Munro Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 19, 1975

217 N.L.R.B. 1011 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

MT. IDA FOOTWEAR CO 1 1011
Mi.. Ida Footwear Company, a Division of Munro
Company, Inc. and United Shoe Workers of
America, AFL-CIO-CLC. Case 26-CA-5083
May 19, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge' filed by United Shoe Workers of
America, AFL-CIO-CLC, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 26, issued a complaint and notice of
hearing on June 18, 1974, against Mt. Ida Footwear
Company, a Division of Munro Company, Inc., alleg-
ing that the Respondent had engaged in and was engag-
ing in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Respond-
ent filed an answer to the complaint, denying commis-
sion of unfair labor practices.
On July 30, 1974, the parties to this proceeding en-
tered into a stipulation in which they agreed that the
formal papers filed in this proceeding and the facts
contained in the stipulation, together with the exhibits
attached thereto, constitute the entire record in this
case. They waived their right to a -hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge, the making of findings of
facts and conclusions of law by an Administrative Law
Judge, and the issuance of an Administrative Law
Judge's Decision and recommended Order. They asked
that the case be transferred directly to the Board for
decision. The stipulation also provided for the filing of
briefs with the Board.
On August 14, 1974, the Board issued an order ap-
proving stipulation and transferring proceeding to the
Board. On September 11, 1974, the Board extended the
time for the filing of briefs' Thereafter, the General
Counsel and the Respondent each filed a brief with the
Board.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
Respondent is now, and has been at all times
material herein, a corporation doing business in the
State of Arkansas with an office and place of business
located in Mt. Ida, Arkansas, where it is engaged in the
manufacture of shoes. During the past 12 months, Re-
spondent, in the course and conduct of its business
operations, purchased and received at its Mt. Ida, Ar-
kansas, location products valued in excess of $50,000
directly from points located outside the State of Arkan-
sas, and during the same period of time Respondent
sold and shipped from its Mt. Ida, Arkansas , location
products valued in excess of $50 ,000 directly to points
located outside of the State of Arkansas.
We find that the Respondent is now , and has been
at all times material herein , an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties agree and we find that the Union is, and
at all times material herein has been, a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
At all times material herein Donald Munro has been
president of Munro and Company, Inc.; Willis Collins
has been plant superintendent; William Pranter has
been plant manager; and Roger Sexton has been quality
control manager. The Respondent admits that the
above-named persons are supervisors within the mean-
ing of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of the Re-
spondent.
The complaint alleges in substance that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act through
circulation of a questionnaire to employees and
through the following speeches by the above-named
agents to assembled employees: Donald Munro on
March 20 and April 23, 1974;2 Willis Collins on April
19; Roger Sexton on April 23; and William Pranter also
on April 23.
Donald Munro spoke to assembled employees on
March 20 from prepared notes. He began by discussing
production at the plant and the company retirement
plan, and concluded by discussing the Union's organi-
zational efforts at the plant. He suggested that the em-
ployees compare their treatment at Respondent's plant
to unionized plants, pointing out that they did not pay
dues, fines, or assessments. He then stated, "If you
want to be treated like number or machine-several
plants in the area work that way. . . ." He concluded
by saying to employees that if they wanted to keep their
advantages:
Don't swallow exaggerated claims or outright lies.
Consider every statement don't even listen if you
don't want to. Especially, don't sign any cards.
They can be fatal to a business. These mail order
cards are just as binding and dangerous as any. If
you believe in our company's goals and what we're
all trying to do here-don't be embarassed to say
I The initial charge was filed on April 30, 1974, and the first amended
charge was filed on June 10, 1974 2 Unless otherwise stated all dates are 1974
217 NLRB No. 165
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
so. You have something the union wants-owe
them nothing for it.
Willis Collins spoke to assembled employees on
April 19 from a handwritten text. He stated that com-
munication between employees and management was
important and said a list of questions would be dis-
tributed to employees. He stated that he' could not
believe that the employees would have to rely on an
outside source to communicate with management and
that top management had always been open for anyone
to bring problems he might have. At the end he said,
"Please fill in the questionnaire. It is very very impor-
tant and will mean a great deal to you in our future
relationship. Remember also-Don't believe what out-
siders tell you and don't sign any union cards as this
can be fatal."
Robert Sexton spoke to assembled employees on
April 23 from a prepared text. He generally compared
benefits- the employees now had to what the Union
could guarantee, stressed that unions required dues,
some of which would go out of the area, and mentioned
the possibility of strikes. He then stated, "I could men-
tion a lot of things about unions which might show you
why signing their cards could be fatal to Mt. Ida Foot-
wear. But I've taken enough time. Let me just add that
you are dealing with your own future, so be very, very
sure of what you may be getting into."
Donald Munro also spoke to assembled employees
on April 23 from a prepared text. In that speech he
stated, "Better communications will solve most of our
problems here and we've made a good start on improv-
ing them. Let me just add two of our basic company
policies in case you need reminding: One is that any
member of management is available to any member of
the work force to discuss problems of any nature. The
other is that we will always be willing to give as much
without outside interference as we would be willing to
give because of union pressure." He concluded by stat-
ing, "I've been quoted as saying that I would close this
plant if it went union, but I have not said that, nor
could I say it, because I believe we are here and we are
here to stay, because we want to be here."
The parties further stipulated that Respondent, by its
agent Donald Munro, prepared and distributed to em-
ployees a questionnaire dated April 19, 1974. The ques-
tionnaire consisted of 18 questions ranging from "Will
you be at the company picnic on May 9" to whether the
employees understood various benefit plans, how man-
agement could reduce absenteeism and turnover, and
how production, quality, earnings , and working condi-
tions could be improved. It asked, "What would you
choose as the next benefit to add to our fringe benefit
program?" It required employees to sign their names.
Questionnaires of a similar nature have been dis-
tributed from time to time over a period of years by
Respondent at its several locations. Three of those,
which were attached to the stipulation as exhibits and
which had been distributed at Mt. Ida Footwear, dealt
with the implementation and desirability of a 4-day
work schedule. They are dated September 27, 1971;
August 16, 1972; and June 7, 1973. The most recent of
these asked how production and earnings could be in-
creased and what employees liked best and least about
the Company.
On April 23 William Pranter spoke to assembled
employees from a prepared text in which he referred to
the questionnaire in issue herein. He spoke about prob-
lems the Company had had in the past and stated that
when a problem arose they were able to work out a
solution when they worked together. He referred to the
questionnaire and said, "We can learn things from
them that might otherwise take months to learn," and
"Your foreman and I, and of course Mr. Munro, have
been studying your comments and they will get the
attention they deserve. Although we can't hope to solve
all the problems at once, each of you deserves to have
your individual ideas considered." He mentioned the
gist of answers to some of the questions and at the end
said, "So, my determination is to get completely in-
-volved in working with you to bring about, just as
quickly as I can, the goals we all desire. Now we can do
it and-nobody else can do it. Only we can do it. Out-
siders have their own axe to grind-and by that, I mean
they can't exist without collecting union dues."
B. Contentions of the Parties
General Counsel contends that Donald Munro's
statement in his March 20 speech that, "If you want to
be treated like number or machine-several plants in
this area work that way," constitutes a threat to em-
ployees that their present working conditions were in
jeopardy unless they rejected the Union.
General Counsel also contends that Munro, by stat-
ing in his March 20 speech, "Especially don't sign any
cards. They can be fatal to a business," threatened
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
General Counsel argues that the statement equated the
signing of union cards with creating the condition of
leaving the Company destined to disaster and was
therefore a threat of plant shutdown and job loss. Simi-
larly, General Counsel contends that Willis Collins'
statement in his April 19 speech ("Don't sign any union
cards as this can be fatal.") and Roger Sexton's state-
ment in his April 23 speech ("I could mention a lot of
MT. IDA FOOTWEAR CO 1013
things about unions which might show you why signing
their cards could be fatal to Mt. Ida Footwear.")
threatened employees with reprisals in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. -
General Counsel, citing the combined effect of the
circulation of the questionnaire and comments by Wil-
lis Collins on April 19 and by William Pranter on April
23, contends that Respondent further violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by solicitation of grievances with the
implied promise to rectify some of the grievances. Gen-
eral Counsel argues that the questionnaire was suffi-
ciently specific for employees to disclose what the Re-
spondent could do to satisfy employee grievances.
General Counsel contends that Respondent's purpose
was made clear by Collins who said , "It's very very
important and will mean a great deal to you in our
future relationship," and by Pranter who said, "We can
learn things from them that might otherwise take
months to learn," and "Although we can't hope to
solve all the problems at once, each of you deserves to
have your individual ideas considered."
Finally, General Counsel contends that Donald
Munro's speech on April 23 violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by suggesting to employees the futility of select-
ing the Union as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive. General Counsel relies on the following state-
ments: "One is that any member of management is
available to any member of the work force to discuss
problems of any nature. The other is that we will al-
ways be willing to give as much without outside inter-
ference as we would be willing because of union pres-
sure."
Respondent asserts in its brief that the view and
opinions expressed by its agents fall within the bounds
of permissible conduct and within an employer's free
speech right. It argues that the speeches did no more
than suggest the possibility that a union victory would
result in employees' loss of identity. Respondent con-
tends that telling ' employees not to sign cards because
it could be fatal to a business was a factually based
prediction that unionization could lead to unreasonable
demands by a union and was not a threat to close the
plant, especially since Munro told employees that the
Company was "here to stay." Respondent further
argues that there was no sense of futility imparted to
employees by Munro on April 23 because employees
were able to evaluate the statement within its context
of discussing the benefits employees had received.
With respect to the questionnaire, the Respondent
contends that it was circulated in accord with a long-
established policy of obtaining employee consensus on
matters of company policy. Respondent cites its previ-
ous questionnaires . Respondent asserts that the ques-
tionnaire was not an innovation for any ulterior motive
or for the purpose of soliciting and resolving em-
ployees' grievances.
C. Conclusions
The complaint alleges that Respondent made unlaw-
ful threats of plant closure when three of its agents told
assembled employees not to sign union cards as doing
so could be fatal. Munro, who made first use of the
statement, suggested that employees compare benefits
offered by the Respondent to those in unionized plants
and that employees try to keep the advantages they
have. Collins' reference to not signing cards was in the
context of urging employees not to believe what the
outsiders said and is clearly a continuation of the theme
stated by Munro. Sexton continued the theme, compar-
ing benefits the employees had to what the Union could
guarantee . He also discussed the possibility of strikes.
The statements, in the context in which they were
made, merely expressed Respondent's position that the
employees would be better served in terms of benefits
by rejecting the Union and that the employees should
therefore not sign any cards. The use of the word "fa-
tal" was a reference to the possibility that unionization
could lead to difficulties if the Union were to strike to
obtain unreasonable demands. That the use of "fatal"
did not threaten plant closure is further evidenced by
Munro's statement in a later speech, "We are here to
stay." The Board recently found a similar statement to
be permissible campaign propaganda of the type which
has become commonplace in our elections.'
Allegedly Respondent unlawfully solicited and pro-
mised to redress employee grievances as evidenced by
circulation of the questionnaire dated April 19 and
speeches by Collins and Pranter referring to the ques-
tionnaire . We find, however, that the evidence before us
is insufficient to establish the allegation. Respondent
circulated similar questionnaires to employees in the
past, and at least one included questions similar to
those in the one before us. In light of this practice, the
evidence does not establish that Respondent circulated
the April 19 questionnaire for unlawful reasons. The
timing of the circulation to occur during an organiza-
tional drive does not itself establish an ulterior motive,
especially since the dates of the current and three previ-
ous questionnaires show that they were distributed at
roughly 10-month intervals. Nor do the speeches show
that Respondent promised to redress or correct em-
3 Airporter Inn Hotel, 215 NLRB No. 156 (1974)
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployee grievances . Instead, the evidence suggested that
Respondent indicated to employees that it would fol-
low its previously established management policies.
The complaint alleges that Munro threatened repris
als in his March 20 speech by stating , "If you want to
be treated like number or machine . . .." Munro
made this statement after asking employees to compare
company treatment to unionization and referring to
dues, fines, assessments, and outsiders . In this context,
the statement was clearly campaign propaganda which
the employees could evaluate as such.
The complaint also alleges that Munro expressed to
employees the futility of selecting the Union as bargain-
ing representative in his April 23 statement, that
management 's door had always been open , and that he
was willing to give as much without a union as he
would with a union . In our opinion this statement falls
within permissible campaigning.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all material times herein , Respondent has been
an employer engaged in commerce.
2. Respondent did not engage in unfair labor prac-
tices as alleged in the complaint.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lation Act , as amended , the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
MEMBERS FANNING and JENKINS , dissenting:
In response to the Union 's organizational campaign,
Respondent's officials made several speeches to assem-
bled employees. During the course of these speeches,
Respondent 's president , its plant superintendent, and
its quality control manager all made statements to the
effect that it would be "fatal" to business if the em-
ployees were to sign cards. Our colleagues have con-
cluded that these remarks are noncoercive in nature
when considered in the overall context in which they
were made . We disagree.
We, view these remarks by Respondnet 's officials as
a management directive to employees not to sign cards
for the Union unless they wished to subject themselves
to dire economic consequences which Respondent im-
plied would follow such action . The Board has repeat-
edly found such direction, coupled with a prediction of
dire consequence, to be coercive ' and thus violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act4 and we would so fmd. We
do not agree -with our colleagues that the - later state-'
ment by President Munro that the Company was "here
to stay" was evidence that use of the word "fatal" was
not threatening to the employees. To the contrary, this
statement tended to exacerbate the coercive nature of
the twice repeated "fatal" statement , for it conveyed
the point to the hearer that if anyone were to suffer it
would be the employees . As the Supreme Court held in
N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc,, 395 U.S. 575, 618
(1969), an employer 's prediction of dire economic ef-
fectswhich will stem from union organization of the
employees must not contain "any implication that an
employer may or may not take action solely on his own
initiative for reasons unrelated to economic necessi-
ties"; and, if any such "prediction" is made, it must be
supported "on the basis of objective fact to convey an
employer's belief as to demonstrably probable conse-
quences beyond his control ...." Thus, the statement
that union organization will be '- Tatal," unsupported by
any objective facts, and even though sincerely believed
by the employer, " ` is not a statement of fact unless
... the eventuality ... is capable of proof,' " and vio-
lates the statute. Gissel, supra at 618-619. No factual
support was adduced for the assertion here, and Gissel
requires that it be found to be a coercive threat violative
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
We are also compelled to dissent from our col-
leagues' conclusion that President Munro 's statement
as to what the Respondent would - be willing to give,
regardless of the presence or absence of a union, was
nothing more than permissible campaign propaganda.
Here again we have the president of the Company tell-
ing his assembled employees that the Company will
give only as much through negotiation with a union as
it would give without a union present. The only reason-
able conclusion that an employee can draw from this
statement is that it is futile for the employees to select
a bargaining representative . And such meaning, we
would find, causes this -statement to violate Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.'
In all other respects , we join in the determinations
reached by our colleagues.
4 Robert Meyer Hotel Company, Inc, d /b/a Robert Meyer Hotel, 154
NLRB 521 (1965) See also Airporter Inn Hotel, 215 NLRB No 156 (1974)
(Members Fanning and Jenkins dissenting) '
5 Freedman's Calcasieu Locks Shipyard Inc., 206 NLRB 399 (1973); Whit-
ing Corporation, 188 NLRB 500 (1971), Bradenburg Telephone Company,
164 NLRB 825 (1967).