Monroe Auto Equipment Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 11, 1977

230 N.L.R.B. 742 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Monroe Auto Equipment Company and International
Union, Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW) 1
Monroe Auto Equipment Company and Allied Indus-
trial Union of Auto Workers, Independent. Cases
10-CA- 11807 and 10-RC-10543
July 11, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
On February 22, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Bernard Ries issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief. The Charging Party-Interve-
nor filed an answering brief to Respondent's excep-
tions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. 3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Monroe Auto
Equipment Company, Hartwell, Georgia, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
i This Union was the Intervenor in Case 1O-RC 10543.
2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
31 For the reasons stated by the Administrative Law Judge, Chairman
Fanning would, as a remedy for the many unfair labor practices committed
by Respondent for the purpose of coercing its employees into rejecting the
Union as their exclusive representative, order it to recognize and bargain
with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the unit
for which the Union was certified as the exclusive representative following
an election held in 1966. The restoration of that relationship which, though
partially suspended by the filing of the petition in Case I0-RC-10543, is
clearly called for if Respondent is not to enjoy the fruits of its unfair labor
practices which have destroyed the reliability of the election process as a
means of ascertaining the employees' continued desire for such representa-
tion. Inasmuch as the Union is the certified representative and the
certification carries with it a presumption of majority status, a presumption
not rebutted, or subject to rebuttal in view of Respondent's flagrant unfair
230 NLRB No. 120
labor practices in this case, there can be no question but that the Union is
entitled to continued recognition as such representative. Inasmuch as
Respondent's conduct unlawfully attempted to coerce its employees into
rejecting the Union, ordering Respondent to recognize and bargain with the
Union as the employees' certified representative is appropriate and essential
if the Board is to restore the status quo ante and guarantee to Respondent's
employees their Sec. 7 rights. Chairman Fanning also agrees with his
colleagues that Respondent violated Sec. 8(aX5). He notes that on the
record Respondent's counsel stated that Respondent did in fact withdraw
recognition from the Union. The fact that Respondent may have been
entitled to end negotiations for a contract upon the filing of the petition and
the Union's agreement to go to an election thereon in accordance with the
principles of Shea Chemical Corporation, 121 NLRB 1027 (1958), does not
justify a total withdrawal of recognition. Such action is not justified by the
Shea Chemical line of decisions or by any other decision of the Board.
Accordingly, as it appears in the record herein that Respondent has
withdrawn recognition of the Union as its employees' exclusive representa-
tive, Chairman Fanning agrees with his colleagues that Respondent should
be ordered to cease and desist from refusing to recognize and bargain with
the Union as the exclusive representaive of its employees.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BERNARD RIES, Administrative Law Judge: This case was
heard in Hartwell, Georgia, on October 26-28, 1976. It is a
consolidated proceeding. By order issued on September 22,
1976, by the Acting Regional Director for Region 10,
pending objections in Case 10-RC-10543 were consolidat-
ed with the complaint in Case 10-CA-11807 issued by the
Acting Regional Director on August 27, 1976, and all
issues in both matters are before me for disposition.
An election was held on January 29 and 30, 1976, at
Respondent's plant in Hartwell, Georgia, pursuant to a
petition filed by Allied Industrial Union of Auto Workers,
Independent. Thereafter, the UAW, the incumbent collec-
tive-bargaining representative of Respondent's production
and maintenance employees and an intervenor in the
election, filed timely objections thereto, and the Regional
Director issued a complaint alleging that by certain
conduct prior to the election, Respondent had violated
Section 8(aXI1) of the Act. Most of the objections and
complaint allegations are coextensive. In his complaint, the
General Counsel seeks not only findings of Section 8(a)(1)
violations, but also asks for a remedial order which would
require Respondent to bargain with the UAW.
Briefs were received from all parties on or about
December 21, 1976. Upon the entire record,' the briefs,
and my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
Respondent, a Michigan corporation, has at all material
times been engaged in the manufacture and sale of shock
absorbers in Hartwell, Georgia. During the calendar year
preceding the hearing, Respondent sold and shipped
finished products valued in excess of $50,000 from its
Hartwell, Georgia, plant directly to customers located
outside the State of Georgia. Respondent concedes that it
' Certain errors in the transcript have been noted and are hereby
corrected.
742
MONROE AUTO EQUIPMENT COMPANY
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act, and I so find.
Respondent admits in its answer, and I find, that
International Union, Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultur-
al Implement Workers of America (UAW) is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act.
It. BACKGROUND
Nearly 13 years ago, on July 23 and 24, 1964, pursuant to
a petition filed by the UAW, an election was held among
Respondent's production and maintenance employees at
its Hartwell, Georgia, plant. The Union lost the election by
a substantial margin. It filed objections thereto, 10 of
which were sustained by the Regional Director. Seven of
the sustained objections pertained to newspaper articles,
cartoons, and advertisements appearing in two local
newspapers. Among the items found objectionable were
advertisements placed by a citizens group, which included
pictures of a Hillsdale, Michigan, plant formerly operated
by Respondent, with a large "X" crossed through the
picture, an indication in the accompanying text that the
UAW had put that plant out of business, and a suggestion
that the same thing could happen in Hartwell. The
Regional Director concluded that "the general tenor of
each publication was calculated to instill in the minds of
the employees a fear of plant closure, loss of employment
opportunities and future security in the event the Petitioner
was successful in the election."
Respondent did not appeal from the Regional Director's
decision, and a new election was held on March 3-4, 1966.
The Union received a majority of the ballots in that
election. Respondent filed objections to the conduct of the
election and the Regional Director recommended that
those objections be overruled. Upon appeal by Respon-
dent, the Board adopted the Regional Director's report and
certified the Union.
In order to test the certification, Respondent refused to
bargain with the Union, and the Board issued a bargaining
order. 164 NLRB 1051 (1967). The Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit thought that the Board should have held a
hearing on Respondent's objections and accordingly
remanded the case. (406 F.2d 177.) After the hearing, the
Board reaffirmed its order to bargain. 186 NLRB 90
(1970). The Court, agreeing that the misconduct found was
not sufficient to warrant setting the second election aside,
enforced. (470 F.2d 1329.) The Respondent's petition for
certiorari was denied on June 4, 1973. (412 U.S. 928.)
Shortly thereafter, Respondent filed a motion with the
Board requesting vacation of the Union's certification and
direction of another election, asserting that because of
changes in the size and composition of the bargaining unit,
the prior certification was invalid. The Board denied the
motion on July 17, 1973. "Still undeterred and by now with
three strikes against it," as the Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit was later to say. Respondent filed an action in
the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Georgia, seeking
an order compelling the Board to reopen the record, revoke
the certification, and direct a new election. The District
Court found that it was without subject matter jurisdiction.
84 LRRM 2835, 72 LC ¶ 14,198. Respondent then turned
to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit once more. In
affirming the district court, the court of appeals directed
the assessment of double costs and an award of attorney's
fees against Respondent "[b ecause both Congressional
policy against Federal District Court involvement in Labor
Board controversies and case law to the same effect and in
point here are clearly contrary to the Employer's position."
511 F.2d 611, 614.
Beginning in December 1973, and until on or about
September 29, 1975, Respondent negotiated with the
Union. No bargaining agreement was reached. On Novem-
ber 24, 1975, the Allied Industrial Union of Auto Workers,
Independent, filed a petition for representation. The UAW
intervened in the proceeding. Pursuant to a Stipulation for
Certification Upon Consent Election agreement, an elec-
tion was conducted on January 29 and 30, 1976. The tally
shows, inter alia, that 11 voters cast ballots for the Allied
Industrial Union, 295 voted for the UAW, and 382 voted
against both unions. The UAW filed timely objections to
the election; the Allied Industrial Union filed no objec-
tions, and it did not participate in the instant hearing. The
UAW objections, and related complaint allegations, are
before me.
III. THE NEWSPAPER MATERIAL
Portions of seven issues of two local newspapers were
received in evidence as Joint Exhibits. They are relevant to
both the complaint allegations and the election objections.
The items introduced include newspaper articles about the
election, interviews, advertisements, cartoons, and an
editorial. Most of the advertisements were placed by a
group, opposed to the UAW, called the "Concerned
Employees" of Respondent. The members of this group are
unidentified in the record. There is no showing that the
"Concerned Employees" was fostered or in any material
way supported by Respondent, and the complaint does not
so allege. The complaint does allege, however, that certain
advertisements placed by the "Concerned Employees"
were used and adopted by Respondent in the course of the
preelection campaign, and that to the extent that the
advertisements were themselves of a threatening nature,
Respondent thereby engaged in coercive conduct. Respon-
dent placed only two ads in a local newspaper prior to the
election. The complaint does not specifically allege that
publication of these two ads was itself violative of the Act.
It seems appropriate to describe here the seven joint
exhibits, since they are implicated in the complaint
allegations and objections to be hereafter discussed.
Joint Exhibit I is the January 8, 1976, issue of "The
Hartwell Sun." The parties stipulated that "The Sun," a
weekly, is the only newspaper in Hart County, is "widely
distributed" there, and is the official organ for legal
notices.
The relevant material from the January 8 issue is the lead
article on page one, which describes speeches made by
Respondent's attorney, John Tate, who was, as he testified,
"in charge" of Respondent's election campaign. The
743
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
speeches were made on January 5 to "two informal
meetings of business and industrial leaders in Hartwell." 2
The article states that Tate appeared before these informal
groups to give them an "up-date on the union situation"
and told them about the election scheduled for January 29-
30.
The article directly quotes Tate as saying, "The UAW
has wanted to place on Hartwell the same type contract
they placed on MAECO when the plant was in Monroe,
Mich., but that contract caused MAECO to nearly
bankrupt and caused them to leave Monroe, Mich. and
come to Hartwell. The Union had made it impossible to
operate profitably, and it was either close the operation in
Monroe, Mich. and move it to a suitable location
(Hartwell) or continue under the union and be forced to
close permanently."3 The article goes on to say, "Tate
pointed out that at the time of moving the manufacturing
operation from Monroe, Mich. to Hartwell, that some
1,200 people were employed there and that only 81
remained after the plant was closed. Today only 50 of that
1,200 remain on the employee list. During a ques-
tion/answer period, Tate said the annual payroll at
MAECO in Hartwell is over $6 million, and that U. S.
Chamber of Commerce studies show that for every dollar
earned in a community, that it is circulated six times.
'Keeping this in mind,' he said, 'this means that Hartwell's
MAECO plant is responsible for circulating some $36
million annually, not to mention the fact that it employs
nearly 900 persons.' "4 Tate was further quoted as follows:
Because of labor relations such as this, there are many
towns and communities throughout the nation that new
industry will never locate, and this is one of the first
questions a new industry will inquire about when they
are considering locating a plant in a particular
community.5
The article goes on to say that Respondent presently has
plants in Paragould, Arkansas, Cozad, Nebraska, and
Canada and other countries. It states, "Expansion of the
Paragould plant is now underway, and it is reported that
this expansion was originally scheduled for Hartwell but
changed due to labor relations at this plant." 6
The final two paragraphs of the article read as follows:
When questioned about MAECO's plans, if the
employees choose not to be represented by either
union, Tate said that many dramatic changes will be
made immediately if the unions are defeated on the
29th.
Although Tate, during his remarks and during the
question/answer session, would not tell of Monroe's
I The General Counsel acknowledged at the heanng that he was not
specifically relying on this article. The January 8 issue of the Sun is not
specifically referred to in the election objections, although other issues of the
Sun are expressly mentioned; counsel for the Charging Party asserted,
however, that it was relevant. At the hearing, counsel for Respondent
stipulated that direct quotations of Mr. Tate and plant manager Fox in Joint
Exhibits 2, 4, 5. 6, and 7 are accurate, but stated that direct quotations
attributed to Tate in Joint Exhibit 3 are inaccurate. He took no position as
to Joint Exhibit I at the time. Counsel also took the flat position that he
could not stipulate that any of the paraphrased statements attributed to Tate
or any other company official in any of the exhibits were accurate.
plans if the employees do elect a union on the 29th, he
did say, 'look at the Monroe, Michigan plant . . . it
died because of demands made by the union.' 7
Joint Exhibit 2 is the January 15 issue of The Sun. It
contains two relevant advertisements. The first is a 1/3-
page ad with black printing on a yellow background,
placed by the "Concerned Employees." The official
registered logo of the Monroe Company appears at the top.
The principal headline is "Time To Decide YOUR FUTURE."
In adjoining boxes it contains a comparison between
"Union" and "Company," including a contrast between
"Possible Strikes which Cost Money and can result in loss
of business and Loss of Jobs" and "No Strikes ... Real job
security."
In the same issue, the "Concerned Employees" inserted a
full page ad, black print on a yellow background, with the
headline "Who Says It Can't Happen Here???" At the top
of the page is a picture of what purports to be the
manufacturing plant of Respondent which was located in
Hillsdale, Michigan, and which was closed in 1960. A large
"X" appears on the photograph. The text of the article
discusses a statement, blaming the Union for the closure,
attributed to the former president of the UAW Local at
Hillsdale. The text states, inter alia, "Some people seem to
think this can't happen in Hartwell. It CAN!!" In the middle
of the paper, in large print, appear the words "Will This
Happen In Hartwell Too??" Below that caption is a picture
of the Hartwell plant. On each side of the picture appear
three question marks.
Joint Exhibit 3 is an article entitled "Union Decision
Pending In Hartwell," which appeared in the January 19
issue of "The Anderson Independent." "The Independent"
is located in Anderson, South Carolina, about 23 miles
from Hartwell, and, as will be noted in connection with
Joint Exhibit 7, probably has wide circulation in Hartwell.
The article, written by Barbara Neuner, is based on an
interview with Tate. The article states, in its second
paragraph, "The outcome of that decision apparently could
determine the future of the Hartwell plant which employs
more than 800 area workers." It goes on to say, "Union
opponents emphasize that MAECO closed its plant near
Monroe, Mich. in 1960 because of problems with union
negotiations. They say the same thing will happen in
Hartwell if the work force is organized." The article states
that attorney Tate "would not say specifically if the plant
will close if a union wins the Jan. 29 election. He does say
that other MAECO plants have been closed for that
reason." The article then reports that "a UAW work
stoppage at the Michigan plant was a major factor in that
plant's eventual bankruptcy." It quotes Tate as saying,
"Monroe was almost bankrupt in 1956 because of the
unions."
3 Tate, at the hearing. did not deny the accuracy of this reportage.
4 At the hearing, Tate confirmed that he had made the foregoing
statements.
5 Tate was not asked whether or not he said this.
6 At the hearing, Tate denied that he had made the foregoing statement.
It does not necessarily appear to be an attempt to record a statement made
by Tate to the groups, but rather might be construed as an editorial
insertion.
I At the heanng, Tate was not asked about the foregoing statements.
744
MONROE AUTO EQUIPMENT COMPANY
Tate testified that the article misrepresents what he told
Neuner, and that, after its publication, he had a 2-3 hour
meeting with her in an attempt to give her a more precise
understanding of the situation. According to Tate, Neuner
told him that in future articles she would more accurately
characterize his position. Tate made no effort to notify
employees that the article misrepresented his attitude or
the history of the Company. 8
Joint Exhibit 4 consists of three relevant advertisements
from the January 22 edition of "The Hartwell Sun." The
first is a full page ad placed by the "Concerned Employ-
ees," again using the Monroe logo, which tells employees
that they are free to vote "no" even if they have signed a
union card or been a union member.
The second ad was also placed by the "Concerned
Employees"; it attempts to rebut the asserted claim that
there are no opportunities for seniority advancement at the
plant by setting forth a precise history of nine items of
information, including dates, relating to the 16-year
employment career of E. D. Nannie, the chairman of the
employee negotiating committee. The source of this
information is mysterious. Tate and George Roper,
Respondent's industrial relations manger, testified that
they considered this information, insofar as it was con-
tained in Nannie's personnel file, to be confidential, and
they testified that they had not released it to any
employees. Tate further testified that an investigation had
been made which disclosed that the locks on the personnel
files had not been tampered with. Nannie testified that the
information given was in some respects erroneous.
The final item in Joint Exhibit 4 is a full page ad placed
by Respondent, consisting of 24 questions and answers
relating to the campaign. This will be discussed in more
detail hereafter.
Joint Erhibit 5 consists of relevant pages from the
January 29 issue of "The Hartwell Sun." The entire front
page is a story on the election, entitled, "Ballots To Decide
MAECO Fate." The lead sentence states that the employ-
ees would "cast ballots today and tonight which could well
decide the fate of the county's largest single industry." The
second sentence reads, "Although Monroe Auto officials
declined to comment on the plant's future if the union is
again voted in, the fact remains that Monroe Auto did
close its production operations in Michigan and move to
Hartwell after the union demands forced the company to
near bankruptcy in the 50's." 9 Following this is a direct
quotation of a statement by Tate that "during my 30 years
as a labor attorney I have never signed a contract with the
United Auto Workers Union (UAW). It's not that we don't
want to enter into a contract, but the UAW has never
presented a proposal we could live with and one which I
felt would not be detrimental to the successful operation of
the company."
The article goes on to discuss a recapitulation by Tate of
the benefits being received by employees. Note is taken of
an agency shop bill pending in the Georgia legislature
which would assertedly "leave no employee of a company
" Indeed, the record is clear that Respondent made no efiort to directly
notily employees that any of the items referred to here contained erroneous
material.
9 The editor of "The Sun" testified that he received the foregoing
informatlin "in general conversation with Mr. Tate, management., employ-
ees.
under union domination without 'fees' to be paid to the
union." The article then refers to "talk" sessions which
Tate had been having for the past 2 weeks with "employees
who have requested them and those sent by their foreman."
It describes in part the manner in which Tate conducted
these sessions. It notes, inter alia, that employees at the
sessions had repeatedly complained about a lack of
communication with management and that Tate, "in
hearing several specific problems, agreed with the employ-
ees and said that corrective measures have already been
put into motion, and that the company plans to continue to
put more emphasis on personnel relations which will make
Monroe Auto a better place to work." It further states that
Tate advised every employee participating in the sessions
that they could turn to the National Labor Relations Board
in Atlanta if they did not get satisfaction at the plant; Tate
is quoted as saying, "An employee does not need a union
to represent them because of problems, because the NLRB
is available to every employed person at Monroe." 10
Accompanying the front page article is a red-tinted
picture of the Hartwell plant with a large black "X" across
it, captioned "Will Monroe Auto In Hartwell Face The
Same Fate As The Plant In Michigan?" Beneath that is a
sample reproduction of the ballot to be used in the election.
The second page of the paper contains an editorial by
Editor Bill Bridges entitled "Day of Decision." The
editorial leads off by stating that January 29 would be
recorded in history "as a day when 750 citizens decided the
fate of their company in this community ... Monroe Auto
Equipment Company . . . and to a great degree they will
decide whether or not Hart County will continue to be
progressive." It then asserts that communities with labor
problems have usually fallen by the wayside and that there
are many communities without industries and without
labor problems which are anxious to attract industry. It
goes on to state that the experience of the past 10 years has
shown that having a union is not the best way to ensure
progress: "Instead, the dark cloud of union domination has
caused expansion restriction of present facilities at the
Monroe plant." It also indicates that the "laws governing
what a company can or cannot do while negotiating with
the union" has meant that "little has been done in the area
of increased employee benefits. .... but Monroe officials
indicate that several meaningful things are on the 'drawing
board' for immediate attention if the employees choose to
be their own representatives once again."
Further on, Bridges asks:
On the other hand, why should they continue to
operate this plant under the 'dark cloud' caused by
unions.... why shouldn't they pack up and
move.... just like they did when the union took
Monroe to the brink of bankruptcy in Michigan?
By moving to Hartwell, where there was a 'climate' of
togetherness, the Monroe Company succeeded in
becoming the world leader in the manufacture of shock
I0 The editor of "The Sun" testified that he was in charge of contacting
Tale for such stories, and that the articles were "accurate reflections" of
Tate's comments. Tate did not testify on this subjectl
745
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
absorbers ... and they did it only after they removed
themselves from union domination.
Bridges then discussed the size of the Hartwell payroll,
$6 million, which was "a payroll many communities would
welcome." He talked about the "track record" of unions in
recent years which, for the most part, has been "causing
strikes and closing plants." Strikes, he noted, "leave many
unemployed . . . not only temporarily, but many perma-
nently." Unemployment compensation is not available to
strikers, which raises the question of how employees who
participate in a strike can support their families.
Bridges continued:
Another important item to be considered by those
persons who feel unions are their 'salvation' and their
only means to 'better living' is that union demands
many times force companies 'out of business' and out
of a community (just as UAW did to Monroe Auto
Company in Michigan). This leaves many individuals
and their families without an income, and in a
community where there are no vacant jobs.
And even if there were vacant jobs, how many
employers would seriously consider hiring someone
who has been an active supporter of a union which
closed another plant in the same community.... a
plant that had been loyal to the employee and his
family for years before the employee helped cause it to
collapse?
In closing, Bridges stated:
Success started in Hartwell for Monroe Auto, and the
fate of this plant will toll at 12:30 a.m. tomorrow ...
when the ballot box closes.
The way to insure continued success at Monroe Auto in
Hartwell is for the majority of the employees to cast
their vote in the NEITHER box. This will again put
Monroe Auto and the employees therein on a one-to-
one basis. . . . and will remove the 'dark cloud' caused
by unions.
Think about it . our future depends on your vote!
On the same page as the editorial is a cartoon headlined
"History Does Repeat Itself." It shows a building labeled
"New York Herald Tribune," with a "Closed Forever" sign
on its door. The text of the cartoon states that the "Herald
Tribune" went out of business due to a printers strike, and
"Over 800 employees were left without jobs when the
Tribune ceased all business operations."
On the same page is an article entitled "Some Call It,
'Getting Even,'" which discusses the union situation and
ends with a parable indicating that dissatisfied employees
can cause their own destruction.
Finally, on that same page is an article called "'Free'
Speech and The Union," which discusses the litigation
challenging a union-security clause as applied to television
commentators.
Page 4 of the exhibit is a full page ad, again using the
Monroe logo, placed by the "Concerned Employees,"
much like the January 22 ad, in which the employees are
told that they are free to vote against a union even if they
have signed a union card or been a member. The ad
contains a reproduction of a sample official ballot with an
"X" marked in the "NEITHER" block.
Page IC of the January 29 issue contains the other ad
placed by Respondent. Its theme is that "It's IMPORTANT"
that the employees understand three things. The first is that
"The Union Cannot Make The Company Do Anything";
for this proposition, Section 8(d) of the Act is quoted. The
second matter of importance is that "The Union Could
Cause You To LOSE YOUR JOB." The text, in small print,
contains an excerpt from a "Layman's Guide to Basic
Labor Law" prepared by the General Counsel of the
NLRB. It explains the rights of employees and employers
in an economic strike and states that if replacements are
hired, strikers are "not entitled to reinstatement." It also
then notes, however, that the Supreme Court has held that
economic strikers are entitled to reinstatement only when
their jobs become available. The third important item is
that "Unions Often Cause Employees A LOT OF TROUBLE
and COST THEM A LOT Of Money By Fines (hundreds of
dollars) Assessments And 'Special Levies.'" Summaries of
two Board cases are set out. Another example of "a lot of
trouble" is "union caused discharge and loss of seniority,"
and a Board case relating to an employee who was laid off
because of his failure to pay dues is discussed.
Finally, on page 12C, there appears a full page ad placed
by the "Concerned Employees." It is quite similar to the
"Who Says It Can't Happen Here???" advertisement
placed by the same group on January 15, containing
pictures of the Michigan plant with an "X" through it and
of the Hartwell plant. However, instead of the January 15
legend above the picture of the Hartwell plant-"Will This
Happen In Hartwell Too??"-appear the words "DON'T Let
This Happen In HARTWELL Too!!" at the bottom of the
page is a reproduction of the Board ballot with the
"NEITHER" box marked.
Joint Exhibit 6 is a copy of "The Hartwell Sun" for
December 4, 1975. Apparently the first publicity given by
"The Sun" to the filing of a petition, it is a straightforward
account of the applicable procedure. However, it also
contains the following paragraph referring to plant manag-
er Malcolm Fox:
Fox said the bargaining requirements have placed
many restrictions on things he wanted to do and hoped
the employees would vote no union and provide him an
opportunity to initiate some programs he had formulat-
ed.
Respondent refused to stipulate that this paraphrase of
Fox's remarks was accurate, as opposed to another direct
quotation of Fox which Respondent agreed was correct.
Fox did not testify, but editor Bridges testified that the
articles referring to Tate and Fox contained "accurate
reflections" of what they had said. General Counsel stated
that he was not relying on this exhibit. The objections do
not expressly mention this issue of "The Sun." At hearing,
counsel for the Charging Party said that he regarded the
material as "background information."
746
MONROE AUTO EQUIPMENT COMPANY
Joint Exhibit 7 is the January 25 edition of "The
Anderson Independent." I earlier noted that it seemed
probable that "The Anderson Independent," published 23
miles from Hartwell, was widely circulated in Hartwell; I
infer this from the fact that a story on the Monroe election
is the lead article on the first page of this 32-page Sunday
edition. The headline reads, "Hart Firm Heads For Union
Showdown." It contains two connected articles, one
entitled "Lawyer Says No," and the other entitled "Work-
ers Say Yes." The first article is an interview with attorney
Tate. It states that Tate "has a long history of fighting
unions. He received his first real blow as a young teenager
clubbed over the head for trying to cross a picket line to
earn his 25-cents hourly wage." The article contains the
following language:
Legally, Tate can't say what will happen at the plant if
the UAW wins Thursday's election. Rumors say the
plant will close-Tate says only that he doesn't know
that it will, but thinks he 'probably would have heard
about it.'
On the other hand, he makes the point clear that the
plant could close in Hartwell as they have in other
areas of the country when agreements could not be
reached with UAW.
Nor can Tate say what changes he could offer the
employees if neither union wins the election. 'It would
be helpful if we could make promises,' he says.
But Tate points to the difference in an employer's
attitude when an employee threatens him and when the
spirit is cooperative. And, he asks, why should the
company increase benefits and give the credit to a
union?
'We're not interested in doing something UAW can
take credit for,' he says.
Tate testified only that the statement that "the plant
could close in Hartwell as they have in other areas of the
country when agreements could not be reached with
UAW" was not an accurate paraphrase of his remarks to
the reporter. He conceded that he did tell her that "it
makes me mad for the unions to say a plant can't close
because a plant can close if it has no relation to union
activities." He stated that after the January 25 article
appeared, he tried to reach the reporter and left a message
for her to get in touch with him. His purpose was to get a
retraction; however, the reporter never contacted him. The
reporter was the same one who had, as Tate asserted,
misrepresented his remarks in an article of January 19,
after which he had met with her for 2 or 3 hours to try to
clarify his position. Although Tate testified that he was
trying to get a newspaper retraction, when asked why he
did not post a retraction on the plant bulletin boards, he
answered, "because I thought it would be more confusing
than helpful and still do." He did not explain at the hearing
why a newspaper retraction would have been less confus-
ing than a bulletin board retraction.
IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Promise of Benefits to Franks
Employee Bobby R. Franks testified that about a week
before the election, he approached Third Shift Supervisor
Douglas Casey about an assembly line problem. Casey was
discussing the election with an employee, and Franks left.
A few hours later, Casey came to the work station of
Franks, who wore a UAW button, and said, "if we got this,
got rid of the UAW, that the company would increase the
pay raises, sick leave and holidays." Franks replied, in
effect, that he did not think the company would do
anything for the employees; Casey said "trust the compa-
ny, and they would come through for us." After the
election, Casey came to see Franks to thank him for his
trust and to say the company would "come through" with
its promises.
After the election, the employees were given an extra
holiday in April. They also received an increase in their
insurance benefits in August, were given sick leave for the
first time effective in December, and got a 30-cent raise in
August and another 5 percent raise in December. Accord-
ing to General Counsel, the Union agreed to these benefits.
The record indicates that in the prior 4-5 years, employees
had received increases around August of each year, but
there is no indication that they had received new categories
of benefits such as the sick leave at that time or any other
time, or that they had been given additional benefits in
previous Decembers. The complaint does not allege that
the foregoing improvements were violative of the Act.
Casey testified that he never had an individual conversa-
tion with Franks about the election. He did recall joining a
discussion about the Union with 4 or 5 employees about 7
or 10 days before the election, in which Franks participat-
ed.
Franks appeared to be an honest witness. Casey, whose
testimony on cross-examination was contradictory, was not
impressive. I prefer Franks' testimony, and accordingly
conclude that on or about January 22, 1976, Respondent
violated Section 8(aXl) by promising an employee in-
creased benefits if he voted against the UAW.
B. The Threat to Saylers
Billy Saylers testified that in December, he went to the
office of supervisor Rufus Barnes to get a work order.
Production Supervisor Benny Reid was present. Barnes
asked him something to the effect of "are you going to vote
the right way?" Saylers made no reply. Barnes said that "if
the union was voted in, that the plant would close and
nobody would have a job." Reid said only that "he could
not say what would happen if the union was voted in."
After some hesitation at hearing, Saylers recalled that
Barnes said the reason Respondent closed its Michigan
plant was "because of the union." Saylers' pretrial affidavit
was less certain; it stated, "I got the impression-I think
[Barnes] said the plant would close if the union came in.
I'm not sure of exactly what words he used."
Neither Barnes nor Reid testified, and no reason was
advanced for their failure to appear. Saylers' demeanor was
extremely impressive. I credit him and find that in
747
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
December 1975, Respondent threatened an employee with
possible plant closure in the event of a union victory in the
election.
C. Respondent's Display and Distribution of "The
Hartwell Sun"
Tommy Crowe, an election observer and a member of
the Union bargaining committee, testified that on three
occasions prior to the election, she saw Supervisor Jerry
Bennett in the plant with 3 or 4 copies of "The Hartwell
Sun." On the evening of January 14, she saw Bennett,
during a break, bring copies of the January 15 issue to his
desk from the direction of Supervisor Feltman's office.
When the break whistle blew, and some 10-12 employees
in Crowe's department returned to their work stations at a
machine, Bennett carried the papers to the machine, laid
them down in front of the employees, and showed them a
yellow page. Thereafter, Crowe saw employees reading the
papers during the evening.
Crowe saw Bennett perform the same routine on the
evening of January 21, using the January 22 issue of "The
Sun"; on that occasion, Bennett was "pointing specific
items" to employee Cindy Brown from the paper. Again,
on January 28, Bennett showed the employees the January
29 issue when they were assembled at their machine.
Bennett denied that he had ever brought newspapers into
the plant or distributed them to employees. He also
testified that the office of Feltman, his immediate supervi-
sor, is locked at 5:00 p.m.
I was generally unimpressed by Bennett. Crowe made a
most favorable appearance. I do not believe she construct-
ed these events out of whole cloth. I therefore credit
Crowe's testimony."
The complaint alleges that Respondent, by its agent,
violated the Act on January 14, 21, and 28, in that Bennett
"threatened employees with plant closure if the Union
continued to be the collective-bargaining representative of
its employees by bringing into the plant and distributing to
its employees copies of 'The Hartwell Sun' newspaper
containing such threats." The January 15 issue contains the
yellow-colored 1/3-page ad placed by the "Concerned
Employees" which listed the adverse consequences of
unionism. While hard-hitting, it is difficult to say that the
ad is threatening. It also contains the full page, yellow-
colored ad placed by the "Concerned Employees" showing
the Michigan plant with an "X" across it, and attributing
the closure to the Union, bearing the legend "Will This
Happen In Hartwell Too???" This ad is clearly threatening.
While Crowe could only testify that she saw Bennett show
the employees a "yellow" page, there is every reason to
believe, given the presumed nature of his mission, that he
showed them the latter ad. Furthermore, even if he did not
specifically do so, he made the papers available to the
employees for their perusal, and the full page ad could
hardly have escaped their notice.
The January 22 issue contains the "questions and
answers" ad published by Respondent. I find, as later
discussed, that this ad clearly conveys a message that the
" I have taken into account Crowe's denial of "making any statements"
for the Union prior to the election. The fact that she gave an interview to
"The Anderson Independent" probably did not occur to her as falling
plant might be closed if the employees should vote for the
Union.
The January 29 issue contains, inter alia, the "Concerned
Employees" ad again showing the "X"-ed out Michigan
plant with the headline, "DON'T Let This Happen In
HARTWELL Too! !" A photograph of the Hartwell plant with
an "X" across it appears on the front page, and the front
page story, as well as the "Day of Decision" editorial and
the cartoon referring to the demise of "The New York
Herald Tribune," also appear. Both separately and cumu-
latively, these items carry a message of impending doom
for the plant.
By exhibiting and ostentatiously making available to
employees the foregoing newspapers, Bennett made it plain
that Respondent was adopting and sponsoring their
threatening message. In doing so, he violated Section
8(a)(1) as alleged.
D. The Coercive Interrogation of and Promise of
Benefits to, Brooks
Employee Garland Brooks testified that "somewhere
around or before November 25th," Supervisor Jerry
Bennett asked him if he had received a letter from the
Allied Industrial Union. Brooks said he had, and, when
asked his opinion of it, said he thought it came "straight
from Mr. Tate." Bennett asked if Brooks was a member of
the Union and what he thought about it. Brooks said he
thought the Union could help the plant. Either "at this
time, or another conversation," Supervisor Bennett said he
thought the Union had been "a benefit in some ways," but
it was time for an election to "see how the people felt and
see if they couldn't get the union out and give Monroe a
chance to help the people." If the latter remarks were made
in a second conversation, it occurred when Bennett came
to see Brooks during working hours about 3 weeks before
the election.
Brooks, whose health is poor, became noticeably ill
during direct examination, and counsel for Respondent
considerately waived cross-examination. Bennett denied
ever having had a conversation with Brooks about unions.
He said it was "common knowledge" that Brooks favored
the Union.
I found Brooks to be most believable, and I was not
impressed by Bennett, whose testimony on several matters
seemed doubtful. I conclude, therefore, that on or about
November 25, 1975, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
by coercively interrogating an employee about his union
adherence and sympathies, and, on or about November 25,
1975, or January 8, 1976, by impliedly promising an
employee increased benefits if he voted against the Union
in the forthcoming election.
E. The Appearance of Hartwell Sun Advertisements
on Plant Property
Employees Franks and Crowe testified that they saw
some of the advertisements from "The Sun" posted on, in,
within the context of a question about whether she had engaged in
"campaigning for the Union."
748
MONROE AUTO EQUIPMENT COMPANY
or near the plant bulletin board for short periods of time
not long before the election.
Attorney Tate said that, with the exception of January 27
and 28, he was in Hartwell from January 19 until the
election ended on January 30. Every night, he would
inspect the plant bulletin boards, which, he testified, are
not locked, to assure that the official election notices were
not covered. He thought that there were one or two
newspaper articles posted on a bulletin board near the
employee entrance, and he took them down.
The evidence at best established that the ads appeared
for short periods of time, which corresponds to Tate's
testimony that he removed some ads. Tate testified that the
bulletin boards, although covered with glass, are not
locked, and Franks' testimony does not satisfactorily
establish that a key was needed to open the glass.12 I do not
believe that I can conclude, on this evidence, that agents of
Respondent authorized or facilitated the placement of the
ads seen by Crowe and Franks.
F. The Meetings Between Tate and Employees
Employee Eddie Thornton testified that a few days
before the election, a foreman asked him to go to a
conference room next to the plant manager's office, where
he found Tate, Industrial Relations Manager Roper, and
about 15 other employees. Tate spoke to them of the dues
collected by the UAW, and "went on to state how the
UAW caused the plant in Michigan to close down and
said, he wasn't saying that this was going to happen in
Hartwell, but he said it was a possibility if the election went
to UAW. The UAW would, they couldn't accept the
contract that they offered them." Tate showed the
employees a newspaper with a picture of the closed
Michigan plant crossed by an "X." Tate mentioned having
received a letter contending that the plant depicted in the
photograph was a cotton mill, and he insisted that it was,
indeed, the former Monroe plant. He also asked the
employees to give the plant manager "another year, that
things would be better in the plant, better benefits and so
forth." Tate stated, when asked, that he could not lawfully
specify the benefits, but "he would guarantee that there
would be some changes in the plant." Tate further said that
Respondent had been awarded some new contracts and "it
would be an increase of about 200 employees there at the
plant if the union didn't come in," which would improve
the seniority, and hence the security, of the present
employees. Tate warned, however, that the contracts would
be assigned elsewhere if the Union won the election.
Thornton denied that Tate showed the employees the
"Questions and Answers" ad placed by Respondent in the
January 22 issue of "The Sun." He did recall Tate telling
them that they were free to leave at any time. He also
recalled Tate informing the employees about the election
procedure. The whole process took about an hour.
Employee Lettie Jordan was told to report to a meeting
with Tate about 2 weeks before the election. She had not
12 "You undo two locks on each side of it, more or less with your thumb,
and they either raise up or come down and have hinges on them."
'' Roper testified, on the other hand, that the supervisors were directed
to spread the word that all employees "who wanted to attend these meetings
and ask questions were welcome to do so."
asked to attend any such meeting. Among other things,
Tate showed the 10 employees a picture of a plant with an
"X" on it; it was not, however, a newspaper photograph.
Tate identified it as a former plant of Respondent's and
spoke of "the plant going down after the union came in and
it finally closed down." Tate also asked the employees to
get at least 10 names of "some of the people we thought
wasn't for the UAW and hand them back into the office
. [t ]o determine how they stood." While Jordan testified
that there had been discussion of new contracts, she did
not say that Tate had attached any conditions to the work
being done at Hartwell.
Tate testified that he personally held meetings with
employees to "try to avoid objections again." The meetings
were held in a small personnel office. While the number of
employees present at the meetings ranged from I or 2 to 20,
the average was between 10-20. Tate estimated that he met
with a total of 350 employees. He said that he had
originally intended to meet with only 50 or 60 employees
who had posed questions to supervisors, and he talked to
those employees in early January. Subsequently, industrial
relations manager Roper told him that "a lot of people
were pretty mad" about not being given a chance to speak
with Tate. Arrangements were made to talk to these
employees, but more kept insisting on seeing Tate, and
Tate accommodated them.13
Tate described his standard speech. He would begin by
telling employees that they were free to leave, and that no
notes or recordings would be made. He would then discuss
the election procedure and the secrecy of the ballot. He
would go on to note the laws restricting the company's
right to make promises, as opposed to the Union's freedom
to do so. He would say, "I know it could be real good here,
I wish we could." He further would state "that it made me
angry as the dickens that the Union had made the
statement that Monroe couldn't close the plant. In fact, I
said, that's a lie."14 He explained that, under the law, a
plant could be closed "for no reason or any reason, so long
as it's not related to union activities."
After this, said Tate, there would often be questions
about what Respondent would give the employees. He
would point out again that he could make no promises, and
also say that he could make no threats: "And I said, now,
you heard me say a minute ago, how perturbed it made me
that somebody said we couldn't close the plant. I want you
to be sure and understand that I have no reason to believe
that Monroe will close its plant. Business is picking
up .. ..' 5 The new wave of smaller cars actually required
more complex shock absorbers. While Tate was not in
charge of deciding which plants would expand, he thought
Respondent would expand all the plants. "I did say in one
or two, if you were the president, though, you might [ask?]
your ownself where you would be most likely to put your
expansions if you didn't put them in all three." Tate
subsequently explained at hearing that this was said in
context of the fact that the Hartwell plant had expanded
and was considered the most efficient.
"4 At this point in his testimonial account, the witness spoke in a loud
voice and banged his hand sharply on the witness stand.
1' Tate's testimony seems to indicate that this mollifying comment would
only be made if provoked by a question.
749
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In response to questions in "probably half of the
meetings" about Respondent's history, Tate would say that
in the 1950's, Respondent was almost bankrupt until it
opened the Hartwell plant, which succeeded because of the
"good feeling of the people and the productivity of the
people." Employment at Hartwell had increased and the
facilities had been enlarged; "what would happen in the
future, I couldn't promise, but I had no reason to think it
wouldn't continue." He would then discuss the UAW
membership card, its constitution, and the moneys collect-
ed by the Union. Thereafter, he would refer to the progress
made by Respondent in minority hiring and promotion. He
would then ask that the company be given a year as "a
matter of trust": "I can't promise you anything, I've made
that clear, but you know, Malcolm Fox has never really
operated down here without having a union, a union cloud
over his head the entire time he's been manager."
Tate denied showing employees either a photograph or a
newspaper ad depicting the closed plant; however, he
"several times" suggested that employees study the "Ques-
tions and Answers" ad which Respondent placed in "The
Sun" on January 22, and displayed the ad. Tate also denied
asking employees to get the names of 10 antiunion
employees, but testified that he sometimes said, when
employees expressed antiunion sentiments, that there
would be no problem if such employees "were interested
enough to go out and get ten people to do what you think is
right." He further answered in the negative a question
whether he told employees that the company would not
expand "if it signed a collective-bargaining agreement with
the Union."
The most clearcut point of departure between Thornton
and Jordan, on the one hand, and Tate, on the other, is the
disputed matter of Tate's use of a picture of the closed
Michigan plant. Jordan testified that he showed the
employees in her group a photograph, and Thornton said
Tate displayed a newspaper ad containing the picture. Tate
denied exhibiting either. I thought Thornton and Jordan
seemed quite credible, and Thornton's description of Tate's
discussion of a letter alleging that the depicted plant was in
fact a cotton mill did not seem to be the kind of fabrication
of which Thornton would have been capable. That
Jordan's group would have been shown a photograph
rather than an ad is consistent with Tate's testimony that,
according to company records, Jordan was part of a group
he met with on January 5 or 6, prior to the first appearance
(January 15) in the current campaign of an ad showing the
closed plant.' 6
Tate was a facile witness, but appeared very quick to
assert and quick to retract. On at least five occasions, he
changed or contradicted his testimony. An example of such
contradiction occurred when Tate was asked whether he
took steps to ascertain from "The Sun" its source of
information for the Nannie ad. Tate said, "We called them
and they said, it's none of your business." One page later,
again asked if he had inquired of "The Sun" who had given
1i As previously indicated, a similar ad had appeared in "The Sun" in the
1964 election.
I7 There is no inconsistency in finding both a threat of plant closure and
a threat that the plant will not be expanded. Obviously, Tate did not in so
many words definitively state that the plant would close down if the Union
won. Thornton in fact conceded that Tate said "he wasn't saying that this
it the data, he replied, "No, I did not," and that he did not
know if Roper had; he explained that he did not ask Editor
Bridges who had placed the ad because the question might
interfere with the Section 7 rights of employees.
Respondent's brief contends that it would be "illogical
and irrational" to believe that an experienced labor
practitioner like Tate would have made the statements
attributed to him. I recognize the margin for error in
accounts of such speeches given by employees. I also
believe, however, that Tate was willing to take chances
which others might not. He seems to genuinely oppose the
principle of unionization; he conceded the accuracy of
"The Anderson Independent" account that he was injured
as a youth crossing a picket line. He also seemed easily
moved to impetuosity and anger; he admitted that, as part
of the standard speech, he would say loudly and forcefully,
complete with a banging of his hand on the table, that "it
made me angry as the dickens that the Union had made the
statement that Monroe couldn't close the plant. In fact, I
said, that's a lie." Even though he would allegedly go on to
qualify these remarks by saying the plant could be closed
for "no reason or any reason, so long as it's not related to
union activities," the fact that he gratuitously and angrily
raised the question of plant closure, on the precariously
frail pretext of responding to a union attempt to assure the
employees that they would not lose their livelihood, would
itself, given Monroe's background and the publicity about
prior closure, seem to constitute the kind of "brinkman-
ship," the kind of failure to "avoid [] conscious overstate-
ments he has reason to believe will mislead his employees,"
condemned by the Supreme Court in N.LR.B. v. Gissel
Packing Co. Inc., 395 U.S. 575, 620 (1969).
I think, in other words, particularly given my finding that
Tate did display pictures of the closed Michigan plant to
the groups of employees, that, as Thornton testified, Tate
also very likely stated, perhaps more subtly but nonetheless
conveying the idea, that "he wasn't saying this was going to
happen in Hartwell, but he said it was a possibility if the
election went to UAW." If, as I find, he did exhibit the
picture, some such comment or insinuation would logically
have accompanied it. I conclude that by Tate's exhibiting
the picture to Jordan's group and to Thornton's group,
telling Jordan's group "about the plant going down after
the union came in and it finally closed down," and
intimating to Thornton's group that there was a possibility
that the same end could come to the Hartwell plant,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(I).
I further accept the gist of Thornton's testimony that
Tate indicated that Respondent might not assign any of the
anticipated new contracts to Hartwell if the Union won the
election, which prediction would plainly be perceived by
the employees to be threatening, and which constitutes a
violation of Section 8(a)(1).17
I do not believe, however, that the evidence supports the
complaint allegation that Tate "solicited its employees to
report the name of anti-union employees." Aside from the
was going to happen in Hartwell." The vice is in the dangling of the
Damoclean Sword-the suggested "possibility." Holding out that "possibili-
ty" is consistent with another "possibility" that Respondent would,
alternatively, deal adversely with expansion prospects of the plant should
the Union prevail in the election.
750
MONROE AUTO EQUIPMENT COMPANY
legal issue, raised by Respondent, as to whether such
solicitation would constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(1), I
suspect that Jordan simply misunderstood Tate's reference
to the value of having 10 more antiunion employees for
each one who demonstrated such a sentiment in the group.
G. Respondent's Advertisement of January 22, 1976
On January 22, Respondent published in "The Hartwell
Sun" a full page ad entitled "Questions-Answers." In my
view, the advertisement is clearly coercive. The complaint,
as Respondent notes in its brief, does not allege that
publication of Respondent's advertisements constitutes an
independent violation of the Act; the objections to the
election, while referring to the January 22 issue, do not
mention this ad, but rather another ad placed by the
"Concerned Employees."18 Nonetheless, at the hearing,
while the parties were presenting the Joint Exhibits, this
advertisement was designated and agreed to as a relevant
part of Joint Exhibit 4. Thus, the advertisement has been
acknowledged as authentic and it is further stipulated that
it was contained in the only, and "widely distributed,"
newspaper in the county.
The applicable law is set out in Monroe Feed Store, 112
NLRB 1336, 1337:
It is well established that when an issue relating to the
subject matter of a complaint is fully litigated at a
hearing, the Trial Examiner and the Board are expected
to pass upon it even though it is not specifically alleged
to be an unfair labor practice in the complaint.
In the present case, there does not appear to be any factual
matter to be further litigated. Should Respondent disagree
with my evaluation that the legal implications of this
advertisement are flagrantly coercive, it may challenge my
conclusions by argument to the Board, and thus is afforded
due process. See Rochester Cadet Cleaners, Inc., 205 NLRB
773 (1973). ("Moreover, even if the complaint failed to
refer at all to the application form questions, it would not
prevent a finding that Respondent had violated the Act in
this regard, inasmuch as the record shows that the
Administrative Law Judge's factual findings concerning
the questions were related to the general subject matter of
the complaint and charge, the facts were fully litigated, and
the Respondent did not object to testimony concerning
them.")
The January 22 advertisement purports to be in answer
to "[m ]any questions [which] have been asked concerning
unions and their impact on the lives of MAECO employ-
ees, their families and the community as a whole." 19 The
ad is signed by attorney Tate. Of the 24 questions and
answers 2 expressly indicate that employees will not be
discriminated against for their individual union activities.
However, four of the questions and answers so clearly
threaten the possibility of plant closure that I do not think
even the well-worn adjective "thinly veiled" is appropriate
here.
"' Objections 9 and I , however, allege that Respondent. "through oral
and written anti-union propaganda." threatened plant closure and indicated
that the employees would lose benefits because of UAW representation. In
its brief to me. Charging Party adverts to the matenal hereinafter discussed.
These questions, the first two of which appear consecu-
tively in the ad, read as follows:
Q. What is this about closing the UAW plants in
Michigan?
A. It is true. All Michigan manufacturing facilities
were closed and over 2,000 UAW employees lost their
jobs at that time. About 51 assorted personnel are in
the headquarters building. No production shocks are
manufactured by Monroe Auto in Michigan.
Q. The Union tells me that Monroe cannot legally
close the Hartwell plant unless all of the other plants
are losing money. Is that true?
A. Untrue. The company has made no threats to
close the Hartwell plant, but it can legally do so
whether or not the other plants are making or losing
money.
* e * *
Q. What does Monroe Auto Company's payroll
mean to Hartwell and Hart County?
A. It amounts to about $6,000,000.00 yearly, which
the Commerce Department estimates turns over about
six times to provide area earnings of about
$36,000,000.00 yearly. Without it most schools and
businesses, as well as many other institutions, would
have a hard time staying open.
* S *
Q. If Monroe Auto closed its Hartwell plant,
wouldn't some other company move right in?
A. No one knows the answer. There are plants in
the area which have been closed down and vacated
because of labor unions. Other companies may avoid
the area in order to avoid similar labor problems.
Thus, the employees are told, in purported answer to
"questions [which] have been asked," that the "U.A.W.
plants" in Michigan were closed and "over 2,000 U.A.W.
employees lost their jobs." They are then told that while
the Company has "made no threats to close the Hartwell
plant," it nonetheless "can legally do so whether or not the
other plants are making or losing money." Tate refrained
from asserting in this ad, as he says he did at the meetings
with employees, that the Company was forbidden to close
the plant for union-related reasons. The employees are next
reminded that Respondent's payroll provides $36,000,000
yearly to the community, and are ominously cautioned that
"[w]ithout it," "most schools and businesses," as well as
many other institutions, "would have a hard time staying
open." No explanation is given as to why such a chilling
eventuality is being mentioned. Finally, the question is put,
"If Monroe Auto closed its Hartwell plant, wouldn't some
other company move right in?" Again, no reason for
closing the plant is advanced, and such closure is treated
almost as afait accompli.
19 It would be of interest to know who asked such questions as "'is it true
that the last U.S. Department of Labor LM-2 reports showed that the
U.A.W. union collected $622,326,559.00 in dues, fees and other income for
the last year they reported?"
751
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The final two questions and answers set out above
remove any doubt of Respondent's intention; they move
past the question of closure as if it were a foregone
conclusion, and survey the damage the employees will have
perpetrated against themselves and their community. For
the purpose of showing just how bleak the future will be
once the plant closes, the employees are told that "no one
knows the answer [to whether another company would
move in]." They are notified that there "are plants in the
are', which have been closed down and vacated because of
labor unions," and there is no indication that Monroe may
not be one of those plants. And after Monroe closes,
"[o]ther companies may avoid the area in order to avoid
similar labor problems." The plain import of such a
question is not only to convey the message that Respon-
dent may well close down, but also that after it has done so,
the employees, having once selected a union, will have
made the area repellent to other employers.
Short of explicitly telling the employees that if they vote
for the UAW, the Company will definitely close down, this
wholly gratuitous, repetitious, emphatic concentration on
plant closure and its effects seems to me to come as close to
an express threat as is possible without saying the fatal
words. This propaganda was plainly more directly coercive
than that found unlawful in the Sinclair Company case
decided in N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., et al., supra.
The employer's preelection messages in Sinclair, which the
Supreme Court found to be a threat, at least suggested that
the plant might close as a result of a strike. The questions
and answers quoted above do not even indicate that
Respondent might be forced out of business by prospective
action of the Union; they simply imply a corporate
decision to go elsewhere if the employees again vote for the
Union. That the employees would not likely regard this as
an idle and unrealistic threat is emphasized by the fact that
this company did indeed close its Michigan "U.A.W.
plants" after labor troubles there, at which time "over 2,000
U.A.W. employees lost their jobs," and the ad pointedly
reminded the Hartwell employees of that fact, undoubtedly
already known to them by virtue of the January 15
advertisement placed by the "Concerned Employees."
In applying the test approved by the Court in Gissel
Packing Co., supra, 395 U.S. at 619, "What did the speaker
intend and the listener understand?," I think it eminently
reasonable to conclude here, as the Court did there, that
"the intended and understood import of that message was
not to predict that unionization would inevitably cause the
plant to close but to threaten to throw employees out of
work regardless of the economic realities."
I also conclude that certain of the questions and answers
constituted an unlawful promise of benefits conditioned
upon repudiation of the Union. As stated above, after
exhausting every known legal recourse, Respondent began
to bargain with the Union in December 1973 and
continued to bargain until September 1975. No agreement
was reached, and the Region has issued no complaint
charging that the bargaining was conducted in bad faith.
Nonetheless, certain questions and answers in the January
22 ad make it patent that the Union was the only obstacle
to the employees receiving improved benefits. The follow-
ing relevant questions and answers appear in the ad:
Q. Why hasn't the Company instituted a program
of sick leave and an improved pension program?
A. It would be an unfair labor practice and against
the law for the Hartwell Monroe plant to unilaterally
institute such programs while negotiating with the
U.A.W.
Q. If the U.A.W. union has represented the
Monroe Hartwell employees for 10 years, and has been
UNSUCCESSFUL, why does anyone think they will be any
more successful now?
A. We don't believe they will. The facts indicate
that the U.A.W. does not have support of the majority
of Monroe employees.
Q. What is this stuff about 'give the company a
year'?
A. Because Monroe Auto is prohibited by law from
making any promises at all, Mr. Fox has asked the
employees to ALL vote 'NEITHER' (no union) in the
election on January 29th. Employees can then compare
the almost 10 years of U.A.W. failure with their
situation at the end of a year. Employees will then be
free to go to the NLRB in Atlanta for another election
for some other union or the U.A.W. or decide if they
are better off NON-UNION.
Q. Why were fringe benefits increased for salaried
employees but not for hourly Hartwell employees?
A. It would have been unlawful, illegal and
contrary to NLRB rules and regulations for Monroe
Auto to unilaterally increase benefits for its hourly
employees while they were being represented by the
U.A.W. Union.
Technically speaking, of course, it would indeed be an
unfair labor practice for Respondent to "unilaterally"
improve benefits for employees represented by the Union.
But even a cursory look at the thrust of the foregoing
questions and answers would inescapably drive home to
employees the point that they had no sick leave program,
no improved pension program, no increased fringe benefits
(as opposed to the salaried employees) because of the
existence of the Union, and that they would not in any
likelihood receive them until they ousted the Union:
"Employees can then compare the almost 10 years of
U.A.W. failure with their situation at the end of a year."
A major element of Respondent's campaign was "give
the company a year." Respondent could only have been
saying, and the employees could only have understood,
that, given a year of free rein, without the "union cloud" to
which Tate referred in his testimony, the employees would
receive the benefits which had been deliberately withheld
from them because of the presence of the Union. On the
basis of these questions and answers, I conclude that
Respondent made illegal promises of benefits to employees
conditioned on voting the Union out.
V. THE OBJECTIONS IN CASE 10-RC-10543
Objection 1: This objection generally alleges unlawful
promises of benefits and threats of reprisals. Based on the
foregoing findings as to Franks, Saylers, Brooks, the
752
MONROE AUTO EQUIPMENT COMPANY
distribution of "The Hartwell Sun" by Bennett, Tate's
speeches to employees, and the January 22 advertisement, I
conclude that the objection has merit.
In addition, the Union proffered the testimony of
employee Hoyt Pearson. Pearson testified that Supervisor
Tom Cordell came to him about 3 days before the election
and said he "had to know how I stood on this union
business." Pearson praised the Union. Cordell asked "if I
had any gripes for Monroe," and Pearson catalogued his
complaints. Cordell "told me that all he knew was what
was in the paper, that the UAW had closed a plant in
Michigan." Pearson replied that "you could put anything
in the paper."
Cordell, without explanation, was not called. Although
Pearson's testimony that his allegiance was inquired into
seems questionable, in view of his display of a union button
for a year, he made a good appearance and, in the absence
of contradiction, I credit him. I find, accordingly, that on
or about January 26, 1976, Cordell coercively interrogated
and uttered an implied threat of plant closure to Pearson,
as alleged in Objections I and 3.
Objection 2. This objection alleges impropriety in the
summoning of employees to the conferences with Tate in
"places of authority in the plant." I do not believe that the
evidence supports a finding that the locus of the campaign
speeches, in one of the personnel offices, itself exerted a
restraining influence on employees, and I would recom-
mend that this objection be overruled.
Objection 3. This objection alleges that Respondent
unlawfully interrogated its employees. As discussed above,
on the evidence given by Brooks and Pearson, I find this
objection to have substance.
Objections 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, and 13: These refer specifically to
certain of the news articles, cartoons, editorial, and
advertisements appearing in "The Hartwell Sun" editions
of January 15, 22, and 29, and the news articles appearing
in the January 19 and 25 issues of "The Anderson
Independent."
There is no evidence in the record to support a finding
that the advertisements placed by the "Concerned Employ-
ees" were sponsored by Respondent. It is obvious,
however, that Respondent, in its January 22 ad, took full
advantage of the propaganda placed by the "Concerned
Employees" ("Q. What is this about closing the UAW
plants in Michigan? A. It is true ... "). Similarly, there is
no evidence that Respondent conspired with Bill Bridges,
the editor of "The Hartwell Sun," to produce the
frightening items appearing in his newspaper. Tate did,
however, admit that "from time to time" he supplied
materials to Bridges, and that he may have furnished
Bridges with the copy of the Herald Tribune cartoon.
Finally, no clear evidence establishes that Tate conspired
with the reporter for "The Anderson Independent" to
insert the threats of closing in the two articles appearing in
that newspaper. It should be noted, however, that I am less
than impressed with Tate's testimony that, because the
January 19 article contained inaccuracies, Tate thereafter
met the reporter and spoke to her for 2 or 3 hours to clarify
his position, and that despite such clarification, the
20 I do not find. however, that the ad placed by the "Concerned
Employees" relating to the career of E. D. Nannie is the sort of
inaccuracies again appeared in her article of January 25. 1
am further bemused by Tate's testimony that although he
made an earnest effort to get a newspaper retraction of
what he considered to be a serious misstatement of his
position, he thought that it would be "more confusing than
helpful" to simply post notices in the plant clarifying the
situation; his silence at this juncture may be compared with
notices distributed to employees on 3 successive days in
February regarding the effect of the Union's election
objections on Respondent's right to grant immediate
increases in benefits.
But aside from questions of responsibility and agency, I
think it clear that the propaganda appearing in the local
newspapers inescapably prejudiced the ability of employ-
ees to exercise their franchise without fear of reprisal. As
the Regional Director held with regard to the 1964 election,
I find that "such an atmosphere was engendered by the
aforementioned publications so as to render a free and
untrammeled election impossible." Utica-Herbrand Tool
Division of Kelsey-Hayes Company, 145 NLRB 1717, 1719-
20 (1964); Universal Manufacturing Corporation of Missis-
sippi, 156 NLRB 1459, 1466 (1966).20
Objection 8: In this objection, the Union alleges that
Respondent, through "oral and written anti-union propa-
ganda," stated that it would take a fixed position so that
the only way the Union could accomplish anything would
be by calling a strike. That might be inferred from some of
the evidence, but there is, as these matters go, relatively
little reference to striking. The dominant theme here was
plant closing. I would not sustain this objection.
Objection 9. Here the Union claims that Respondent,
"through oral and written anti-union propaganda indicated
that if the UAW won the NLRB election that the Hartwell,
Georgia plant would be closed." Based on my findings as
to, inter alia, Bennett's activities, Tate's lectures, and the
January 22 advertisement, I believe the objection is
supported.
Objection 10: The claim here is that Respondent
"initiated and pursued a program of soliciting grievances
from individual employees concerning their jobs and
working conditions." There is some evidence that Tate may
have come close to doing this in his talks with the
employees, but it is sufficiently unclear so as to warrant a
recommendation that the objection be overruled.
Objection 11: Here, the Union asserts that Respondent,
"through oral and written anti-union propaganda stated
that the UAW has caused the employees to lose benefits
and that representation by UAW in the future would cause
the employees to continue to lose benefits." In the sense
that, as discussed above, the plain implication of the
January 22 ad placed by Respondent was that the
employees had "lost" benefits which they otherwise might
have received by virtue of union representation, and would
continue to do so, I find that there is merit to the objection.
On the basis of the foregoing findings, I recommend that
the election held on January 29-30, 1976, be set aside.
misrepresentation which could substantially affect the results of the election.
as alleged in Objection 13.
753
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Vl. THE VIOLATION OF SECTION 8(A)(5)
The complaint alleges that the unfair labor practices
committed by Respondent "are so serious and substantial
in character and effect as to warrant the entry of a remedial
order requiring the Respondent to recognize and bargain
with the Union." The theory of the General Counsel here is
that the unfair labor practices committed by Respondent
so precluded the possibility of a fair second election that
still another exercise in democracy would, in this situation,
be an exercise in futility. General Counsel would have the
Board, based on a presumption of majority status arising
from the Union's 1966 election victory and certification, set
the election aside and, instead of directing a second
election, order Respondent to resume recognition of the
Union.
There is clear and recent precedent for the remedy
sought. As the General Counsel points out, in Automated
Business Systems, 205 NLRB 532 (1973), remanded 497
F.2d 262 (C.A. 6, 1974), the Board, after setting aside a
decertification election lost by the union, held that the
presumption of continuing majority arising from the
union's 19-year-old certification and bargaining history
was a valid basis for concluding that the union enjoyed
majority status. Applying Gissel Packing Co., supra, the
Board further concluded that the employer's threats
warranted issuance of a bargaining order. Accord, West-
minster Community Hospital, Inc., 221 NLRB 185 (1975);
Felsenthal Plastics, Inc. n/k/a/ Grede Plastics, a Division of
Grede Foundries, Inc., 224 NLRB 1312 (1976).
In its able brief, Respondent argues that the unit as to
which General Counsel seeks a bargaining order is not an
appropriate one. The complaint alleges that the appropri-
ate bargaining unit is the one stipulated by the parties as
appropriate in the 1966 election won by the Union:
All production and maintenance employees including
inspectors, truck drivers, leadmen and temporarily laid
off employees, excluding factory-administrative clerks,
quality control personnel, time study personnel, techni-
cal-experimental department employees, production
engineers, administrative personnel, office clerical
employees, permanently laid off employees, watchmen
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Respondent points out that the unit stipulated by the
parties as appropriate in the January 1976 election was
defined as follows:
All production and maintenance employees employed
by the Employer at its Hartwell, Georgia facility, but
excluding all office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
This matter was not litigated at the hearing. On the face
of the two unit descriptions, it would appear, as Respon-
dent contends, that the most recent stipulated unit
21 It may well be that, at bottom, there is no difference in the
classifications embraced by the two unit descriptions. The most recent unit
description, which basically includes "All production and maintenance
employees," may have been understood by the parties to exclude, by
definition, those categories previously specifically referred to as excluded in
the 1966 description.
comprehends more categories of employees than the 1966
unit.
As indicated, the record is silent as to the reasons for the
change in the unit description. I have no inkling why the
parties chose to vary the description. I see no reason,
however, for concluding that the variations between the
stipulations is an obstacle to finding that the earlier
described unit is an appropriate one for bargaining at
present. The 1966 unit was agreed by all parties at that time
to be an appropriate one; it was the unit as to which the
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit enforced a
bargaining order in 1973; and, although Respondent
refused to so stipulate at the hearing, it presumably was the
unit in which the parties were bargaining until September
1975.
It seems to me that a presumption of appropriateness
attaches to the 1966 unit, and the mere fact that, in 1976,
the parties stipulated to a unit described in a different
manner does not destroy or rebut that presumption. Cf.
Morand Brothers Beverage Co., et al., 91 NLRB 409, 418
(1950).21 On quite similar facts, the Board reached the
same conclusion in Automated Business Systems, supra, 205
NLRB at 537.
I further conclude that the only appropriate remedial
relief here is the entry of a bargaining order. In Gissel
Packing Co., supra, the Court approved the use of such a
remedy in cases in which the employer has engaged in
practices which "have the tendency to undermine majority
strength and impede the election processes," 395 U.S. at
614. In my view, there is no "possibility of erasing the
effects of past practices and of ensuring a fair election (or a
fair rerun) by the use of traditional remedies" in this case.
Respondent has made it quite clear to employees that it
has not yet accepted the notion that they have a right to
collective representation.22 Prior to the 1976 election,
Respondent engaged in what was most probably a very
effective whipsaw campaign. It virtually pleaded with
employees to give the Company a "year of trust" in which
the Company could demonstrate just how beneficent it
could be without a "union cloud" over its head. By doing
so, it effectively affirmed that it would not do anything to
improve the lot of employees until they forswore the
Union, and that if they did so, they would be handsomely
rewarded. At the hearing, when Tate mentioned that he
had told employees the Company wanted to remove the
"union cloud" over the plant manager's head, he explained,
upon inquiry, that the "cloud" was the manager's inability
to improve benefits for employees, and that the Company's
practice during the period in which it recognized the Union
was only to make yearly improvements in accordance with
past practice. When asked why the Company would not,
during negotiations, seek the Union's consent to making
improvements in benefits over and above the established
pattern, which would obviate the problem of unilateral
action, attorney Tate made the shocking admission that
22 Earlier cases involving Respondent's resistance at the Hartwell plant
are found at 159 NLRB 613, enfd. 392 F.2d 559 (C.A. 5); 169 NLRB 142,
enfd. 420 F.2d 861 (C.A. 5).
754
MONROE AUTO EQUIPMENT COMPANY
Respondent did not do so because it did not want the
Union to get "credit" for such improvements. 23 The same
point is made in the newspaper interview with Tate in "The
Anderson Independent" on January 25: "And, [Tate] asks,
why should the company increase benefits and give the
credit to a union? 'We're not interested in doing something
UAW can take credit for,' he says."
Simultaneously, while the carrot of improved benefits
was being dangled before the employees, the stick of plant
removal was also being prominently displayed. Tate's
exhibition of the photograph of the closed Michigan plant
at the employee meetings must have profoundly moved the
employees who witnessed this audiovisual presentation.
Since Tate testified that he made essentially the same
speech to all groups of employees with whom he met, it is
probable that some 350 employees were subjected to this
blatant threat. The January 22 advertisement placed by
Respondent drove that threat home with considerable
force.24
It should not be forgotten that the employee community
here must have been acutely aware of the fact that this
employer had indeed, as it stated in its January 22 ad,
closed its "U.A.W. plants" in Michigan in the past,
throwing "over 2,000 U.A.W. employees" out of work. In
such a context, the language of the Board in Automated
Business Systems, supra, 205 NLRB at 536, is particularly
apposite:
It needs no extended discussion or lengthy list of
authorities to demonstrate that threats of probable
plant closings are among the most serious and most
flagrant interferences with the right of employees to
decide for themselves the question of union representa-
tion. A threat of moving the plant is intrinsically of
almost equal coercive effect, and a threat of partial
closing or transferring is only slightly, if at all, less
coercive. In a certain practical sense, the threats of total
or partial moving may well have been the most coercive
to the employees involved here, because the knowledge
or belief that Respondent could make such transfers to
other of its own plants made the threats that much
more believable.
In my judgment, Respondent's conduct has made the
likelihood of a fair second election impossible. On balance,
the issuance of a bargaining order running to the UAW
will most effectively secure the right of employees to
choose a collective-bargaining representative. As General
Counsel aptly points out, there is nothing permanent about
such an order, Gissel Packing Co., supra., 395 U.S. at 613. It
2I This admitted intention to discredit the Union is far different from a
simple withholding of benefits as part of an overall bargaining strategy. and
undoubtedly itself constitutes unlawful discrimination.
a2 Even if I were not to find that the January 22 advertisement
constituted an independent violation of Sec. 8(a)(1). it would still be
appropriate to consider its content in assessing the impact of Respondent's
other conduct. .L R. B. v. Drives, Incorporated 440 F.2d 354. 363-364 (C.A.
7. 1971): Altman Camera Co.. Inc v. N.LR.B., 511 F.2d 319, 321 (C.A. 7.
1975).
25 The advent of the Allied Industrial Union is something of a mystery.
During the preelection campaign. Respondent. as expressed in its January
22 ad. contended that "the U.A.W. used this independent union ploy as a
means of trying to re-stimulate interest in the U.A.W." The UAW. on the
other hand, accused the Company of introducing the independent union as
should be noted that the fact that the issue of the Union's
representational right is before us rests on what appears to
be a happenstance-the petition filed by the Allied
Industrial Union.2 5 Had the Allied Union not entered the
scene, there is no reason to believe that Respondent would
not still be recognizing and bargaining with the UAW.
Given the circumstances of this case, I see no valid policy
reason against simply requiring a restoration of that
collective-bargaining relationship at this time.
While the complaint contains no specific allegation of a
violation of Section 8(aX5), it sets out all the basic elements
of such a violation. In such circumstances, the Board has
held, it is appropriate to make a finding that Section 8(a)(5)
has been violated. Solboro Knitting Mills, Inc., 227 NLRB
738 (1977); Schwab Foods, Inc., d/b/a Scotts IGA Foodliner,
223 NLRB 394 (1976). Applying the principle adopted in
Trading Port, Inc., 219 NLRB 298, 301 (1975), I would find
that Respondent "embarked on a clear course of unlawful
conduct" on January 5, 1976, when Tate began addressing
groups of employees, and that the bargaining obligation
should commence as of that date.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
i. Respondent is an employer engaged in interstate
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. International Union, Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) is a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. By promising benefits to employee Franks on or
about January 22, 1976; by threatening employee Saylers
in December 1975; by displaying and distributing copies of
"The Hartwell Sun" to employees on January 14, 21, and
28, 1976; by coercively interrogating employee Brooks on
or about November 25, 1975, and by promising him
increased benefits on or about November 25, 1975, or
January 8, 1976; by threatening groups of employees in
January 1976 with the possibility of plant closure and
restriction of expansion; and by threatening and promising
benefits to employees in its "Hartwell Sun" advertisement
of January 22, 1976, Respondent violated Section 8(aX 1) of
the Act.
4. The conduct of Respondent and third parties
materially prejudiced the election held in Case 10-RC-
10543 on January 29-30, 1976, and the election should be
set aside.
5. By refusing to bargain with the Union on or after
January 5, 1976, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act.
a means of securing a new election. While I need not pass on this matter. it
would seem strange that the UAW would be interested in putting its
majority status to a test after such a long struggle to establish it in the first
place.
Respondent's brief contends that a bargaining order may not be issued in
favor of the UAW because of the presence of the Allied Industrial Union.
Although. presumably, that union secured a 30 percent showing of interest
for purposes of initiating the election, it seems obvious that it has no real
support among the electorate. The thrust of the campaign by Respondent,
the "Concerned Employees." and "The Hartwell Sun" was directed against
the UAW. not the Allied Union. Of 688 opened ballots cast in the election.
the Allied Union received only I I votes. It filed no objections to the election
and has not made an appearance in the proceeding before me.
755
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6. Other than as set out above, Respondent committed
no other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has violated the Act, I
shall recommend the customary cease-and-desist order and
the posting of the usual notices.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record in this case, I
hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 26
The Respondent, Monroe Auto Equipment Company,
Hartwell, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees that it will close its plant in
the event that they select a union to represent them;
threatening to restrict production in the plant in the event
that the employees select a union to represent them;
promising increased benefits to employees if they vote
against a union; and coercively interrogating employees
about their union adherence and sympathies.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with International
Union, Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW), as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the following
unit at its plant in Hartwell, Georgia:
All production and maintenance employees, including
inspectors, truck drivers, leadmen and temporarily laid
off employees, excluding factory-administrative clerks,
quality control personnel, time study personnel, techni-
cal-experimental department employees, production
engineers, administrative personnel, office clerical
employees, permanently laid off employees, watchmen
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(c) In any like manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in their right to self-organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of mutual aid and protection as guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any or all such
activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, recognize and bargain with Interna-
tional Union, Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit described above, with respect to wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and,
if an understanding is reached, embody such understand-
ing in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its plant in Hartwell, Georgia, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 27 Copies of said
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 10, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the
complaint not found in the foregoing Decision to constitute
violations of the Act be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held in Case 10-
RC-10543 on January 29 and 30, 1976, be set aside.
26 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
27 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing and Order
of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all parties had the opportunity to
present testimony, the National Labor Relations Board has
found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that we will close
our plant in the event that they select a union to
represent them, and WE WILL NOT threaten them that
we will restrict production at our plant.
WE WILL NOT promise benefits to employees in order
to persuade them to vote against a union.
WE WILL NOT coercively question employees about
their union sympathies or beliefs.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their right to form, join, or assist unions, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, or to refrain from such activities.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with
International Union, Automobile, Aerospace & Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) with
respect to the wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment of the employees in the
following appropriate bargaining unit:
756
MONROE AUTO EQUIPMENT COMPANY
All production and maintenance employees,
including inspectors, truck drivers, leadmen and
temporarily laid off employees, excluding factory-
administrative clerks, quality control personnel,
time study personnel, technical-experimental de-
partment employees, production engineers, ad-
ministrative personnel, office clerical employees,
permanently laid off employees, watchmen and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
MONROE AUTO EQUIPMENT
COMPANY
757