballot into one of the secret voting booths
which the NLRB man has set up. In that booth, there will
be a pencil, and with this pencil you will mark an "X" or
similar sign in one of these two little boxes . You will not sign
the ballot and you will make absolutely sure that there is no
other mark of any kind on the ballot. If you want to have
the Union, you put your "X" in the "YES" box. On the
other hand, if you want to keep the Union out and if you
want to give a vote of confidence and appreciation to your
Company, then put your mark in the "NO" box. With all
my sincerity, I ask you to put your mark in the "NO" box
on the right hand side. After you have marked your ballot,
you will come out of the booth and you drop the folded
ballot into the ballot box furnished by the NLRB man.
I want to emphasize three things very strongly about the
voting.
The first, the voting is absolutely secret. Nobody will
know how you voted. We all know how much pressure the
Union organizers and their side-kicks have put on a lot of
MOHAWK BEDDING COMPANY
ees. Juilliard Mills, with 2,000 employees. These were all
organized by TWUA, and they all had compulsory union
dues in their union contracts and they are all now gone from
this area . What about the Beaunit Company, which had this
Union , and is no longer in business in this area? I could go
on and on, and I'm sure you could think of a few examples
yourselves, but I believe we all get the big picture. Of course,
there are many reasons why these companies went out of
business or moved, but have you heard one single word
from the Union salesmen about this? Not to my knowledge.
Now, I am not bringing this up in order to scare you, as
the Union salesmen may claim . I am not threatening to
close this plant if the Union wins the election, and I am not
saying that we will necessarily go broke if the Union wins
the election. But, in a leaflet which they handed out here on
April 28th, the Union itself said, "Look around at other
companies in this area . See whether Union recognition has
resulted in these companies moving or whether they contin-
ue to grow ... " Well, we did look around, and the statis-
tics I have just given you are just a small example of the
results . So, bear in mind , that when the Union salesman fill
your ears with stories about how great a job the Union does
for its members, they are not telling you the truth, and the
facts show it. They desperately need more dues-paying
members, and they will use every trick in the book to get
them. Be on your guard. We didn't say the Union was
broke, as they claim.
4. At the present time, you all work steady, 52 weeks a
year. During slow times , instead of sending you home, as
would be the case in some Union plants, your Company
keeps you busy so that your income will not be interrupted.
We manufacture for inventory, we shift you to other jobs in
other departments, we do everything we can to protect your
personal interests and your families' interests . Now, under
some union contracts, the employer is required to lay off
people if the hours of work fall below a certain level during
the week. And the seniority provisions of some Union con-
tracts are written in such a way that it is very difficult or
impossible to shift people around from one job to another
in order not to have to send them home. Is this the sort of
set-up you'd like to bring into your plant here? The Union
speaks of guarantees and wants you to believe you have no
guarantees without a Union contract. This, of course, is
nonsense, as all the old timers here know. The only guaran-
tee you have is if your Company is successful , competitive,
and treats its people fairly, as we have tried to do.
At this present time , nothing is more important to the
average working man and his family than steady work, or
as I call it true job security. You all know how tremendously
high the unemployment rate is in this area. Now a worker
may be covered by a contract with a lot of fancy rates and
a lot of fancy benefits in it, but if he is laid off, or if he has
been discharged, these don't do him or his family any good
at all. So what benefit has he gotten out of having to pay
Union dues in order to keep his job. This sort of problem
does not confront you people at the present time, and if you
want to keep it that way, make sure you vote "no" tomor-
row.
5. I am not claiming that everything is perfect in this
plant. There is no such thing as a perfect operation, whether
it's Union or non-Union. We fully realize that, in times of
285
inflation like this, an employee needs to be steadily em-
ployed, and in addition needs to have decent wages and
decent benefits. We have shown by our voluntary actions in
the past that we realize this. Last spring, around April and
May, we voluntarily reviewed the wage rates of all our
employees, and granted a number of wage increases, in the
neighborhood of 10 cents or 15 cents. This past January, we
inaugurated a new policy of reviewing each individual on
his anniversary date of employment or his last raise, and
granting an appropriate wage increase to him. The wage
increases we granted under this new voluntary policy have
been the maximum allowed by the Federal Wage Control
Program up until now. In addition, we have given out over
a period of time, merit increases for jobs well done. Frankly,
I would like to be able to continue this voluntary policy of
reviewing each employee on his anniversary date of employ-
ment as his last raise and making an appropriate wage in-
crease at that time. If the Union is defeated in the election
tomorrow, we will be able to do so. On the other hand, if
the Union wins, then it becomes a question of bargaining,
and that is a big gamble for you, as I will explain in a few
minutes.
I also want you to know that I, Mr. Turner, and the others
of us in Management, long before the Union organizers
showed up around here, had been giving very serious
thought to the rest of the package of benefits that you have
now. For example, you all enjoy the equivalent of seven
paid holidays every year, and you have vacation benefits
which go up to two weeks of paid vacation after 3 years of
service. For a long time now, in addition, we have granted
year end bonuses, based upon your length of service, and
this gives you a guaranteed share of the Company's profits,
and the equivalent of additional vacation benefits. Together
with your steady work, 52 weeks a year, and the wage in-
crease program which we hope to be able to continue, this
is a package which many people on unemployment would
be very happy to have. To repeat, however, we realize that
there's room for improvement here. We have certain ideas
about this, but unfortunately, under the law we cannot tell
you at the present time what they are. If we did, the Union
would claim that we are trying to influence your vote by a
promise, and would have us hailed up on charges of unfair
labor practice before the NLRB. Its really unfair, because
under the law the Union can make every ridiculous promise
in the world, as you can see from their leaflets, whereas the
employer is almost gagged. All I can tell you at the present
time is this. If the Union is defeated in the election tomor-
row, we will be able to discuss with you the ideas we have
in connection with various fringe benefits improvements
and work something out which will be satisfactory to every
one here. On the other hand, if the Union wins the election,
then we would have to bargain with them about your wages,
hours of work and conditions of employment, and the ideas
we presently have about these matters might have to be put
aside.
6. Many of you may not fully understand what a Union
can do and what a Union can't do. Many of you may not
fully understand what this business of bargaining really
means . Under the law, the duty to bargain means the duty
"to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with
respect to wages, hours, and other conditions of employ-
286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment". This means, in plain English, that, if the Union won
the election , we would have to sit down with them and listen
to their requests in connection with wages , hours and other
conditions of employment . It means that we'd have to listen
to that in good faith , and if we disagreed with their propos-
als, or couldn 't afford them , it would mean that we would
have to explain why . Most important of all, and please listen
carefully , under the law as long as the Company bargains
in good faith, the duty to bargain "does not compel either
party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a
concession ." To repeat , all this means is only that the Union
can ask us to do certain things . But, if the Union asks us to
do certain things which we feel we cannot afford to do, or
which would be improper in our opinion , then under the law
we would have the right in good faith to say no to the Union.
In such cases , Unions usually try to take the people out on
strike . I believe you will agree with me that , at the present
time , the last thing anybody associated with Mohawk Bed-
ding wants is a strike.
Remember-under the law, the Union cannot compel the
Company to make a concession, if the Company in good
faith believes that it shouldn 't do so. If we ever have to
bargain with this Union , there is no telling what the final
outcome of the bargaining would be . There is no guarantee
that you would get more than what you now have automati-
cally as a result of the bargaining . You might wind up with
more, or you might wind up with less, or you might wind
up with the same . It would all depend on the outcome of the
bargaining . In other words , no matter what the professional
Union organizers have been promising you, the truth is that
this Union cannot compel the Company to do more than
our best for you. However , we have always done our best
for you and hope to be able to continue to do so in the
future. Considering what you now have, without any Union,
would it be a good gamble on your part to rely on what the
Union could do in bargaining? I think not.
Let's get down to cases. The last few days, the Union has
put out leaflets . One leaflet boasted (falsely , in my opinion),
that this is a very strong Union. The leaflets also mentioned
fantastically high contract settlement figures , thereby in ef-
fect , promising you pie in the sky . [Matthews letter & com-
ments] Well, I don't want to threaten you, but its very
important for you to understand something. If the Union
wins the election tomorrow , and if in bargaining with us
they really try to make good on the fantastic figures men-
tioned in the leaflets , then we could all be in for serious
trouble . I repeat , this is not a threat , it's just a realistic
opinion . A company can remain in business , especially this
business , only if it is competitive . We can remain competi-
tive only if we can keep our selling prices and our local costs
fairly well in line. If our labor costs ever get out of hand,
whether on account of having a Union or for any other
reason , and if our ability to run this plant was crippled by
the kind of unreasonable work restrictions and rules you
find in some Union contracts, then, under those circum-
stances, there would be a question as to whether this Com-
pany could remain in business here . I repeat, I am not
threatening to close this plant if the Union wins the election
and for that reason. I am saying that, if the Union in bar-
gaining really tries to deliver on its fantastic promises, it
could well create a serious problem for the future of this
operation. Many unionized plants in this area have had
trouble under the Union and I cannot assure you that Mo-
hawk Bedding would be an exception.
We have been here at Mohawk Bedding since 1955. We
intend to stay here for a good long time. At the same time
we intend to continue our operation down in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, where we are presently adding 60,000 square
feet to the factory space in order to take care of increased
business . I see no reason why we can 't keep both operations
going . That is, provided that we are able to continue both
Cambridge and Mohawk Bedding as companies that can
continue to meet delivery commitments , sell at a competi-
tive price, and earn a half decent profit. The Union letter
of the 12th talks about my pay. I wish it was as large as the
Union leaders get.
7. When you are in the secret voting booth tomorrow
getting ready to mark your ballot, just ask yourselves wheth-
er you really know what you'd be getting into if you voted
for this local Union. Have you ever seen the Union Consti-
tution? Do you have any idea of what your individual rights
would be as a Union member? I doubt it very much. In a
recent Union leaflet, they claimed that dues cannot be
raised or fines or assessments paid , except when the local
Union decides. Do you have any idea of how a local Union
is actually run? Well, if I were you, I would be very careful
not to hand over my future to a group of professionals
whom you really cannot control. I've had experience, and
I can tell you that many local union votes and meetings are
not run according to true democratic procedures. They will
tell you that you will never go out on strike unless you
authorize it, but the books are full of stories about people
who find themselves in a picket line asking themselves, what
happened, how did I get out here? The Union salesmen have
told you that Unions don't like to call strikes. Well, if that's
the case, then how come this Union has been involved in so
many of them? How come, in their recent leaflet they boast-
ed about their strike fund which is nearly $7,000,000? What
is it used for? Do you realize that such a strike fund comes
out of the pockets of working men and women like your-
selves . What benefits could you get by supporting the
TWUA's strikes at other plants? Don't forget about the long
Sealy strike, or about the Divine Company a couple of
weeks ago.
No, it's very clear to me that the Union hasn't been telling
you the full truth about itself. If I were you, I would look
at the fine print very carefully before I bought the Union's
bill of goods. The Union wants you to think that it doesn't
like strikes. Well, shortly after they got some people to sign
up cards right here, they pulled a slow down in order to try
to scare your Company. Well, we weren't scared, and we
won't be in the future. But just think, what would happen
if the Union came in here, and you have strikes and slow
down? What would this do to the ability of your Company
to continue to remain competitive? What would this do to
your ownjob security, to your earnings, and to the interests
of your family? The answer is, it would have a bad effect,
and you would be crazy, in my opinion, to tie up with this
bunch. Instead of filling your ears with all kinds of lies and
distortions about your Company, why haven't the Union
salesmen tried to explain to you why so many of the union-
ized companies in this area have closed down? Well, the
MOHAWK BEDDING COMPANY
answer is, if they told the truth about themselves, you'd
never come within a million miles of them , and they know
it. It's a shame they 've spent so much time saying bad things
about your Company. In my opinion, they do this in order
to build a wall between you and us , and in order to get their
hands into your pockets. I certainly hope you don't fall for
this.
8. Well, I could go on and on , but I think you get the
picture . Just remember , the Union does not have the same
obligation to you as your Company has. The Union doesn't
hire you, it doesn't give you work, it doesn't pay you. Your
jobs , your earnings , and your benefits come from your
Company and your Company alone.
Many of you working in this plant right now have had
bitter experiences with a union before , and you know I am
telling you the truth. As I said before, we took over this
plant a number of years ago from a company which, for a
number of reasons , had gone broke under its Union con-
tract. This company was plagued by strikes, by slow-downs
and by the bitter relations that often come into a plant with
a Union . Since we took over , we have made this place a
decent place for people to work in. The Union , in one of its
leaflets , refers to the fact that recently three of our employ-
ees quit . Well, in every plant people quit from time to time.
However , a few times in our history, people who have quit
here , have subsequently come back to work here. It can't be
such a bad place to work after all.
We have made a point of trying to take care of your
personal problems and interests . Since Mr. Turner has been
here , a lot of the problems we used to have , seem to be
straightening out. I would like to keep everything on a good
cooperative personal basis as they now exist . You know
some of the helpful things we have done for our people. We
do not blow our horns about it . We have an open door here,
and although we have problems from time to time, some-
times serious problems, this is the only genuine way to work
them out. However , the best way the Union can get in here
is to break down the cooperation between us and you. If
that ever happened, it would be a real tragedy in my opin-
ion. The professional Union salesmen are after a Union
security contract which will compel you within a certain
time to join the Union and keep up your dues or else the
Union would have you fired. They are probably after a
contract under which the Union stewards, and you proba-
bly know who they would be if the Union got in here, would
have super seniority over the other people, even though they
have worked here much less time . Would this be a good deal
for you? When the Union tells you that employees get their
money's worth out of compulsory Union dues, and initia-
tion fees , and assessments , and all the rest, you just go tell
that to the people who lost their jobs in unionized plants,
and have to get along on unemployment . They will laugh in
your face if you tell them that.
9. I want to close on this note. I recognize that there is
room for improvement here. However , this improvement
will come from the same place that previous improvements
have come from, and no other place. It will come from your
Company's continued ability to compete in this business
and its ability to earn a half decent profit. If these things
vanish or are impaired here , then you can have ten unions
in here, and it will do you no good. So, don't you agree that
287
your best insurance policy is to maintain your loyal cooper-
ation with us, and help us to give you a fair deal?
I ask you for your vote of confidence tomorrow. Give us
a chance to show what can be accomplished by continuing
our policy of fair treatment. Don't forget, if you bring in the
Union now, and later become unhappy with it, it's not easy
to get rid of it.
Now, I want to repeat one thing. I don't intend to make
any promises or threats to influence your vote tomorrow.
It's none of my business who has signed cards or who has
not signed cards for the Union, or why. This is a free coun-
try. I think you'll be making a terrible mistake if you voted
for the Union tomorrow, but it's up to you. However, if
there is something you want to tell us or ask us, now is the
time . We will talk to each other as friends . Please make sure
to vote, and for your own good, vote "NO". I hope we get
a 100% "NO" vote so we can exist as a happy family.
It is now o'clock. Let's go back to work.
To 2nd group only
EXHIBIT 4
WHAT MOST COMPANIES DO NOT LIKE ABOUT
UNIONS
UNIONS WANT TOO MUCH
Unions usually hold out for getting better wage increases
and other improvements than the companies would like to
give . They usually want them at more frequent intervals
than the companies are inclined to agree to . It bargains hard
to get them. With the facts on its side, the Union usually
succeeds.
Companies prefer to deal with their employees as individu-
als. The Union, using its know-how, gets maximum results
by bargaining through union representatives and a griev-
ance committee since individual employees do not do as
well and this is the way many companies would like to keep
it.
UNIONS INTERFERE WITH COMPANY JUSTICE
When the company without a union agreement decides to
punish or discipline an employee, its decision is put into
effect and that is the end of it. With a union to deal with,
the union committee might , and often does , question the
company's decision and requests reconsideration if it thinks
the decision is improper. When companies refuse to make
ajust change, it takes the grievance to arbitration by a third
outside party who makes the final decision.
Without a union, the company determines who should work
on what and for how much. With the union around , guide-
lines are established under the terms of the union agree-
ment.
UNIONS HINDER COMPANY RUNNING BUSINESS
AS IT SEES FIT
288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Before the union gets in, the company determines all
changes in the front office . After the union gets in the front
office is obliged to take these changes up with the union and
its committee before they are put into effect.
Most companies do not like employees joining unions, even
though the National Labor Relations Board makes such
action legal. Management usually asks employees to give
this right up in favor of allowing the company to take care
of the employees ' interests instead of their doing this
through their chosen union committee . The employees
either exercise self-respect or let the company dictate what
they do.
UNION CONTRACTS GIVE EMPLOYEES MORE SAY
THAN COMPANY LIKES
Once the union becomes the contractual or collective bar-
gaining agent, the company is obliged to discuss or come to
an agreement on all changes affecting employees' working
conditions or change in job. The company would rather
make these decisions and put them into effect by an order
to its foremen or a notice on its Bulletin Board.
COMPANIES ADVANCE ARGUMENTS FOR WORK-
ERS NOT WANTING A UNION
Companies tell workers they will have to pay dues, fines,
assessments . The answer is that the law only requires an
employee to pay his regular dues to hold his job. This Union
does not allow dues to be raised above what the Constitu-
tion requires, or fines or assessments to be paid, except
when the local union decides on this. We have not had a
single assessment in 20 years. Nobody expects to get some-
thing for nothing. If the union does a good job, people are
more than willing to pay their required dues to the union,
especially if they get full benefits in return.
COMPANY ADVANCES SCARE STORIES AGAINST
UNIONS
Companies advance another scare argument that the union
will make you go out on strike in sympathy with other
workers. To begin with, no union wants to put its members
out on strike since this results in additional expenditures of
union money for strike benefits. Union would rather settle
as the result of a give-and-take and a reasonable compro-
mise between the employees ant the company around the
corference table. All our Union contracts have a no-strike
clause written into them.
UNION GIVES WORKERS A SA Y IN DETERMINING
CONTRACT CONDITIONS
When contracts for improvements are negotiated, the em-
ployees vote to accept or reject the agreement in a special
meeting . This decision is never made by a union representa-
tive. A fair agreement provides that differences be arbitrat-
ed by an impartial third party who sits as a judge.
Sometimes companies spread stories around that if the
Union gets in the plant will close. No company ever made
money by closing its plant. If companies closed down as
often as stories are circulated to this effect, there would be
more closed plants than open ones. The plants left would be
operating on wagon wheels instead of foundations.
Besides , where would a company get employees who would
work as cheaply as the employees of your company who are
presently employed. Look around at other companies in the
area. See whether union recognition has resulted in these
companies moving or whether they continue to grow and
make profits-maybe a little less than what they would like,
but continuing to do so. The rest goes into the pay envelopes
of the employees, where it rightfully belongs and does the
most good!
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN GETTING MORE IN-
FORMATION ABOUT THE UNION, FILL OUR THE
FORM BELOW.
Oswald Anania
INT'L REPRESENTATIVE
T.W.U.A.-AFL-CIO-CLC
ALLIED PRODUCTS DIVISION TEXTILE
WORKERS UNION OF A"1LRICA, AFL--CIO
AREA OFFICE: 253 Bleaker
St., Utica
DATE:
NIANE TELEPHONE :
ADDRESS CITY ZIP
COMPANY
SHIFT DEPT.
8/27/68
EXHIBIT 5
Dear Worker:
1. Do you get equal pay for equal work?
2. Do you have job classification?
3. Do you have 7 or more paid holidays?
4. Do you have Blue Shield-Blue Cross (or equivalent)
for you and your family paid by the Company?
5. Do you have free life insurance?
6. Do you have dental and eye glasses insurance paid by
the Company?
7. Do you have paid sick leave?
8. Do you have 3 paid days in case of death in the family?
9. Do you have Jury Duty compensation by the Compa-
ny?
10. Do you have a Pension Plan paid by the Company?
11. Do you have the right to complain (Grievance Proce-
dure) without risking your job?
12. Do you have a good paid vacation plan based on
seniority?
If the answer is NO, then you know why the Company
is trying so hard to discourage you from joining the Textile
MOHAWK BEDDING COMPANY
Union . They know about Sealy , Serta , St. Louis, Slumber-
land, Mass ., Serta , Cambridge , Mass., union contracts and
what's in them for the workers.
That's why Mr. Ginsberg urged you to vote no . That's the
reason for which the Company is trying to scare you about
the "future security" of the Company if the Union comes
in. We assume that Mr. Ginsberg, said yesterday the same
things he told the workers of the Cambridge Plant, just
before the election a few years ago. The Plant is still there.
When you vote no , you are not voting against the Union,
you are voting against yourself.
When you vote no, you are telling the Company that you
are satisfied for what you get now , not thinking about im-
provements , pensions , and better wages.
If you are not satisfied then you will have to speak your
mind loud and clear and the only way that you can be heard
is by saying YES TODA Y.
FLASH We were informed by the Serta Mattress, manu-
factured by you in Utica sells for the same price as the ones
manufactured in the Cambridge plant . The workers of Cam-
bridge have union wages and fringes , which are included in
the sale price of the product. You should know by now that
by not getting the same wages and benefits in Utica plant,
you are giving to the Company , excess profits, which belong
in your pay envelope.
DON'T LET THE COMPANY GET AWAY WITH IT,
YOU HAVE HAD ENOUGH.
YOU ARE THE UNION, only YOU CAN MAKE IT
WORK
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-
CIO
APPENDIX B
REPORT OF HEARING OFFICER
ON OBJECTIONS TO ELECTION
Pursuant to a "Stipulation for Certification Upon Con-
sent Election" approved on April 27, 1972 an election by
secret ballot was conducted on May 17, 1972 under the
direction and supervision of the Acting Regional Director
for the Third Region among the employees in the stipulated
unit. Upon the conclusion of the election the parties were
served with a copy of the tally of ballots which showed that
of approximately 25 eligible voters, 25 ballots were cast, of
which 9 were for Petitioner and 16 were against.
The Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election. Pursuant to Section 102.69 of the
Board 's Rules and Regulations , Series 8 , as amended the
Acting Regional Director conducted in which he recom-
mended that the objections be overruled and that a Certifi-
cation of Results be issued.
The Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional
Director's Report and a brief in support thereof, contending
that the election should have been set aside. On December
6, 1972, the Board issued an Order Directing Hearing on the
issued raised with respect to three alleged statements made
by the Employer's manufacturing foreman and shipping
room foreman to several employees.' In conformity with the
Board's Order, the Regional Director, on December 14,
1972 issued the Notice of Hearing on Objections. On Janu-
ary 19, 1973 the Regional Director issued an Order
Rescheduling Hearing.
289
Pursuant to the Notice of Hearing on Objections and the
Order Rescheduling Hearing and in conformity with the
Board's Order, a hearing was held in the New York State
Office Building, Utica, New York on February 8, 1973,
before the undersigned and duly designated Hearing Officer
in which all parties participated through counsel. Full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was
afforded all parties. Upon the record thus made, and from
his observations of the witnesses, and from all testimony
adduced at the hearing, the undersigned makes the follow-
ing findings, conclusions and recommendations:
THE ISSUES
a. The supervisory status of Michael Lazarek, the alleged
shipping room foreman.
b. Whether or not the Employer's production manager 2
made a racial slur concerning the Petitioner to a group of
employees.
c. Whether or not statements made by the production
manager and Lazarek in separate conversations with em-
ployees constituted threats of plant closing if the Petitioner
won the election.
I SUPERVISORY STATUS OF LAZAREK
a. The Evidence
The Employer at the hearing refused to stipulate that
Michael Lazarek was a supervisor within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act, at the time of the Petitioner's
organizing campaign.
Testimony as to Lazarek's duties was elicited from Laza-
rek and to a limited degree, Arnold Bernson , production
manager and Keith Wetherill, the plant manager.3 Lazarek
gave testimony as to the managerial hierarchy at the plant
during the organizing campaign, his duties, and physical
layout of the plant. The hierarchy was as follows : William
M. Ginsburg, president, Howard Turner, plant manager,
and Bernson , production manager . The plant consists of
three floors; first floor, shipping area and limited raw mate-
rials storage, second floor, raw materials and administrative
and personnel offices and third floor, production area.
Lazarek testified that he works with three loaders in the
shipping area and his duties entail the assembling of orders
to be loaded on trucks, the unloading of trucks, securing
common carriers for shipment when necessary, and support
paper work, such as filling out order sheets and bills of
lading which he must turn in daily. In the performance of
these duties Lazarek spends the majority of the time per-
forming manual labor.
Lazarek further testified that Ginsburg appears at the
plant approximately twice a month, for two or three days at
a time . Wetherill and Bernson are at the plant daily. In the
i The Board reserved ruling on Objections 2, 3, and 4 pending disposition
of the instant matter
2 The Board's Order referred to statements made by the Employer's manu-
facturing foreman. The evidence adduced at the hearing showed that the
individual 's job titled is production manager.
3 Wetherill's ability to testify on this issue was limited by the fact that he
was not employed by the Employer at the time of the Petitioner's organizing
campaign . The parties stipulated, and I find that Wethenll and Bernson are
supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
performance of his job Bernson visits the shipping area once
a day to give bills of lading to Lazarek, but does not issue
instructions to him. On the other hand, Wetherill visits the
shipping area three or four times a day to give Lazarek
orders and special instructions. On these occasions Lazarek
testified, Wetherill usually does not give instructions to the
loaders.
As to wages and other working conditions, Lazarek testi-
fied that he is hourly paid, although he does receive about
10% more per hour than the loaders, is paid overtime and
receives the same vacation and fringe benefits as other em-
ployees. Wetherill testified that two other employees receive
more per hour than Lazarek, although both are skilled em-
ployees.
Furthermore, although he does not have the authority to
hire and fire, Lazarek testified that on one occasion he
effectively recommended the transfer of an employee into
the shipping department. Lazarek also testified that the
loaders call him when they are not reporting to work due to
illness and he also has given loaders permission to leave
work early due to illness.
A finding that Lazarek is not a supervisor would mean
that there are no supervisors on the first floor of the plant.
In view of the latter and the fact that Lazarek directs the
loaders in the performance of their duties and the fact that
he has allowed employees to go home early due to sickness,
I find that Lazarek is a supervisor within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act. See Wayside Furniture Company,
166 NLRB 758 and Thomas Cartage Inc., 186 NLRB No. 30.
11. THE ALLEGED RACIAL SLUR
a. The Evidence and Findings Thereon
The Petitioner presented five employees on this issue,
while the Employer offered one, namely the alleged speaker,
production manager Bernson.
Most elements of the conversation were agreed upon by
the employee witnesses. They all agreed that Bernson did
not call the individuals into his office, but rather the em-
ployees, as was frequently the custom, had gathered in
Bernson 's office a few minutes prior to quitting time, some
to wait to punch out and several others to turn in material
to Bernson relating to piece work payment. The employees
also agreed that the conversation took place approximately
two weeks prior to the election of May 17, 1972.
The employees were not in accord as to the number of
employees present with the estimates ranging from six to
eight. In view of that fact that the five employees agreed that
in addition to themselves at least one other employee was
present,4 I find that at least six employees witnessed
Bernson's remarks.
Four of the five employees testified that Bernson stated
that the Textile Workers was not a white man's union, but
was a Puerto Rican Union. The fifth employee, William
Mathews, testified that Bernson stated that "the TWUA
was not for the white man, it was for niggers and Puerto
° This employee was only known to those testifying as "Chico", an employ-
ee of Puerto Rican ancestry There was some conflict in the testimony as to
"Chico's" ability to understand English, and he was not called to testify. But
in view of the fact that two of the three employees testifying on the matter
stated that he could speak and understand English , I will assume, arguendo,
that "Chico" understood the conversation.
Ricans. As a matter of fact they sent two Puerto Ricans
looking for a job today."
In his testimony, Bernson agreed that employees often
come into his office a few minutes before quitting time,
some to hand in piece work material, others to wait. When
queried about the racial conversation , Bernson stated at
first that he definitely remembered a conversation, but later
recanted somewhat and stated that he did not remember
whether the conversation had occurred, but he did remem-
ber hearing of such a conversation and he had heard that
someone else had made the statement although he did not
know who.
I found Benison to be a vague and at times , incredible
witness 5 and as such find that he did indeed make a racial
statement to a group of employees in his office. I further
find that Bernson did not call the employees into his office
to make such a statement, but rather the employees had
gathered there of their own volition.
As to the exact words spoken, I credit the testimony of
four of the five employees testifying and discredit that of
Mathews, since I find it difficult to believe that four employ-
ees would forget the use of the epithet "nigger", but a fifth
did not.
As to the effect of the statement on the election, I find
that it was an isolated statement made by a supervisor who
was not actively engaging in campaigning for the Employer.
The remark was not part of a deliberate effort to inflame
racial feelings by irrelevant appeals, but was a limited re-
mark made to a group of employees in casual conversation
insufficient to warrant setting aside the election .6
III THE ALLEGED PLANT CLOSING STATEMENTS
BY LAZAREK AND THE PRODUCTION MANAGER
a. The Evidence and Findings Concerning Lazarek's State-
ment
There were only two witnesses to this conversation,7 the
participants, Michael Lazarek and Bill Mathews. Lazarek
and Mathews each testified that the conversation took place
approximately four to six weeks prior to the election. They
also testified that it took place in the stockroom behind the
shipping area and that Mathews was not called into the
stockroom, but that he happened to be there in the course
of his work.
At this point, the versions of the conversation diverge.
Mathews testified that Lazarek initiated the conversation
and stated that "[i]n his opinion, if the Union had come in,
Mr. Ginsburg was going to close the plant and use it as a
warehouse and stock it from the Boston plant." Mathews
further testified that he did not believe this could happen
and Lazarek closed the conversation by stating that he was
giving his opinion.
5 An example of this is an exchange between Bernson and Petitioner's
counsel concerning Bernson's position on the Union and activities during the
organizing campaign , where at first Bernson denies sticking a Union pin on
his tie, but on further questioning, he admitted sticking the Union pin in his
tie on the day of the election (TR 137-138)
6 See The Singer Company, 191 NLRB No. 42, and cf. Sewell Manufacturing
Company, 138 NLRB 66
Lazarek testified that he thought two other employees were present in the
stockroom during the conversation in view of the fact that Lazarek admitted
that the other two were present , did not take part in the conversation and
the fact that Mathews testified that only he and Lazarek were present, I find
MOHAWK BEDDING COMPANY
Under cross-examination, Mathews at first stated that
Lazarek had initiated the conversation, but under further
questioning by the Employer's Counsel admitted he did not
remember who initiated the conversation. Mathews also
testified under cross-examination that the conversation was
not heated, but was a casual conversation. Furthermore, he
stated that he and Lazarek had been friendly both at and
away from work, throughout the period Mathews worked at
Mohawk Bedding.8
Lazarek testified that he did not remember who initiated
the conversation, but that it took place in the midst of a
general pro and con discussion of unionization. Lazarek's
version of the plant closing discussion is quite different from
Mathews. Lazarek testified that he had been told by an
employee that at one time prior to Lazarek's employment
with Mohawk Bedding that "[t]he Union was attempting to
come in and that he had been, Mr. Ginsburg had planned
to close the corporation in Utica." (TR 95) Lazarek further
testified that he repeated this statement to Mathews and did
not tell Mathews that if the Union comes in, Ginsburg will
close the plant and use it as a warehouse.
Rather, than resolve the obvious conflict between Ma-
thews' and Lazarek's version of the conversation, I will
assume , arguendo, that Mathews' version is the correct one.
But I further find that as admitted by Mathews, the conver-
sation was a casual one between friends and as further
admitted by Mathews, Lazarek stated twice that he was
giving his opinion. As such, I do not consider Lazarek's
statement to be a threat of reprisal and consider it insuffi-
cient to warrant setting aside the election.9
b. The Evidence and Findings Concerning Bernson 's State-
ment
Testimony as to this conversation was given by three
people: Bernson and employees Jim Jones and Lawrence
Lacombe. Lacombe testified that the conversation took
place the date before the election outside Bernson's office
with employees Jones and Al Panachano present. Accord-
ing to Lacombe's testimony, Bernson said, "[t]hat Mr. Gins-
burg can turn this place into a warehouse anytime he
wanted to if the Union got in." (TR 60) Lacombe further
testified that that was end of the conversation and nothing
further was said.
Jones testified that the conversation occurred the day
before the election in Bernson's office with Lacombe pre-
sent. His version of the conversation is more expanded and
specific than Lacombe's testimony. Jones testified that they
were discussing the possibility of closing the plant and that
Bernson said, "[t]hat rather than close down, he would
probably make it into a warehouse and ship mattresses in
from Boston and hold it in the warehouse to ship them out,
just like the Simmons plant in Syracuse that done something
similar." (TR 79) On cross-examination, Jones agreed that
they had asked Bernson whether he (Ginsburg) could turn
it into a warehouse, but that they had done so because they
had a conversation with Bernson a year or so before con-
cerning the closing of the warehouse if a Union came in.
that the conversation was limited to Mathews and Lazarek.
8 At the time of the hearing, Mathews was no longer employed by Mohawk
Bedding
9 See The Folger Coffee Company, 188 NLRB No 22.
291
Bernson testified that he remembered such a conversa-
tion, but was not sure when it took place and could only say
that it took place between the time the election campaign
began and the day of the election. As to the location and
participants, Bernson testified that the conversation took
place in the mattress Department of the Third Floor and
that Lacombe and possibly Mathews were present. Bernson
said he did not recall whether Panachano was present. Ma-
thews testified that he was not present and Panachano was
not questioned on this conversation. In view of Panachano's
failure to testify on this issue, Bernson's uncertainty as to
the participants and Mathews assertion that he was not
present, I find that Lacombe and Jones took part in this
conversation with Bernson.
As to the contents of the conversation, Bernson testified
that he came by to break up a conversation between Lacom-
be and Mathews and they asked him if the factory could be
turned into a warehouse and Bernson said yes it's possible.
In response to later questioning by Counsel for the Regional
Director, Bernson testified that he did not remember if the
question about turning it into a warehouse was prefaced by
"if a union got in." He also stated that he, "[c]ouldn't re-
member what was said exactly." (TR 141)
In view of Bernson's vague and uncertain recollection as
to the conversations participants and the words spoken, I do
not credit his version of the conversation. Upon comparing
Lacombe's and Jones' versions of the conversations, it is
apparent that one is very general and the other quite specif-
ic, but that the discrepancy is one of form, rather than
substance, since both agree that they asked Bernson if Gins-
burg could turn the plant into a warehouse. I further find
that the question was prefaced with the phrase "if the union
got in" because this conversation concerned a discussion
about the Union and it is only logical to assume that the
employees' queries about turning the plant into a warehouse
were prompted by the union organizing campaign.
As to the effect of the conversation of the election, in my
view, Bernson did not threaten the employees with plant
closure, but rather he simply stated a possibility in response
to a question posed by the employees, viz. Ginsburg could
turn the plant into a warehouse, if the union came in. This
does not amount to a threat to close the plant if the union
wins, but is merely an expression of opinion that does not
warrant setting aside the election.
RECOMMENDATION
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and upon
the entire record, it is respectfully recommended that
Petitioner's Objections, insofar as they relate to the three
statements made by the Employer's production manager
and shipping room foreman be overruled.
In accordance with the Board's Order Directing Hearing
in the above matter, dated December 6, 1972, within ten (10)
days of the issuance of this report, any party may file with
the Board in Washington, D.C., an original and six copies
of exceptions thereto. Immediately upon the filing of such
exceptions, the party filing the same shall serve a copy there-
of upon each of the other parties, and shall file a ,copy with
the Regional Director. If no exceptions are filed thereto, the
Board will adopt the recommendation of the Hearing Offi-
cer.