Riley-Beaird, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1980

253 N.L.R.B. 660 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Riley-Beaird, Inc. and International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths,
Forgers & Helpers, AFL-CIO. Cases 15-CA-
7436 and 15-RC-6501
December 10, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND ZIMMERMAN
On August 13, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
David L. Evans issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel
and the Respondent filed exceptions and supporting
briefs. On October 7, 1980, the Union, the Petition-
er in Case 15-RC-6501, filed a "Request To With-
draw Objections to Election, To Have Certification
of Results Issued, and To Sever Case No. 15-CA-
7436 from Case No. 15-RC-6501."
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge as modified below' and to adopt his recom-
mended Order, as modified herein.
The General Counsel excepts to the Administra-
tive Law Judge's failure to find that, during a con-
versation with employee Sanders in late September
1979, Supervisor M. O. Green solicited grievances
which he promised to remedy and thereafter reme-
died. The Administrative Law Judge found that
Green approached Sanders and asked how things
were going. When Sanders stated that he was
having problems at work, Green stated that he had
noticed Sanders passing out union handbills at the
gate and asked what was wrong. Sanders replied
that he had been unjustly scolded by a leadman,
that the Respondent's hospitalization insurance was
inadequate, and that he had lost Saturday overtime
work to other employees. Green answered that he
would try to get the overtime and leadman
straightened out and would check into the hospital-
ization coverage. For several weeks thereafter,
Sanders received overtime work on Saturdays.
The Administrative Law Judge found that
Green's remarks did not amount to unlawful solici-
tation of grievances since Sanders had "unloaded"
on Green after Green had merely asked how things
were going. We disagree. Green initiated the con-
versation and, to the extent that Sanders "unload-
' In the absence of exceptions we adopt, proforma, the Administrative
Law Judge's dismissal of certain objections to the election
253 NLRB No. 85
ed" on Green, he did not do so until Green had re-
marked that he had seen Sanders passing out union
literature and asked what was wrong. Green there-
fore related his inquiry to Sanders' union activity
and his remarks constituted an invitation to Sanders
to expand on his statement that he was having
some problems. Further, Green stated that he
would try to solve Sanders' problems and, in fact,
Sanders subsequently did receive Saturday over-
time. In such a context, we find the evidence suffi-
cient to find that Green initiated the conversation
with Sanders to solicit Sanders' complaints and that
the Respondent thereafter remedied Sanders' over-
time complaint, both in violation of Section 8(a)(l)
of the Act.
In addition, we shall grant the Union's request,
which was unopposed, to withdraw its objections
to the election in Case 15-RC-6501, to have a Cer-
tification of Results of Election issue, and to sever
that case from this proceeding. We therefore find it
unnecessary to pass upon the Administrative Law
Judge's recommendation that the election conduct-
ed in Case 15-RC-6501 be set aside and a second
election be directed.
ADDITIONAL CONCLUSION OF LAW
Insert the following as Conclusion of Law 6 and
renumber the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
"6. By soliciting and remedying grievances in
order to discourage support for the Union, the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act."
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Riley-Beaird, Inc., Shreveport, Louisiana, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as
so modified:
1. Insert the following as paragraph (d), relet-
tering the subsequent paragraph accordingly:
"(d) Soliciting or remedying employee griev-
ances in order to discourage support for the
Union."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case 15-RC-6501
be, and it hereby is, severed from this proceeding
and that the case be remanded to the Regional Di-
rector for Region 15 for the purpose of issuing a
Certification of Results of Election for the election
conducted on October 4, 1979.
660
RILEY-BEAIRD, INC.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAl. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interrogate you regarding
your membership in, or activity on behalf of,
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers &
Helpers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi-
zation.
WE WIL. NOT threaten to close our Shreve-
port, Louisiana, plant if you select the Union
as your collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with reduction
of benefits if you select the Union as your col-
lective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT solicit or remedy grievances
in order to discourage your support for the
Union.
WE WII.L NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them under Section 7 of the Act.
All our employees are free to engage in union
activities on behalf of any labor organization, or
concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
Our employees also are free to refrain from any
or all such activities.
RILEY-BEAIRD, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID L. EVANS, Administrative Law Judge: The
hearing of these cases was held before me in Shreveport,
Louisiana, on February 4 and 5, 1980. The complaint in
Case 15-CA-7436 was issued by the Regional Director
of the National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter called
the Board) on November 20, 1979,' based on a charge
filed on September 27 by International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers &
Helpers, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union or the
Charging Party). Respondent admits jurisdiction and the
status of certain supervisors within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, but denies all unfair labor practice allegations. 2
Consolidated for hearing with the complaint were the
Union's objections to alleged conduct affecting the re-
sults of an election conducted by the Board on October
'Unless otherwise stated all dates hereafter are in 1979.
2 Respondent's post-hearing motion to amend its answer to deny alle-
gations added at hearing is hereby granted.
Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected.
4 in Case 15-RC-6501. The objections were timely filed
by the Union on October 9, a Supplemental Decision and
Order Directing Hearing on Objections issued on No-
vember 21, and the order consolidating both the cases
and notice of hearing issued on November 23. The ob-
jections and the unfair labor practice allegations are di-
rected at the same alleged conduct.
At issue is whether Respondent violated Section
8(a)(l) of the Act and engaged in conduct which would
affect the results of the election by interrogating employ-
ees, soliciting grievances, creating the impression of sur-
veillance, and, through a series of speeches, impliedly
threatening employees with plant closure and the loss of
unspecified benefits if they selected the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative in the October 4
election. Comprehensive briefs, which have been careful-
ly considered, were filed on behalf of the General Coun-
sel, Respondent, and the Union.
Upon the entire record, and my observations of the
demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS 01 FACT
I. RESPONDFNT'S BUSINESS AND THEi UNION'S LABOR
ORGANIZATION SATUS
Respondent, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the
business of fabrication of various heavy steel products in-
cluding pressure vessels in Shreveport, Louisiana.
During the 12 months preceding issuance of the com-
plaint, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its busi-
ness operations, purchased and received goods and mate-
rials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points lo-
cated outside the State of Louisiana and during said
period of time sold, shipped, and delivered finished
goods and products valued in excess of $50,000 from that
facility directly to points located outside Louisiana. The
complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that Re-
spondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
The following persons occupied the positions set oppo-
site the respective names, at all times material herein, and
have been, or are, supervisors or agents of Respondent
within the meaning of Section 2(11) and 2(13) of the Act:
W. E. Adams-president; William Bradshaw-vice presi-
dent; William Walker-vice president; Charles Moore-
vice president; Hillman Deaton-personnel and safety di-
rector; M. O. Green-midnight superintendent; Ted
Walsworth-inspector foreman; and Thomas Britain-
department foreman.
The tally of ballots served on the parties immediately
following the October 4 election disclosed the following
results: Approximate number of eligible voters, 896; void
ballots, 2; votes cast for the Petitioner, 424; votes cast
against participating labor organization, 438; valid votes
counted, 862; challenged ballots, 1.
661
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. IHIF ALI.I.EGH) UNFAIR l.ABOR PRACTICIS ANI)
OHJICI'IONABI E CONI)UCI
A. Interrogation by Thomas Britain
The complaint alleges that in mid-September Supervi-
sor Britain interrogated an employee regarding his union
sentiments.
In support of this allegation the General Counsel and
the Charging Party rely on the testimony of Willie Hall,
Jr., who at the time of hearing was employed as a
welder.
Hall testified on direct examination that, as he was
working about 10:15 p.m., Britain asked him to come to
his office after Hall had finished about 5 more minutes'
work. When Hall arrived, Britain opened a conversation
by stating, according to Hall: "He would like to know
my opinion, what I thought the Union would do for me
that the company couldn't do." Hall testified that he told
Britain that he wanted job security and better benefits.
Hall further testified Britain asked: "Why did I think the
majority of employees wanted the union out there." Hall
replied that the reason was the way other foremen had
treated some of the men, although Britain, and Foreman
Gary Williams and a Mr. Nichols had treated him "as a
man since I been out there."
On cross-examination Hall acknowledged that he had
"definitely" been active in supporting the Union. He had
handed out union handbills at the gate; he wore a union
sticker on his helmet, he had one on his lunch bucket,
and he had one on his shirt when talking to Britain.
Britain, who has been employed by Respondent for 26
years and is currently in the position of bay foreman, tes-
tified on behalf of Respondent that because the employee
was new to the area he called Hall to the office to ask
how he was doing. Britain acknowledged that during the
conversation: "I believe I mentioned it, I said 'we got a
lot of dissatisfied people, Willie, within our shop."' Ac-
cording to Britain, Hall then began discussing the dissat-
isfaction with supervisors, but stated that he liked Brit-
ain, Williams, and Nichols. According to Britain, Hall
added: "He thought the Union would be able to straight-
en out supervisors on the capacity [sic], the way they
were operating, and I told him, I didn't believe in the
union myself." Hall related to Britain that he had
worked at a company which had a union and that union
had not helped him. Britain replied, "Mr. Hall, if the
union didn't help you at that plant, what makes you
think they could help you here at Riley-Beaird? And I
said, you know, after all, we have a right to work law in
the State of Louisiana now."
Britain denied asking Hall what he thought of the
Union and added that he already knew by the fact that
Hall had union stickers on his lunchbox. Britain also
denied asking Hall why a majority of the employees
wanted to go union.
On cross-examination Britain admitted asking Hall
why there were so many "disturbed" people and that
Hall replied that it was the supervisors' fault.
It is clear from Britain's own testimony that at some
point in the conversation which he had initiated, in the
locus of managerial authority (Britain's office), he asked
Hall why he thought a union could help him while in
Respondent's employ if he had not been helped by the
union at Hall's prior place of employment. This type of
inquiry constitutes an interrogation about the basis of ihe
employee's sympathies (albeit well-known sympathies),
and constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Further violative is Britain's inquiry about why there
were so many "disturbed" or "dissatisfied" employees in
the plant. In the context of the union campaign it is clear
this question was an inquiry into the reasons for union
support (majority or otherwise). As such, this inquiry
constitutes an interrogation within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(l) of the Act also.
B. Alleged Unlasful Solicitation of Grievances,
Promise of Benefits, and Creation of Impressions of
Surveillance by M. O. Green
The complaint alleges that, in late September or early
October, Respondent, by the third-shift superintendent,
M. O. Green, solicited an employee's grievances and
promised remedy for them and created the impression of
surveillance of the employee's union activities in a dis-
cussion with the employee.
In support of this allegation, the General Counsel and
the Charging Party offered the testimony of employee
Cecil Sanders who, at the time of the hearing, had been
employed by Respondent for about 12 years. Sanders tes-
tified that about a week before the election, around 4
p.m., Green "walked up and asked me how things were
going." Sanders told him there were several problems at
work. According to Sanders, Green said that "he noticed
me at the gate handing out union handbills and won-
dered what was wrong." Sanders complained that he had
gotten an unwarranted scolding about a job from a lead-
man, that he had lost Saturday overtime to employees in
other bays, and he thought Respondent's hospitalization
insurance was inferior because it provided coverage only
after the eighth day. According to Sanders, Green stated
that he would try to get the overtime and the leadman
straightened out and he (Green) would check into the in-
surance question and get back if Sanders was mistaken
about the hospitalization benefits. Sanders testified, with-
out contradiction, that in the several weeks following the
conversation he received overtime on four or five Satur-
days. He further testified that Green has not returned to
discuss how things were going.
Green testified that he was working the second shift
on the particular night in question and walked by Sand-
ers and asked how he was doing. Sanders replied they
were not doing too well and Green asked what the prob-
lem was. Sanders complained about the type of machine
he was running and that he was not getting enough over-
time. Green testified that he told Sanders to talk to Stoc-
ton, Sanders' supervisor, about those problems. Green
also testified that he and Sanders stopped "Mr. Walker"3
and asked about the insurance coverage and Walker
agreed that Sanders was correct.
Green denied that he stated that he had seen Sanders
passing out leaflets or said he must be dissatisfied. Green
a If this "Walker' is William L. Walker. Respondent's vice president
who testified, the fact was not brought out by either party
662
RILEY-I3EAIRD. INC.
further denied that there was any further reference to
the Union during the conversation, and he further denied
that he told Sanders that he would check into anything.
To the extent they differ, I credit Sanders, who was
far the more impressive witness. Additionally, had Sand-
ers not received overtime immediately following the
conversation in question, Respondent would assuredly
have produced records to reflect that fact. This failure
fully corroborates Sanders' testimony, at least to the
extent of Sanders testifying that his grievance about not
receiving overtime was remedied immediately after talk-
ing to Green. I further specifically credit Sanders' testi-
mony that during the conversation Green stated that he
had observed Sanders standing outside Respondent's gate
passing out union handbills and wondered what was
wrong. In so doing, of course, I discredit Green's testi-
mony that there was no reference made to the Union
during the conversation.
The testimony of Sanders, however, falls far short of
constituting solicitation of grievances, promise of benefit,
and creation of impression of surveillance as alleged in
the complaint. Green simply asked Sanders "how things
were going" and Sanders "unloaded" on him. Green's
statement that he had seen Sanders passing out union
handbills was no more than an unlawful expression of the
conclusion that any employee who did so must be un-
happy about something, and not an unlawful solicitation
of grievances. Finally, there is nothing in Green's remark
to indicate that he had gone to any extraordinary meas-
ures, and certainly no unlawful measures, to obtain the
information that Sanders had passed out union handbills.
Under the circumstances, there is no unlawful character
to Green's remarks, and I find that they did not violate
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged.
C. Alleged Interrogation by Green
The complaint, as amended at the hearing, 4 alleges
that in late September or early October Respondent, by
Green, interrogated an employee in violation of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act. In support of this allegation, the Gen-
eral Counsel and the Union offered the testimony of em-
ployee Thomas Stamper, who had then been employed
by Respondent for about 12 years.
Stamper's testimony is that about 1:30 or 2 a.m., about
3 days before the election:
Q. What was the conversation you had with Mr.
Green?
A. Well, M. O. walked up to me and said, Stamp-
er, how's the Union looking? I said, well, M. 0. the
Union going to win this time. And, he said, oh,
Stamper, you really think they're going to win? I
said, we're going to win by a landslide.
He said, you mean you're a Union man? I said,
Yeah, M. O., I'm a Union-I said, no, M. O., but
I'd like to be a Union man. And, he said, well, I just
can't see how anybody at Riley-Beaird can vote for
a Union.
Al the hearing counsel for the General Counsel moved to amend he
complaint in several particulars the General Counsel's motion to
correct the record in this regard is denied
He said, Riley-Beaird built me a brick home. I
said, well, if Riley-Beaird built you a brick home,
why won't they build me one? He said, oh, Stanip-
er, you know what I mean. They making good
you making good money. He said, what has Riley-
Beaird ever done to you? I said M. 0., you know
yourself, they gave me some hard jobs over here in
bay eight and also several pink slips.
He said, oh, Stamper, I see I can't talk to you.
And he walked off.
On cross-examination, Stamper acknowledged that his
pretrial affidavit stated that the exchange between him-
self and Green was initiated by Green's approaching him
and saying "he didn't know how anybody working for
Riley-Beaird could vote for the Union." Stamper testi-
fied that the affidavit was wrong, and his testimony at
the hearing was correct, although the affidavit was given
on October 23, or within 4 weeks of the event. Stamper
further acknowledged on cross-examination that he had
union stickers on his car, he passed out union literature
twice, and he wore a button indicating that he was for
the Union. although he did not have a button on at the
time of the exchange with Green. Stamper further ac-
knowledged that he had previously told Green that he
was for the Union and that they had discussed it a few
times.
In defense, Respondent offered first the testimony of
Green who stated that he approached Stamper and em-
ployee Danny Young and heard Young saying that
Riley-Beaird "was buying his home, paying his house
notes .... " Young turned to Green and said, "Ain't
that right Mr. Green." Green said, "I guess that's one
way of looking at it." Green then asked what the prob-
lem was that was causing them to be standing around
and the employees reported that a crane necessary for
their next assignment was not available. Green denied
asking Stamper how the Union was looking, that he
asked Stamper if he was a "union man," that he stated he
could not understand how anyone could vote for the
Union, and that he asked Stamper what Riley-Beaird had
done to him. Finally, Green denied saying that Respond-
ent had built a brick house for him.
Further in defense, Respondent offered the testimony
of employee Danny Young, who Stamper acknowledged
was present throughout most of the exchange with
Green. On direct examination Young testified that he
and Stamper had started discussing the Union, Stamper
giving the good points and Young giving the bad. Young
said that if the Union had a strike he could not pay his
house notes and there was talk about the house notes and
Green approached them. Young stated to Green, "Ain't
that right, M. O. Green, if I go out on strike, I couldn't
pay a house note. He [GreenJ said something like that
you cannot pay a house note if you are on strike. Riley-
Beaird don't pay you." Young testified that in his con-
versation with Stamper he told Stamper that Riley-
Beaird was paying his wages and that was how he was
paying his house notes.
After giving his account of this single conversation
and without being asked about any other topic, Young
was questioned and testified:
663
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. Did you hear Mr. Green ask Mr. Stamper
how the Union was looking?
A. He asked, are they going to win? He didn't
say anything about how the Union was going to
win, or what. He just stated, how they looking? I
don't think he was talking to Stamper. He was talk-
ing to me.
Q. Mr. Green was talking to you?
A. We both was up there.
Q. Try to remember again, what exactly did Mr.
Green-repeat everything that Mr. Green said in
this conversation to Mr. Stamper.
A. Well, he just told Stamper that, that's about
the amount of it. About the house notes.
Q. Did he ask-did he say anything else?
A. That was all in that conversation. He walked
off. That day.
Q. Was there anything about house notes?
A. That's all. It all stopped right there.
Q. During that conversation, did Mr. Green ask
anything about how the Union was doing, looking
or was doing or looking, at that time?
MR. YUDIEN: I object to the leading question.
JUDGE EVANS: I think he gave an answer al-
ready. Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I believe he stated, do you think
they're coming in.
Q(Mr. Hester) Mr. Green said that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you hear Mr. Green or did Mr. Green ask
Mr. Stamper if he were a Union man?
A. No, he did not.
Q. Did Mr. Green ask Stamper, Mr. Stamper,
what Beaird had done to him?
A. No.
Q. Was that statement made?
A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Green ask Stamper or tell Stamper
that the Company had built him a brick house?
A. No, he did not.
MR. HESTER: No further questions.
JUDGE EVANS: Cross examination?
In appraising Young's credibility, several observations
are to be made. From the just-quoted passage it is clear
that Young was overeager to deny that Green had asked
Stamper if the Union was going to win; he denied it
even though it was not asked. Then, apparently realizing
he had overreached himself, he testified that Green had
asked "how they looking" but attempted to dilute the
significance of his error by stating the question was di-
rected to him, not Stamper. Then he states that all Green
uttered "that day" was about the house notes. In so
doing he was obviously throwing a bone to the lawyers
by inferring that the "how they looking" remark was in
a second conversation or exchange. He followed that
tack on cross-examination by stating that, on the day
before the election, Green crossed paths with Stamper
and himself in an aisle, and at that time Green asked
"how's the Union looking." Then further on cross-exami-
nation he testified that Green had asked, "You think the
Union's coming in?"
The questioning was precise; there was no basis for
confusion about which conversation he was being asked;
the confusion was created when Young, by creating the
second exchange, attempted to extricate himself from his
admission that in the "house notes" or "brick house" ex-
change Green asked Stamper if he thought the Union
was going to win the election by asking "how they look-
ing," as Stamper testified.
That is, Young's testimony, rather than rebutting
Stamper's testimony, actually corroborates it to the point
that it proves that, at some point during the exchange,
Green asked Stamper if he thought the Union was going
to win the election. At just what point is another ques-
tion because, as noted, Stamper's pretrial affidavit states
that Green initiated the exchange by approaching him
and stating, "I don't know how anybody working for
Riley-Beaird could vote for the Union," and the conver-
sation flowed from there. Stamper testified that his affi-
davit was erroneous and that his recollection was better
at time of the hearing, and that he was sure that the con-
versation initiated by Green's asking how the Union was
looking, and I found him credible on this point of his tes-
timony. I further found Stamper credible in his testimony
that, at some point during the exchange, Green asked
Stamper what Respondent had done to him to cause him
to take his prounion stand, the denials of Greens and
Young 6 notwithstanding.
Detracting from Stamper's credibility at another point
is the inherent improbability of a supervisor bothering to
ask a known union adherent if he was a "union man,"
the fact that Stamper's pretrial affidavit contains refer-
ence to no such question, and the fact that Green and
Young (despite the other palpable problems in Young's
testimony) appeared completely credible in their denials
that such a question was asked by Green. In summary,
just what was said between the three men in a conversa-
tion some 10 months before this writing is not susceptible
of precise reconstruction, but I find that the General
Counsel has proven by the preponderance of the evi-
dence that Green asked Stamper if the Union was going
to win the election, and asked what Respondent had
done to him to create his union sympathies, and said that
he could not understand how any employee could vote
for the Union, but that Green did not ask Stamper if he
was a "union man."
The next question to be addressed is whether the two
questions, jointly or severally, constitute a violation of
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. All that has been shown is
that Green approached one prounion employee, Stamper,
and one employee who did not favor selection of the
Union, Young, and addressing the former, asked how the
Union "was coming," or if it was going to win the elec-
tion. At most this was a wedge into the employees' con-
versation in the form of a request for the union adher-
ent's virtually certain prediction of the results of the
5 Green's testimony, that all he said was "I guess that's one way of
looking at it" and then went on to the problem of the crane, is plainly
incredible.
6 Young's credibility is further clouded by his twice denying, then ac-
knowledging, that he had previously discussed his testimony with Re-
spondent's counsel.
664
RILEY-BEAIRD, INC.
election to be held 3 days hence. Then followed a lively
discussion which at one point included the question of
what, if anything. Respondent had done to cause Stamp-
er to feel as he did.
There is nothing inherently coercive about a request
for a prediction of election results from a known union
sympathizer. Here, there was no inquiry as to the identi-
ty of any other union proponents; and there was no at-
tempt (lawful or not) to get the employees to dissuade
others from voting for the Union. However, the inquiry
as to the basis for Stamper's union sympathies was clear-
ly coercive in that it required an employee to defend his
statutorily protected beliefs. As such, Green's question
constitutes an interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)( I)
of the Act, and I so find and conclude.
D. Speeches Containing Threats of Plant Closure and
Loss of Unspecified Benefits
1. Testimony in support of complaint and objections
The General Counsel contends that Respondent, by its
supervisors, Adams, Bradshaw, Walsworth, Walker,
Deaton, and Moore, "impliedly threatened its employees
with plant closure if they voted for union representation
in the upcoming election . . The gist of these implied
threats is to be found in Respondent's repeated refer-
ences to plant closures at several other of Respondent's
plants after their unionization."
The General Counsel first relies on the testimony of
Cecil Sanders who testified that, at a meeting he attend-
ed about a month before the election, a slide presentation
was conducted by Walsworth, Bradshaw, and Moore.
Sanders described one slide as showing a Riley plant
with a parking lot full of cars which was followed by a
slide which showed the same plant with weeds growing
around the fence. According to Sanders, Walsworth was
showing the slide and Bradshaw said it was a "Riley
plant that had been closed down because of the strike."
Sanders also described a newspaper clipping which de-
scribed how people who had worked for several years at
the plant were unemployed "because the plant had
closed down because of union strikes." Sanders further
testified:
Yes, they said, that if the union was elected, that
the same thing might happen here, that happened at
that plant, that Riley-Beaird could be closed down
if the Union was elected and had strikes and things.
That the plant would be closed down, same as that
plant there had.
Employee Lynn Arnold also described slides shown at a
meeting conducted by Bradshaw and Walsworth and tes-
tified: "Bradshaw had said, that these people had went
out on strike and the plant eventually closed down, leav-
ing 800 people without jobs. And, he said, the very same
thing was very possible, very possibly could happen at
Riley-Beaird."
Employee Willie Hall, Jr., testified that, at a meeting
held by Deaton, Dillard, and Walsworth about 5 weeks
before the election., the supervisors passed out pieces of
paper vividly depicting violence on a picket line. Hall
testified: "They was hitting each other . . . people were
turning over cars . . . people hitting each other with
sticks and baseball bats and so forth, I can recollect they
had words on the bottom there, violence was written
there." Hall was asked and testified:
Q. Was there any discussion any of these pic-
tures?
A. Yes, Mr. Ted Walsworth, he made a statement
that this was what happened there, because they
was out on strike and they couldn't reach an agree-
ment. And, this is what will happen here if we
elected the Boilermakers for our bargaining repre-
sentative and we had to go out on strike.
Hall testified that he attended another meeting, about 3
weeks before the election, which was conducted by
Adams, Bradshaw, and Deaton. According to Hall, at
this meeting Respondent showed slides "where the men
was getting hit with sticks and, they showed one where
the cars were being overturned." Hall testified that
Adams "said, this is what happened there, and it's possi
ble that it could happen here, if you all elect Boiler-
makers for your representative and we do not negotiate
with them and you don't get a contract."
Employee Willie Crowder testified that slides shown
at a meeting he attended stated "that the plant was
closed down, shut down. I guess apparently from negoti-
ations that failed between the union and the company
and they closed down .... " Crowder testified that
Deaton said, "It very well could happen at Riley-
Beaird."
Employee Huffaker testified that at a slide presentation
conducted by Deaton and Walker about 3 weeks before
the election, when a slide was shown of an abandoned
plant, Walker stated "this could happen here." Huffaker
also identified a handout which, it is undisputed, was dis-
tributed at the meeting conducted by Deaton and
Walker. It is an II- by 17-inch broadside with a "Riley-
Beaird Inc." emblem at the top and entitled "The
Straight Facts! Friday September 14, 1979 .... A
STRIKE COULD COST YOU YOUR JOB!" In the left-hand
column is contained a copy of an article from the June
11, 1978, Mobile Press Register which details a strike
and the utilization of permanent strike replacements in a
strike in Minette, Alabama. The article is in ordinary
newspaper type and in the circumstances described by
Huffaker it is unlikely that any of it other than possibly a
few underlined passages were read by any of the em-
ployees to whom it was passed at the meeting. However,
the remainder of the page, in large type, contained:
AN AFl.-CIO UNION GOT INTO THIS COMPANY IN
JUNE 1977
SIX MONTHS OF BARGAINING FAII.ED TO PRODUCE
A CONTRACT
THE UNION PUI.I.ED THE EMPLOYEES OUT ON
STRIKE ON FEBRUARY 3, 1978
THE COMPANY REPLACED HI STRIKERS WITH
NEW WORKERS AND CONTINUED) TO OPERAE-
"LAHOR LAW )DOES NOT REQUIRE (STRIKIERS) TO BE
REHIRFD"
665
I)ECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
STRIK ERS WI-RE ARRt STEI) ON CRIMINAl.
C(HAR3E S FOR STRIKIE VIOI.ENCE
UNION FINAI.LY GAVI UP THE STRIKE ON JUNE 30
[a little more than 2 weeks following the date of
this news report]
A Pl.lll ION 10 KICK IHIE UNION OU' WS FII l)
BY THEi NEW MI'IPOYEIES
TlHE UNION ORGANIZERS ANI) UNION PUSItHIRS
MAY ['ElII YOU THAT YOU HAVE NOTHIN(; 1 I OS()
WITH A UNION .... )ON'T BEI.EVE IT!
SEE WHAT HAPPENFI) TO STRIKERS WHO HAVI
IOSI tHFIR JOBS FO REPI ACEMINI WORKERS!
VOTE "NO" BOIl ERMAKIRS
Employee Thomas Stamper testified that, in a meeting
conducted by Adams, Dillard, Walsworth, Bradshaw,
and "probably" Deaton, the slide of a deserted plant was
exhibited. Stamper was asked and testified:
Q. Was there any discussion about that slide'!
A. Mr. Adams said this might very well happen
if you get a union out there. He said, you will lose
your job. Said, these people shut down on account
of union activities. Said, it couldn't get their work
out on account of the union activity. Said, it could
also happen at Riley-Beaird's. Not only it could
happen, it might very well happen, could very well
happen and, he said, the only thing the union got to
offer a man, is strikes.
The General Counsel further contends that, in meet-
ings conducted by Adams, Bradshaw, Walsworth,
Walker, and Deaton, Respondent impliedly threatened
employees with loss of unspecified benefits "through its
repeated allusions through bargaining 'from scratch' and
'from blank sheets of paper."' For this assertion, the
General Counsel first relies on testimony of employees
who testified that either a "blank contract" or a blank
sheet of paper was used as a prop in speeches or pro-
grams they attended.
Employee Sanders testified that, in a meeting conduct-
ed by Walsworth, Bradshaw, and Moore, either Brad-
shaw or Walsworth stated:
A. They said that all negotiations started from a
blank sheet of paper. That we could lose as well as
gain and that the Union didn't have anything to
offer us. That the way negotiations were, that if
they, the Union wanted to get something, such as a
dues checkoff clause, for example, and that the only
way they could get something like that is to trade
away some benefits we already had such as paid
holidays.
Employee Crowder testified that at a meeting a few
days before the election, which was conducted by
Adams, Bradshaw, Dillard, and "possibly" Walsworth,
Adams said:
It's possible we may end up making a dollar and a
half an hour or less. It wasn't for sure. It was a pos-
sibility it could be and, also that if the union did
come it was no guarantee we would keep every-
thing we had, because if the Boilermakers come in,
everything would start off with a blank sheet of
paper. And, through negotiations and bargaining
and, that he would bargain tough. Mr. Adams made
the statement.
Employee Huffaker testified that he attended a meet-
ing conducted by Adams about 2 weeks before the elec-
tion and that Adams stated at that meeting:
. . . when you bargain with the union, that you
would start off with a blank sheet of paper and, he
held up a blank piece of paper. He said, everything
starts with a blank piece of paper. He said, he's ne-
gotiated thousands of contracts and, they all started
with a blank sheet of paper and pen. Then, he said,
that if you voted the union in, that they wouldn't
have to talk to them.
Huffaker further testified that, in a meeting he attended
conducted by Deaton and Walker, "Mr. Walker said that
all agreements with the union would start with a blank
piece of paper, like this book is a blank." Stamper also
mixed references to the blank sheet of paper and the
blank contract. He testified that at a meeting he attended
Adams said, referring to a blank "contract," which was
in evidence and had been handed to Stamper as he testi-
fied:
If you get the union in here, that's just what you
got. You start with a blank piece of paper. You
start negotiating with a blank piece of paper. That's
all the union got to offer you. He said, when I ne-
gotiate, I negotiate hard, I'm a hard negotiator and,
I'll negotiate hard.
Employee Lynn Arnold testified that, at a meeting
where the blank contract was passed out either by Brad-
shaw or Walsworth, that Bradshaw observed that "when
the union was started, we could lose everything we had
and we'd just have to work our way up."
Finally, the General Counsel presented the testimony
of Arnold that he attended the meeting about a week
prior to the election, which was conducted by Adams
wherein:
Mr. Adams held up a blank piece of paper and
waived it around. He said, men this is where it all
starts from when you get a union. This blank piece
of paper. Then, he said, that we could stand to lose,
stand a cut in pay if the union did come in, if we
voted the union in.
2. Respondent's testimony about the speeches
Adams testified that he conducted a "kickoff' speech
on September 4. He testified that he read from the same
script to a gathering of 350 to 400 first- and third-shift
employees and to a gathering of about the same number
on the second shift. Adams' script of the meetings consist
of 8 pages of about 15 lines each. I summarize or quote
the paragraphs thusly: Paragraph I announces that the
speech is about the Company's position on the "union
issue," it acknowledges that the employees are tired of
666
RI.EY-BEAIRD. INC.
hearing about it, but states that Respondent will continue
to discuss it and give employees "the facts-until any
threat of union trouble is behind us." Paragraph 2 states
that a union once represented the employees but the em-
ployees had voted it out. Paragraphs 3 and 4 state that
after A. M. F. Corporation acquired Respondent the
United Auto Workers and the Charging Party began at-
tempts to become their representative and "behaved like
two animals fighting over a piece of meat." Both unions
were rejected in 1966, 1968, 1969, 197(), and 1977. Para-
graphs 5 and 6 note that only the Boilermakers Union is
attempting to secure recognition. Paragraph 7 states that
the Boilermakers is not worthy of employees' support
because: "They have a sorry record, and between now
and the time of election, we will give you facts of their
miserable strike record, their history of intimidating their
own members once they have gained control over them,
their record of sky-high union dues and other union fees,
their poor bargaining record, and their history of selling
employees down the river." Paragraphs 8 and 9 accuse
the Union of stalling the representationl election proce-
dures before the Regional Office. Paragraph 10 notes
that the Company became stronger when A. M. F
bought it, and became stronger again when the plant was
sold to Riley. It further states that U. S. Filter has nego-
tiated with Respondent for purchase of the plant and as-
sures the employees that "if that happens, I am satisfied
we will emerge stronger once again ... so don't let
anyone cause you concern about the negotiations be-
tween Riley and U. S. Filter." Paragraph 11 states that
Respondent is "dead set against the Hoilermakers union
getting in here. We don't believe they are worthy of
you, we don't believe there is any need for a union at
Riley-Beaird, and none of us needs the strikes, picket
lines, and the high costs of union membership that this
union could bring to you." Paragraph 13 states: "In 1977
a lot of you were concerned over what you could lose if
the union got in. Many of you expressed concern over
cuts in pay and benefits and loss of jobs in strikes by
being replaced with new workers. l.et me remind you of
a few important facts. If the union should win an elec-
tion here, it wins the right to bargain, nothing more."
Paragraph 14 stales that if the union wins the election
Respondent will bargain in good faith but "in that bar-
gainiig we are free to say no to any demand the union
makes, and remember that the pay and benefits that you
receive now are subject to the give and take bargaining.
Your present pay and your current benefits go right up
into the middle of the bargaining table-they may go up,
they may go down, but you have no assurance whatso-
ever that you would keep what you have now. The
Union could trade present economic benefits for what
they wanted for themselves, like checkoff. Remember
that if no agreement is reached in bargaining, the only
thing the union can do about it is call you out on strike
and strikers can be permanently replaced with new
workers. Thousands and thousands of employees have
lost their jobs in strikes. We have never needed that at
Riley-Beaird and we don't need it now." Paragraphs 15
and 16 solicit employee support and close the meeting.
Beginning on September 24, Adams, along with Brad-
shaw, Walker, Walsworth, Deaton, and a Mr. George
Dillard,7 gave a slide presentation to groups of employ-
ees. The presentation was given six or eight times to
groups of various sizes over a period of 4 days. The
script to this presentation was received in evidence; how-
ever, the accompanying slides were not offered.
Acccording to the script, which Adams testified was
strictly followed, Adams opens the presentation by stat-
ing that eniployer is going to inform employees of the
status of the representation case and at the outset fore-
closes any questions from the employees. Adams ac-
knowledges that he knows that the employees are tired
of hearing "messages like Bradshaw, Walsworth, \Walker
and Deatoin had been giving you." [This is a reference to
slide programs presented by the men narmed and in
which Adams did not participate.] Adams apologizes for
repetition for many of the things that were said in all the
previous campaigns but "if the Boilermakers get in this
plant and mess things up or trade away some f your
pay and benefits, our consciences will be clear that we
have done our best to tell you what could happen."
Adams outlinies the benefits the employees currently
enjoy and notes that the Union prosvides none of these
thiiigs. In an apparent reference to a conmplaint about de-
fective lighting and doors Adams points out tha;t the
Union "does not have any cranes, doors or lights for
you." lie states the only issue is whether "you want to
turn your jobs over to the Boilermakers Union and make
them your binding, legal representative." He asks the
employees to look at the Boilermiakers' record and shows
slides depicting the official transcript from the represen-
tation hearing, including one of the testimony (if Union
Representative Al Washilgton. The depicted testimony
by Washington apparently indicated that the Union rep-
resented employees of employers "Fabsteel in Texar-
kana;" and "ACRA Electric il Chicago." A comparison
of benefits is showvn by the slides a;s Adams, Dillard, and
Bradshavw spoke. Adams and Dillard note that the Fab-
steel contract provides for a checkoff clause which calls
for a deduction of initiation fees as well as union dues.
Walsworth's portion of the script recites the exhibited
Fabsteel management-rights clause and Adams asks rhe-
torically, "Sound like the Boilermakers are going to con-
trol the Fabsteel plant'?" Walker, Adams, and D)eaton
compare other benefits showing that Respondent's em-
ployees enjoyed more in areas such as shift premiums
and pensions. Deaton details the sickness and accident
program which compares favorably to that at Fabsteel.
Walsworth shows a slide which favorably compares the
hourly wages enjoyed by Respondent's employees to
those at Fabsteel. Adams shows the management-rights
clause at ACRA Electric and comments that: "That
company still runs the plant in Chicago and Fabstcl still
runs its plant in Texarkana." Adams, Bradshaw, and Dil-
lard then compare the wages at all three plants reflecting
favorably on Respondent's wage package.
The final slide in this presentation shows a wage
schedule for the ACRA employees. Bradshaw comments
"the top rate I could find was $7.95 per hour for a jour-
neyman tool and diemaker." Adams follows up: "Any of
7 t)ill ari a, not identified
66h7
DECISIONS ()OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 1OARD
you want to substitute your pay rate for one of these?
Washington says these are good rates. Would any of you
like to trade away $1.50 an hour for brighter lights?"
Adams testified that he did not read what was printed as
the last paragraph of the presentation. Adams testified
that instead:
I told the group in the meeting that we could make
it very easy for Mr. Washington and Mr. Slaterfield
[another union representative]. That we could
scratch the name Fabsteel and insert Riley-Beaird.
But, that we were a larger and bigger company
than Fabsteel and, that we had as good or better ne-
gotiators. Therefore, we start with a blank piece of
paper .... I stated that we, at Riley-Beaird,
would negotiate with the Union in good faith.
However, you must remember, that in any negotia-
tion all benefits are put up in the middle of the
table. They could [go] up or they could go down
and, we all start with a blank sheet of paper. I have
negotiated thousands of different types of contracts
and they all started with a blank sheet of paper.
Adams testified that, as he made this last statement, he
held up a blank sheet of paper.
In this presentation there was no mention of strikes or
plant closure by Adams or any other speaker.
Adams identified various posters and handouts used by
Respondent during its campaign.' A handout dated Sep-
tember 13 over Adams' signature, addressed "To all
Riley-Beaird employees," is entitled "WHAT WILt.. THl
BOILERMAKEIRS Do li Wt: SAY 'No'." The document
states that the Union may give up some of the employ-
ees' current benefits or they may try to force agreement
by calling employees out on strike. It adds: "The Boiler-
makers will have no other choice." The handout states,
"The Boilermakers have a sorry strike record. A strike
record that has caused employees just like you all over
the country to lose their paychecks, their benefits, and
often times their jobs." The document further notes that
"strikers don't get paid . . strikers don't get unemploy-
ment money .... " It repeats, "Strikers can lose their
jobs-the Company would have the right to replace eco-
nomic strikers with new workers, and the new workers
would get to keep their jobs as long as they wanted-
even forever!" Following that the document states, "Ask
the Boilermakers' organizers HOW they plan to fulfill all
of their promises if we in good faith say 'NO' at the bar-
gaining table."
I There were other handouts and posters utilized by Respondent and
these were subpenaed by the General Counsel. Respondenlt filed a peti-
lion to revoke said suhpena and said petition was denied by Chief Admin-
istrative Law Judge Arthur Leff before the hearing. There was no appeal
of this ruling and there was no request for a continuance for a purpose of
processing an interlocutory appeal of the order. Respondent refused to
comply with the subpena stating that all documenls other than those
which it had produced were irrelevant. This, of course. was not a deter-
mination to be made by Respondent. It was to be made, and was made.
by the Board Counsel's conduct is reprehensible and conitumacious The
General Counsel asks that I draw adverse irferences from Respondent's
failure to comply with the subpena. however, the G(eneral Counsel points
to no inference which can he drawn from the failure to produce the doc-
uments other than to say that had they been produced they would not
have been favorable to Respondent. This inference is certainly warranted,
but it aids little in the determination of the issues herein.
Adams identified a September 20 "bulletin" handed
out to employees which states, in question and answer
form: "The Boilermakers are not going to give you any-
thing. They are here to take from you not give ....
Under federal law, if the Boilermakers win an election,
the Company would be required to sit down and bargain
in good faith with them. But bargaining is a two-way
street. You might end up gaining-but you could also
end up losing some of your present benefits. A third pos-
sibility is that negotiations could drag on and on, during
which time there would be no unilateral changes in your
present pay in benefits. A fourth possibility is that Boiler-
makers could call a strike to force the Company to agree
to their demands."
Adams identified a poster dated September 10 entitled,
"What Would a Boilermaker Victory in the Election
Mean?" The poster states that wages and benefits would
not automatically go up and that if the Union won the
election all that would happen would be that "we would
sit down with the Union and bargain with them over
your pay, benefits, and working conditions .... We
would bargain in good faith .... In such bargaining no
law says that employees must get more in bargaining. In
fact, no law says that employees must keep what they al-
ready have in bargaining. Bargaining can be tough . . .
cold . . . and hard. The Union would have the right to
make demands on us-but, we would have an equal right
to say no to any union demand that we did not feel was
in the best interest of all our employees, the company,
and our customers." All wording of this poster was cap-
italized.
Adams further identified a poster dated September II
entitled: "If We Said 'No', What Could the Union Do
About It'" In capitals, the poster repeats Respondent's
"right to say 'no' to any Boilermaker demand in bargain-
ing," and if it did so, "the only thing the Boilermakers
could do to try to make us give in would be to call
you-the employees-out on strike!" It concludes: "The
Boilermakers' strike record is not good-lost paychecks,
lost benefits, and oftentimes lost jobs-so, give it a lot of
thought before you give the Boilermakers the right to
call you out on strike. Think about it!"
Presentation by Bradshaw, Walker, Deaton,
Walsworth, and Moore
A slide presentation was given to all the production
and maintenance employees by Respondent's utilizing
teams of supervisors who, according to their testimony,
read scripts which were keyed to or quoted the slides as
they were shown. Bradshaw and Walsworth were one
team and the other was Deaton and Walker. (On one oc-
casion Moore substituted for Walker.) The scripts for the
presentations are marked "By Speaker Number I" and
"By Speaker Number 2." On the respective teams, Brad-
shaw and Deaton were speakers number I and Wals-
worth and Walker (or Moore) were speaker number 2.
The speeches were given up to 10 times by each team to
groups of from 15 to 50 employees each time. The
speeches were given during the week of September 2,
beginning after the employees returned from the Labor
Day holiday.
66X
RILEY-BEAIRD, INC.
A summary of the program is as follows:
Speaker number I opens program by referring to
Adams' speech given previously that week and that
Adams said that Respondent would be giving them more
information. He invites questions during the program and
invites the employees to relax. He apologizes for repet-
itiveness in what was told the employees during the pre-
vious campaigns. He says some have asked why there
has to be an election at all and he replies that the Union
was able to secure 30 percent of the employees' signa-
tures on authorization cards and it got some of the signa-
tures by making promises which the Union has no re-
sponsibility for fulfilling.
Speaker number 2 says that if the Union should win the
election it would not mean that benefits would automati-
cally go up but only that Respondent would sit down
with the Union and bargain over pay, benefits, and
working conditions. The Union is perfectly free to make
demands in an attempt to live up to their promises but
the law is clear that "we would have the absolute legal
right to say 'no' to any union demand we did not feel
was in the best interest of all our employees, our compa-
ny, and our customers." He says they would bargain
good faith, "but good faith bargaining would not require
us to give in to any particular union demand." Bargain-
ing "can be tough and hard"; Respondent would have
the right to reject union proposals and make counterpro-
posals of its own; and "no one knows what bargaining a
company and a union can lead to .... "
Speaker number I states that not only is there no guar-
antee the benefits would be better, "but there would also
be no guarantee that your pay and benefits would stay
the same. Not only is there no guarantee they would go
up, but there is always the danger that they could go
down. . . . there is always the possibility that you could
lose some of the benefits you already have, or that you
could receive a pay reduction or pay cut in bargain-
ing.... Here's an example of what we are talking
about." The script at that point directs speaker number I
to "show material with copy of NLRB case entitled,
'Empire Terminal Warehouse."' The speaker outlines the
case stating that not only did the company not agree to a
demand to pay increase but proposed a pay cut and, after
the company and the union "bargained and bargained
and bargained" and could not come to an agreement, the
company cut the pay of the employees by 40 cents an
hour. The union "went running to the Labor Board" but
the Board "said that the company's actions were permis-
sible because the company had bargained in good faith
and the law does not require the company to go along
with the union's demands." The speaker then states:
Don't get us wrong. We don't plan to cut your pay
or reduce your benefits. That's the farthest things
from our mind. However, if you turn the right to
bargain concerning your pay, benefits, and working
conditions over to the Boilermakers Union, you
could end up receiving a pay cut or losing some of
your benefits. You should know from our actions in
granting you substantial pay increases and benefit
improvements over the past few years that we are
not in the business of reducing your pay or benefits.
However, no one knows what could come out of
bargaining between the Boilermakers Union and
Mr. Adams.
The speaker proposes an illustration of how benefits
could be cut; he states that the Union would certainly
want a checkoff clause when there are 900 employees to
collect dues from and "we would probably ask for a con-
cession from the Union before we would agree." As an
illustration of what kind of concession the Union might
have to give up speaker number I states, "It could very
well happen that the Boilermakers Union would give up
an extra week of vacation or an extra holiday for you or
one of your present holidays in order to get the dues
checkoff clause for themselves."
Speaker number 2 repeats that the Company would not
be required to give in to any particular union demand in
bargaining and has the absolute right to say no to any
union demands and, as directed by the script, throws a
"contract" with blank pages onto the middle of the table
before him, and says:
As you can see, all of the pages in the contract are
blank. Your present pay and benefits would not be
in the contract until we agree to it, and your pay in
benefits would not automatically go up from there.
Not one word, not one sentence, and not one para-
graph would go into the contract before we agree
to it. You might end up with more after bargaining,
but I believe you now see that you could end up
with less.
Speaker number I states that Respondent does not
know what would happen if it said no to the Union's de-
mands, "but the only thing the Union could do to try to
force us to give in to their demands would be to call you
out on strike . . Strikes are no picnics, and you
should know the legal facts about union strikes before
you give the Boilermakers the power to call you out on
one." The speaker recites that strikers do not get paid by
the company, "and the company has the right to cut out
their benefits." The speaker recites that strike benefits are
only a small percentage of a weekly wage and that em-
ployees do tnot collect unemployment in Louisiana when
they are on strike.
Speaker number 2 states that loss of pay "is not the
worst thing that could happen to you in a union strike. If
the Boilermakers Union were to call you out on strike to
try to force us to give into one of their economic de-
mands-such as a demand for a pay increase-we would
have the absolute right to hire new workers to take your
place. Employees all over the country-just like you-
have lost their jobs to replacement workers in union eco-
nomic strikes. And the new workers get to keep the job
just as long as they want to-even after the strike is
over. No law would require the company to fire the re-
placements and rehire the strikers." The employees are
then shown newspaper clippings regarding a strike in
Eufaula, Alabama, at a plant unrelated to any of Re-
spondent's operations. The strike began as an economic
strike and "finally ended" after a year, "but not before
they suffered a lot of misery and hardships, and not
669
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REI.ATI)NS 1()ARD
before 200 strikers lost their jobs." Speaker number 2 re-
cites that Respondent "would hate to see the same thing
happen here" and the employees can prevent it by
voting no in the election and that "when the union is
beaten, you will not have to worry about losing your job
in a union strike."
Speaker number I acknowledges that some may be
saying that it was a different company at Eufaula, Ala-
bama; "[N]ow we would like to talk to you about what
has happened to other employees in your company-the
Riley Company-that have made the mistakes of getting
involved with unions. We want you to see what has hap-
pened to other Riley employees in the country with
unions, because this will be the best way for you to
decide if the Boilermakers Union would be good or bad
here at Riley-Beaird. We have prepared slides so every-
one follow along as we go."
At this point the slide presentation begins.
The script calls for slide number I of which half is a
picture of Respondent's Shreveport plant, with full park-
ing lot, and under it, in red, is the caption: "The History
of Riley-Beaird in Shreveport, La. with no Unions." '
Speaker number 2 states: "Let's first take look at the his-
tory of the Riley-Beaird company here in Shreveport.
Do any of you know why Riley Company took over this
company in the first place'!? Actually our history began in
Cornwell Heights, Pennsylvania. The script calls for slide
number 2 which, in the middle, shows two welders
busily performing the same type of work. One worker
has written beside his depicted body "Riley-Beaird" and
the other has "Riley-Stoker." The upper third of the
image reads, in red, "The story begins with why the
Riley company bought our plant in the first place."
Under the two depicted welders is stated, in black:
"Originally, the type of work we do was done by the
Riley-Stoker plant in Cornwell Heights, Pa."
Then the script calls for slide number 3 which has a
picture of the Cornwell Heights, Pennsylvania, plant
which is in aarent full operation with a substantially
full parking lot. Above the picture, in red, "The Corn-
well Heights facility was much like ours." Under this
picture of the Cornwell Heights plant is stated, in black,
"There was one major difference-it had a union."
Speaker number 2 points out that the Cornwell Heights
plant "employed approximately the same number of
people and did heavy fabrication work just like we do."
Speaker number repeats the words of slide 3 and
states that the difference between Respondent and the
Cornwell Heights plant was that Cornwell Heights plant
had a union. The script then calls for slide number 4. In
the middle of picture is a cartoon-type depiction of a
worker with a hardhat. The worker has a gloomy ex-
pression on his face as he holds four picket signs each of
which states, "On Strike." Slide 4, at the top, states in
red: "And, unfortunately for everyone, there was strike
after strike." Below the depicted worker, in black, the
slide reads: "On March 17, 1972, yet another strike
began which lasted until August 4, 1972 when this
deadly announcement was made." As slide number 4 is
9 Allhough not done in this narratise, most wording onI the slides is
capitalized. All printing is propolrtionately large aind easily readable
shown, speaker number I reads it except that he changes
the last quoted sentence to state "when an important an-
nouncement was made by the company."
The script then calls for slide number 5 which contains
several items. At the top, in capital letters, in red, the
slide states: "The plant was closing!" Below that caption
is a copy of Buck's County, Pennsylvania, newspaper ar-
ticle entitled, "Riley-Stoker to close, 800 workers affect-
ed." The article recites a brief history of the strike and
states, "Richard J. Flinn, president of the State Road
Subsidiary, said only that the closing is for business and
economic reasons." Adjacent to the newspaper article is
a picture of five men sitting on milk cartons, doing noth-
ing. Below the picture is stated, "pickets sit outside plant
. . what do they do now?" From the difference in font
it appears that the rhetorical question, "what do they do
now?" is that of Respondent's slide and not of the news-
paper article. Below the picture the slide states in red
and black, "As the newspaper article said: 'The plant had
its last strike.' 21 weeks with no pay and no benefits, and
they all lost their jobs." Finally at the bottom of the slide
in large print, in red, is stated, "The plant was closing.
Over 800 jobs lost!" As slide number 5 is being shown
the employees, Speaker number I reads some of the
words of the slide and adds others. He states that "[i]n its
announcement, the company said that it was closing for
business and economic reasons.' In short, simple terms,
that means the plant was unable to make a profit and
was forced to close its doors. I don't know if this strike
was the sole cause of the company's not making a profit,
hut I do know that it didn't help. This is what the plant
looks like today."
At this point the presentation calls for slide number 6,
which shows a plant from an angle from which there can
be seen no cars or personnel and there ar.e several rocks
and weeds to show an appearance of abandonment. The
slide reads in large print, in red, "This is the plant today
. . .empty!! . . . no pay . . . no benefits . . . no jobs."
Speaker I adds: "Over 800 people used to work in that
plant and support their families with their job [sic]. Now,
there is nothing more than torn up concrete and weeds
and an empty building. This picture does prove one im-
portant fact-you can't buy job security with a union
contract, and you certainly can't strike for job security."
The script then calls for slide number 7 in the middle
of which is depicted a set of double doors, apparently of
a conference room. Across the doors, as a bar, is a rec-
tangular object upon which is written, "In Conference."
On the doorknob of one of the two double doors is a
"Do Not Disturb" sign. Above the depicted doors is
stated, in black, "Shortly after the plant closed, negotia-
tions started to buy our plant. Riley took over this facili-
ty on January 1, 1973." After the word "negotiations" is
an asterisk and below the depicted double doors, in red,
is stated, "*P.S. These negotiations, like all negotiations,
started with a blank piece of paper." Speaker number 2
then states that "[a]fter the Cornwell Heights plant
closed, the Riley company began looking around the
country for another operation they could buy to contin-
ue the type of work that used to be done at Cornwell
Heights. That's when they found us."
670
RIF.Y-BEAIRD. INC.
Speaker Number I then states: "At about the same time
that Riley Company bought this plant, they also bought
a plant in Sapulpa, Oklahoma." The script calls for lide
number 8 which at the top, in red, states "The employees
of Riley-Southwest in Sapulpa, Okla. have a union."
Below this is a reproduction of a column from The Tulsa
Tribune which is headlined "Near Daily Violence Punc-
tuates Bitter Strike At Sapulpa Plant." The article be-
neath this headline states: "Violence appears to be almost
a daily occurrence at a strike-troubled plant here. Shoot-
ings, beatings, tire-slashings, driveways strewn with nails
and workers being followed are only a sample of reports
that have flooded law enforcement officers." Adjacent to
the newspaper article is stated, in red: "In 1975 they
went through one of the most violent strikes in Oklaho-
ma history!" Printed beneath the newspaper article, in
red and black is stated: "Violence almost a daily occur-
rence in Riley-Southwest . . . shootings, beatings, tire-
slashing, driveway strewn with nails . . . etc., etc., etc."
As he shows slide number 8, Speaker number I states,
"Here again, there was one big difference between Sa-
pulpa and us. The Sapulpa plant had a union when the
Riley Company bought it. In 1975, the first time the
Riley Company was doing the negotiations with the
Union, one of the most violent strikes in Oklahoma histo-
ry occurred. As this newspaper article headlines say,
there was almost daily violence at the Sapulpa plant.
There were shootings, beatings, tire-slashings, and almost
everything else you could think of. "At this point, the
script calls for slide number 9 which is captioned, in red,
"The strike went on and on with more and more vio-
lence." Beneath this caption are headlines and some of
the stories in five newspaper articles entitled: "Sapulpa
Plant Employee Shot From Ambush"; "Injunction Hear-
ing Set Next Week"; "Bomb Threat Empties Plant";
"Fourteen Arrested at Sapulpa"; "Fuss Near Strike-
Bound Plant Brings Deputies." As this is shown the
speaker states: "The strike went on and on and on, and
the violence got worse. One non-striking employee was
even shot from the ambush; there were bomb threats;
and fourteen strikers were arrested. The company filed
for an injunction to stop this violence, and a permanent
injunction was granted." The script then calls for slide
number 10, which is captioned in red. Finally, after 15
long weeks it was over. Beneath that caption is a news-
paper article entitled, "Contract Approved, Riley Strike
Ends." The article gave some details of settlement of the
strike. Portions of the article are underlined. Beneath the
article, in larger print, is stated, "Strike lasted 15 weeks."
A line is drawn from a portion of the article which were
receiving a 24-percent pay increase over 3 years. The
line leads to a printed note saying, "Twenty-four-percent
pay increase over three years. .... This is 7 percent less
than you have received over the last three years with no
strike and no union." Then Speaker number 1, after
showing slide number 10, states: "Finally it was over.
After 15 long weeks, the strike ended. However, the em-
ployees at Sapulpa have never recovered from the ef-
fects of the violence that occurred there in 1975. We
hear all kinds of union talk that you shouldn't worry
about strikes because it's not going to happen here. I'm
sure that the employees at the Riley plant in Sapulpa be-
lieved it couldn't happen there either. They learned the
hard way that you can lose on a union strike-and they
lost plenty."
Slide 10(a), which was apparently shown along with
slide 1() although the script does not mention it. is cap-
tioned, in red, "Don't fall for any union talk that the
same thing can't happen to you." Beneath that, in black,
is printed. "The Riley-Southwest employees probably be-
lieved it couldn't happen to them either." Beneath that is
a reproduction of a photograph of three strikers wearing
picket signs that state, "On strike . . . Shopmen's Local
620 . . . AFL-CIO." Beneath that in large capital red
letters is stated: "They Were Wrong."
The script then calls for slide number II which is cap-
tioned, in red, "The employees of the Riley-Stoker
foundry in Detroit, Michigan also had a union." Below
that is stated, in black, "they' paid their dues and other
fees to the Union for years. They thought it would give
them better job security." Following that in large red
capital letters is, "They were wrong, too! "Beneath that
is: "On June 30, 1971. the following press release was
issued." The press release, dated June 30, 1971, recites
that the plant was closing because "an antiquated plant,
shrinking foundry workload and high labor turnover
were cited as the factors leading to the decision ....
Employment in the century-old Detroit facility number
approximately 200." The press release was signed by R.
J. Flinn."' Beneath the press release is stated in black:
"Two-hundred employees learned you can't buy job se-
curity with union dues." The script calls for speaker
number 2 to read essentially all of that which is stated on
slide number 11; additionally, the speaker says: "Those
200 employees learned that you can't buy job security
with union dues when their plant closed down." There
was no mention of a strike in slide number II or in the
script which accompanies it.
The script then calls for slide number 12 which is cap-
tioned, in red: "The employees of Cashco, Inc. [a Riley
Company], in Decatur, Illinois also had a union." Be-
neath this caption on the left-hand side of the image de-
picted is a newspaper article entitled, "Strike-Affected
Cashco Plant to Leave City." The article begins: "The
Strike-Affected Cashco, Inc., at 540 N. 18th St., has an-
nounced plans to terminate its Decatur operations as a
result of 'business and economic determinations.' Cashco,
Inc., a subsidiary of the Riley company of Chicago, em-
ploys 110 persons." Adjacent to this announcement
which goes on to detail the course of the strike is print-
ed: "On August 6, 1975 they went on strike. On Septem-
ber 26, 1975, the following announcement was made:
"The Plant was closing for 'business and economic rea-
sons."' At the bottom of the slide in large print is stated:
"110 employees affected." The script calls for speaker
number I to repeat essentially the words on the slide
except that the speaker adds: "The Union called them
out on strike to try and force the company to give in to
its demands." The script then calls for slide number 13,
which is captioned in red: "This Cashco employee
summed it up best of all." Below that is a newspaper ar-
' Flinn was named in slide numhbr 5 as president of Rlley-Stoker
671
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BO()ARD
tide entitled, "Employees Surprised by Closing." It is
mostly an interview with an employee who had been
employed by Cashco for 22 years and had lost his job
when the plant closed. The printed portion next to the
article repeated several of the sentences therein which
detail the plight of that employee who was facing the
problem of supporting his family on his wife's wages
which "isn't that much."
Speaker number I also repeats some of the sentences
contained in the article shown in slide 13.
Speaker number 2 concludes the program:
The last thing on earth we want to see what hap-
pened here is what happened to Cashco, Inc., or at
Riley-Stoker in Cornwell, or at Riley-Southwest Sa-
pulpa, Oklahoma, or at the foundry in Detroit,
Michigan. But-it could happen! These are not fairy
tales-they are actual stories of what has happened
to other employees who put their faith in unions.
We don't want to see the same thing happen at this
plant-and we don't want to see the same thing
happen to you. However, the only way you can
guarantee the same thing won't happen here is to
make sure that the Riley-Beaird plant remains non-
union and the Boilermakers are defeated in the elec-
tion. The Boilermakers will never have the chance
to start problems like these you have seen today (to-
night) if you keep them out of our plant.
Speaker number 2 then invites questions and closes the
meeting.
3. Credibility resolutions on these speeches
In arguing that his witnesses should be credited con-
cerning all speeches, the General Counsel emphasizes
heavily the Board recognition that employees who tes-
tify adversely to those who employ them at the time do
so knowing that their terms and conditions of employ-
ment can be subtly or dramatically affected as a result.
Georgia Rug Mill, 131 NLRB 1304 (1961). Fully appreci-
ating this factor, I must weigh in the balance the testimo-
ny of all Respondent's witnesses who testify that they
followed the scripts assiduously. There were question-
and-answer periods at the close of the slide presentation
conducted by Walsworth, Deaton, Dillard, and Brad-
shaw (and, on one occasion, Moore), but none of the tes-
timony upon which the General Counsel relies is said to
have occurred during such a question-and-answer period.
The only other exception is the closing statement of
Adams in his second speech where he referred to the
blank sheet of paper. There is substantially no difference
in the accounts of the employees and of Adams but, to
the extent there is any difference at all, I find Adams
credible in his testimony of his closing remarks of that
speech.
I believe that the employees were attempting to do
their best to testify truthfully. However, to the extent it
differs from the scripts, I believe that this testimony con-
sists of good-faith expressions of impressions, but not
what was actually said. The extreme example of this is
the testimony of Hall who testified that not only had he
seen papers or slides of newspaper articles, which de-
scribed violence (which was the content of slide number
8 in the presentations by Bradshaw, Deaton, Walsworth,
and Walker), he also described pictures of the violence.
Hall was obviously describing mental images evoked by
the presentation because no other employees testified as
to seeing such pictures. I cannot credit the testimony of
just one employee out of 900 that such photographs
were shown. Furthermore, blatant threats such as those
described by Huffaker (that Adams stated that Respond-
ent "would not have to talk to them" even if the Union
were elected), Sanders (that Walsworth and Bradshaw
stated that "the plant would be closed down"), and Hall
(that breakdown of negotiations, strikes, and violence
were inevitable) would clearly constitute blatant viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(1), and not "implied" threats as the
General Counsel alleges. Presumably if the employees
had testified to such threats to the agents investigating
this complaint, the complaint would not have alleged
that the threats were implied.
Finally, I found credible the supervisors' testimony
that they simply followed the scripts and, because of the
better reliability, I rely on the scripts themselves as to
what was said in the meetings described above.
4. Conclusions regarding the speeches
It is true that Respondent did not, in the very words,
state that the plant would definitely be closed if the
Union were selected. But its dogged theme, especially in
the team presentations, was that plant closure was a
viable alternative exercised as easily as moving its busi-
ness from Cornwell Heights, Pennsylvania, to Shreve-
port, Louisiana. This message of the slide presentation
was so pointed that even one of the presenters displayed
total misapprehension of any other conclusion which
could have been drawn; Deaton was asked on direct ex-
amination and testified:
Q. Mr. Deaton, there is testimony on the record
that either you or Mr. Moore exhibited a slide
showed a plant closed down, because it had a
Union. Did you exhibit any such slide?
A. Yes, the slide that was in this particular pres-
entation.
In so testifying, Deaton was, at that moment, referring to
slides 5 and 6 which recited the "deadly announcement"
that the Cornwell Heights plant was closed because of
"business and economic reason" and the narrators of the
slide program explained that "business and economic rea-
sons" meant, at least in part, the results of a strike. Im-
mediately following those slides was a slide stating,
"Shortly after the plant closed, negotiations started to
buy our plant. Riley took over this facility on January 1,
1973." Thus, while the draconian results of a strike and
its aftermath were dramatically displayed as the virtually
certain destiny for the employees if they selected the
Union, Respondent shows that for it the problem pre-
sented is nothing more than finding another suitable site
to continue operations.
Thus, the scenario was complete: Respondent would
"bargain in good faith" but, time and time again, it was
emphasized that this term means Respondent had a duty
672
RII.EY-BEAIRD, INC.
to agree to nothing. If it did agree to any meaningful
concession in any area, it would want something prob-
ably too dear in return. Therefore, disagreement at the
bargaining table was inevitable. (And during any such
period of disagreement, there would be "no unilateral
changes" which statement, as constructed on Respond-
ent's September 20 bulletin, an employee could compre-
hend only as no beneficial changes at all.) The only way
the Union had to attempt to resolve the disagreement, it
was stated time and time again, would be to call a strike.
Any strike would constitute "business and economic rea-
sons" for plant removal, which is precisely what Re-
spondent did when it closed down its Cornwell Heights
plant and bought the Shreveport operation which now
provides the employees' jobs.
In summary, the pervasive theme of Respondent's
campaign was the inevitability of bargaining table dis-
agreement, resultant strike, and the ready alternative of
plant closure and removal. Through the speeches, slide
presentations, and posters, this unrelenting message pre-
sented by Adams and all other supervisors named neces-
sarily constituted, I find, an implied threat to the em-
ployees that selection of the Union as their collective-
bargaining representative would result in closure of the
plant in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act as alleged
in the complaint.
I further find and conclude that the speeches, slides,
and posters conveyed an implied threat to reduce bene-
fits of the employees if they selected the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative. While I fully appre-
ciate that various of the phrases used by the speakers
were almost precisely those found nonviolative in the
cases cited by Respondent, there is a fundamental dis-
tinction. In none of those cases did Respondent couple
the recitation of its "right to say no," or demand reduc-
tions in benefits, with an implied threat to remove its
plant when the inevitable disagreement and strike
ensued. As such, the right to demand reduction of bene-
fits is presented as a tactic to insure disagreement which
will ultimately result in Respondent's ridding itself of the
Union, either through a decertification election among
replacement workers who would be hired during the in-
evitable strike, or by plant removal. As such, the threat
to insist upon reductions is more than a recitation of a
right, it is a threat to use reductions as an instrumentality
to rid itself of the Union, and it constitutes an implied
threat within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCI.USIONS OF LAW
I. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the interrogations of employees Hall and Stamp-
er, by Supervisors Britain and Green, respectively, Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
4. Respondent, by its agents, Adams, Deaton, Wals-
worth, Bradshaw, Walker, and Moore, impliedly threat-
ened employees with plant closure if they selected the
Union as their collective-bargaining representative, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. Respondent, by its agents, Adams, Deaton, Wals-
worth, Bradshaw, Walker, and Moore, impliedly threat-
ened employees with the loss of unspecified benefits if
they selected the Union as their collective-bargaining
representative, in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
7. Respondent has not violated the Act in any respects
other than those specifically found.
THF RF ML:DY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that Respond-
ent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act, including posting of appropriate notices
at its Shreveport, Louisiana, plant.
I shall also recommend that petitioner's objection
based upon the implied threats to close the plant and im-
plied threats to reduce benefits be sustained and that the
election held on October 4 be set aside and a new elec-
tion held. I Even were I not to find that the implied
threats of plant closure and loss of benefits constituted
8(a)(I) violations and specific objectionable conduct af-
fecting the results of the election, I would find that Re-
spondent's campaign, including specifically the "deadly
announcement" of plant closure and the resultant loss of
jobs, created a coercive atmosphere sufficient to set aside
the election. Turner Shoe Company, Inc. and Carmer Ath-
lelic Industries. Inc., 249 NLRB 144 (1980).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom-
mended:
ORDER 1 2
The Respondent, Riley-Beaird, Inc., Shreveport, Lou-
isiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees about their union member-
ship, sympathies, or desires.
(b) Threatening employees with plant closure if they
selected the Union as their collective-bargaining repre-
sentative.
(c) Threatening employees with reductions of benefits
if they selected the Union as their collective-bargaining
representative.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act.
I The isolated iterrogations by Britain and Green, although violatlive
of Sec 8(a)(1), would not lend to affect the results of the election. there-
fore the objection based thereupon should be dismissed
2 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by .c 102 46 of
Ihe Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
by Sec 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board
and become its findings, conclusions. and Order, and all objections there-
to shall he deemed waived foTr all purposes
673
!)ECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BO()ARD
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its Shreveport, Louisiana, plant copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."'' Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 15, after being duly signed by its authorized rep-
resentative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
I 1 the e'elll lal Ithis ()rder is enforced hby a Judgment of a Untied
Stales ('ouurt of Appeals, the vwords in he notice reading 'ostled by
Order of the National lIabor Relations Hloard" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a udgmlent of the United Stiltes Court of Appeals Enforcing an
)rder of the Nati onal Labor Relations Hoard."
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT' IS URTtlIR RI COMMINI)II) that the objectionable
conduct which occurred in the critical period as set forth
in the Regional Director's Report on Objections and
Order Directing Hearing on objections, and his order
consolidating the cases and notice of hearing, be sus-
tained and that the results of the October 4, 1979, elec-
tion be set aside and a new election directed.
IT IS FUR'IHIER RCOMMIENDEDI that the complaint and
objections be dismissed in all other respects.
674