Star Kist Samoa, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 2, 1978

237 N.L.R.B. 238 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Star Kist Samoa, Inc. and United Canner) and Indus-
trial Workers of the Pacific, AFL-CIO. Cases 37-
CA- 183 and 37 RC 2153
August 2, 1978
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTIION OF
SECOND ELECTION
By MEMBERS JENKINS, M RPHY. ANI) TRt E[SDAI L
On September 7, 1977. Administrative Law Judge
Earldean V. S. Robbins issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and
Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting
briefs.
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, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge. as
modified herein with respect to the representation
matter, and to adopt her recommended Order.
We fully agree with the Administrative Law Judge
for the reasons set forth in her Decision that the Re-
spondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees, in violation of Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act
by threatening to close its plant and threatening its
employees with loss of employment, loss of benefits,
and more arduous working conditions if they select
the Union, the Petitioner herein, as their collective-
bargaining representative: by threatening that em-
ployees who vote for the Union would be discharged:
by threatening that alien employees would be deport-
ed if the Union won the election: and bv creating the
impression of surveillance of the employees' union
activities. We further agree with her finding that, by
the aforesaid unfair labor practices which occurred
during the critical preelection period, Respondent
also interfered with the employees' free choice in the
representation election held on November 13, 1975,
in Case 37 RC-2153. Accordingly, we adopt her rec-
ommendation that Petitioner's Objections I and 9 be
sustained. We disagree, however, with her recom-
mendation that Petitioner's Objection 5(a) also be
sustained.
Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made hs the
Administrative L aw Judge. It is the Boiard's established poilicy notl to o>;er-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to crediblity
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence cons'ince, us
that the resolutions are incorrect Standard I)r I1 /ll IP'r,,dluct I/,l 91
NI RB 544 {19505, enfd. 188 1'2d 362 (( A 3. 19s1 i We have caiefuillx
examined the record and find no basis for resersing her findings
As more fully set forth in the Administrative Law
Judge's Decision, Respondent Employer held seven
preelection meetings with its employees on Novem-
ber 7, 10, and 11, 1975. at which its general manager,
Murray, stated, inter alia.
If the Union should win the election on Novem-
ber 13, all Star Kist Samoa Employees will be
stuck with this organization even if they later
want to get rid of the Union. It is theoretically
possible to decertify a Union, but it is extremely
difficult as a practical matter. Under the circum-
stances, Star Kist employees would be wise to
wait and see what happens at Van Camp for one
year. If employees at Star Kist are unhappy with
conditions one sear from now they can have a
Union election in November 1976. Why not
wait and see for the next year and it will not cost
you anything in Union dues or hazards?
The Administrative Law Judge found the fore-
going objectionable in the context of Poumele's state-
ments, in Samoan, linking the Union's recent victory
at the nearby Van Camp cannery with layoffs and
loss of jobs at that facility. Although we agree with
the Administrative Law Judge that Poumele's state-
ments were coercive, we find that Murray's remarks
fell short of carrying an implied threat of plant clo-
sure even when viewed in the context of Poumele's
remarks. At most, Murray suggested to the employ-
ees that it might be wise for them to wait 1 year and
see what the Union could accomplish for the employ-
ees at Van Camp before selecting the Union to repre-
sent them. Murray made no reference to layoffs or
loss of jobs at Van Camp or Star Kist. In these cir-
cumstances, we find that Murray's statement was
permissible and, therefore, constituted legitimate
campaigning. Accordingly, we overrule Petitioner's
Objection 5(a), and do not adopt the Administrative
L.aw Judge's Conclusion of Law 6.2
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, and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Star Kist Samoa, Inc.,
Island of Tutuila, Pago Pago, Territory of American
Samoa. its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order.
'In light of ,.4l 1 Bart, I 236 Nl RB No 17 (19781, we do not rel, on the
Administratie Law Jude's In. 13
Menihmber MurphN would adopt the Administrative Law Judge's finding. as
set forth in her fn. 13, Ihat enmp hl)e e Afiognoa Noa's prehearing affidavit is
iniadtisisblC as substansiie esidence See Member Murphs's dissenting
opinliol in AlhAl J IYUr,, spral .
237 NLRB No. 37
238
STAR KIST SAMOA.. INC(.
IT IS FURTHER ORI)DFRI) that the election held on
November 13. 1975, be, and it hereby is, set aside.
and that Case 37-RC 2153 be. and it hereby is. re-
manded to the Regional Director for Region 20 for
the purposes of conducting a second election pur-
suant to the following:
[Direction of Second Election and Ex-celsir foot-
note omitted from publication.]
DECISION
STATEMENT O(F liIE CASI
EARLDEAN V S ROBBINS Administrative Tlaw Judge:
These consolidated cases were tried before me on the Is-
land of Tutuila in the Territory of American Samoa on
various dates in Februarv and March 1977. 'he charge was
filed by United Canner) and Industrial Workers of the
Pacific, AFL-CIO. herein called the Union, on November
20, 1975. and a copy thereof was served on Respondent on
that same day. The amended complaint which was issued
on September 10, 1976, alleges that Star Kist Samoa. Inc..
herein called the Respondent. has violated Section 8(a)( I )
of the National Labor Relations Act. The petition in Case
37-RC-2153 was filed by the Union on September 12,
1975, and served on Respondent. Pursuant to a Stipulation
for Certification Upon Consent Election, an election by
secret ballot was conducted on November 13, 1975. among
the employees in the appropriate unit. Of the approximate-
ly 618 eligible voters, 514 cast ballots, of which 130 were
for, and 366 against, the Union, and 18 ballots were chal-
lenged. The challenged ballots were insufficient in number
to affect the results of the election. Thereafter. the Union
filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of
the election. Following an investigation. the Regional Di-
rector, on April 6, 1976. issued a Report on Objections
recommending that Objections I. 2. 3, 5(h). 6, 7. and 8 be
overruled in their entirety and that Objections 4, 5(a). and
9 be resolved b' a hearing. Thereafter, the Respondent and
the Union filed timely exceptions and supporting briefs.
On September 2. 1976. the Board ordered that a hearing be
held on Objections 1, 4, 5(a). 8. and 9. On September 15.
1976. an order issued consolidating such hearing with the
hearing in Case 37 CA-1183.
The issues in the unfair labor practice case are whether
Respondent:
I. Created the impression of surveillance of employees'
union activities;
2. Threatened to close its facility if its employees en-
gaged in union activities or if the Union won the election:
3. Threatened to deport alien employees if the Union
won the election:
4. Threatened employees with loss of various benefits if
the Union won the election;
5. Threatened employees with termination if the Union
won the election: and
6. Through third parties the Economic Liberation
Movement and Asuemo Fuimaono %iolated the Act bN
the distribution of a handbill which stated in part: "Let us
not lose something good . . . vote no let us keep what we
have the canneries providing us paycheks [sicl every
week." and bh the distribution of Respondent's response to
said handbill.
'The objections to the election involved herein are:
1. Outside third parties through the Economic Libera-
tion Movement consisting of a number of the townspeople
and leaders of the business community actively cam-
paitned to defeat the I:nion on the premise, among other
things, that unionization of the Employer would cause the
plant to shut down or move.
4. The Emploser intimidated, coerced and threatened
the employees bv threatening to locate the canneries. in-
cluding this employer and Van C'amp. in a new and differ-
ent location other than American Samoa.
5. The f m'ploNer. through its authorized representatives
and supers isors, interfered with the Section 7 rights of its
employees bv telling them not to vote for the Union, but
rather to wait for an election in one year after they have
had an opportunity to see what the Union does at Van
( amp.
8. 1The F'mployer engaged in spying and other surveil-
lance of the Union and its activities and its employees in
the exercise of Union activities.
9. For other action conduct which interfered with the
Section 7 rights of its employees to freely select or not to
select a collective bargaining representative.
Upon the entire record,' including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed bN the parties, I make the following:
FINDIN(iS OF FAci
I J RISDICTION
Respondent. a California corporation. is engaged in the
business of processing and packaging fish on the Island of
rutuila in the Territory of Amencan Samoa. During the
past calendar year. Respondent. in the course and conduct
of its business operations. shipped products valued in ex-
cess of $50.000 from its facility in the Territory of Ameri-
can Samoa to various States of the United States.
The complaint alleges. Respondent admits, and I find
that Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an emploser engaged in commerce. and in a busi-
ness affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6). and (7) of the Act.
II I NBoR OR(;ANIZA rlON
The complaint alleges. Respondent admits, and I find
that the Union is. and has been at all times material herein,
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act
239
( ¢11111 tlerros in the tra.lnlrlpl are herchb Iotled .ind correcled
DE( ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RLI ATIONS BOARD
III TIlE AI.L.E(,D UIINAIR I '.B()R PRAt I( S
A. Intlroduc lion
Respondent's fish cannery employs between 700 and 730
employees and along with its competitor, Van (Camp ('an-
nery, constitute the principal private employers on the Is-
land.
The Union filed the representation petition herein on
September 12. 1975.2 On September 30. Respondent's
counsel, John O'Hara, and Joseph Zaninovich, the director
of industrial relations, and Brian Leamy,. general manager
of tuna operations, of its parent organization. Star Kist
Foods, Inc., came to American Samoa from California to
organize Respondent's preelection campaign. I hey re-
mained until October 3.
During this period Respondent distributed to all em-
ployees, with their paychecks, a letter urging employees to
vote against the Union. Also, a press release was issued to
the local press, expressing Respondent's view that its em-
ployees did not need union representation, and whatever
problems existed could best be solved by cooperation be-
tween management and employees. Meetings were held
with all supervisors during which they were advised, both
orally and in writing, of what they could do and what they
should not do during the election campaign.
On October 10, Respondent signed a Stipulation for C'er-
tification Upon Consent Election, which was approved by
the Regional Director on October 14, for an election to be
held on November 13. On October 16, John J. Murray,
Respondent's general manager, issued a notice to all em-
ployees informing them of the date of the election and
urging them to vote against the Union.
On October 23, the Union won an election at Van ('amp
Cannery, which is located about 150 yards from Respon-
dent's facility. On November 4. Murray issued a press re-
lease in which he expressed his belief that Van ('amp em-
ployees had been misled by "wild union promises" and
confidence that Star Kist employees would not "make the
same mistake." On October 9 and 16, Respondent again
distributed antiunion messages to employees with their
paychecks.
On November 6. O'Hara. Leamy and Zaninovich re-
turned to Samoa to assist in the remainder of the cam-
paign. Radio spot announcements were aired urging em-
ployees to vote against the Union, cartoons carrying
antiunion messages were posted and on November 7. a
letter was distributed to employees outlining a number of
reasons to vote against the Union. On November 7, 10. and
II11, Respondent held meetings of all employees during
which Murray and Galea'i Poumele, personnel manager,
spoke, and members of management answered employees'
questions. On November 8, Murray and Asuemo Fuimao-
no, the lessee of Respondent's cafeteria, appeared on the
local television station in a prepared question-and-answer
show. Questions were asked of Murray by the show's host
in English and Murray answered in English. Then the same
questions were asked in Samoan of Fuimaono, who an-
2 All dates herein are 1975, unless otherwise indicated
swered in Samoan. repeating \Murras's answer. All the alle-
gations of the complaint and in the objections arise out of
the events of November 7 through 13.
B. 1The 4l 1egallion Involiring turral and Poumele
I he complaint alleges in subparagraphs Vl(e), Vl(f), and
Vl(g), that Murrav and Poumele threatened (a) that Re-
sporndent would close its facilit' if the Union won the elec-
tion. (b) that a union victors in the election would result in
the termination of employees: and (c) that employees
would lose xarious benefits if the Union won the election.
All these allegations involve statements allegedly made
at emplo)ee meetings held by Respondent. On November
10 and I I Respondent scheduled a series of employee
meetings. each involving a different group of employees.
The meetings. which were held in the cafeteria, followed
the same format. Murray spoke in English. then Poumele
spoke in Samoan. At the end of Poumele's presentation,
employees were afforded the opportunity of asking ques-
tions, which they did, mostly in Samoan. Poumele would
translate the question into English. Zaninovich or Murray
would answer in English, and Poumele would translate the
answer into Samoan.
'Ihe testimony adduced by General Counsel as to these
meetings came from employees in the fish room. The em-
ployees who work in this area work at long tables with 75
or 80 employees to a table. There are three tables known as
tables 1, 2 and 3. These employees were released by tables
to attend three separate meetings. all held on November
10. None of the employee witnesses understand English
very well, so the only testimony adduced by the General
('ounsel is as to the statements made by Poumele.
Sivale Tipa. an employee in the fish room,3 testified that
she attended one of the employee meetings. According to
her, the management personnel were at a table at the front
of the cafeteria. She had a clear view of management per-
sonnel and of the table. Poumele spoke for about a half
hour in Samoan. He had no paper in his hand but there
was a paper on the table in front of him. He looked down
at the paper several times, but otherwise he looked at, and
directed his remarks to, the employees.
According to Tipa. Poumele said that each of the em-
ploNees should be thinking of who they should take, but to
remember that Star Kist is a good company and everything
in its operation runs smoothly. The Company's job rela-
tions ran smoothly but if the Union entered, then they
could not know what would be in the future. He further
said the Union was not a good thing, that if the Union
entered. then the ('ompan) would no longer be on its own,
the Union would take over the Company. If the Union
took over the Company, then the employees would no longer
get the benefits of leave 4 and, also, the tax.5
According to TIipa, at this meeting Poumele posed the
I he table to i hich .he wa;, assigned i not clear firom the record.
a 'Te'ieC' recfr ti, 11fil l llnu1 parlilent made hb the Compans to emploiy-
ec- in lieu lf i\aC:llln.
It nei er hcfie cile a lr in Ihe record tol uhal this term referred I ipa
teslificd that ta 5 1i deducted front her check and she receives it hack from
the ( orilpLn in Fe hruar, . Murray later testified that during the course of
the hearing. he checked It ee if the (iovernment sent employees' tax refund
checks to the ( onmpian for distribution. and found that it did not.
240
SI AR KIST SAMOA. IN(
question, if the L nion enters the ('ompan's. where would
the Union get the fishing boalts to get the fish to suppls the
Company. He further said if the t :nion enters the Cormpa-
ny. that would mean no more fishing boats because Stat
Kist would no longer own the lrompans. the lnion oultd
take over. The Company would no longer control its ox n
affairs, that the Union would control the affairs of the
Company. Tipa further testified that Poumele said if the
Union won the election. there was no wavya of knowV.ing
where the Union would get the mone: to pal the emplo,,-
ees. He said there would be no more fishing boats coming
in as the fishing boat companies would learn that Star Kist
no longer owned the Company and that the I nion 'ais
taking over. He also said if the Union entered the Compa-
ny or had control over the (onipan'l. where would the
Union get the money to pas the emploxees I Therefore.
when the Union actually entered the ( omrpan the '"obhs
would be closed down." On cross-examination she denied
that Poumele said that if the Union enters the ('ompany.
the Company would have to bargain with the IUnion re-
garding leave.
Malua Tat works at table I She testified that the meet-
ing she attended lasted approximately I 2 hour. Murrax
spoke in English. then Poumele translated into Samoan.
Murray had papers on the table in front of him and "When
he spoke, he looked at the papers on the table. Poumnele did
not have any papers in his hand. and she did not notice
any paper in front of him on the table whe:i he spoke.
When he spoke. he looked at the audience without looking
at an' paper.
Questions were asked by emplo'ees. According to Tai.
the employees asked about the Union's promise that wages
would be raised and that the Union would give the em-
ployees a good future. Poumele said none of these things
will be fulfilled, and that he does not know where the
Union would get the mone, to honor their promises. Hie
further said that if the Union won the election, the employ-
ees' working hours would not be regular. that theN V ould
have an irregular schedule. lie also said that if the Linion
entered. employees would no longer receive leave.
Tai further testified that Poumele said, we saw vhat hap-
pened at Van Camp, the Union entered Van Camp and
Van Camp has no jobs now.. Then he said thait means if
T he witness testifred through an Interpre ier. pon the ( cner.an ( uun
set's challenge to his translation of the particular vord ilsed hb lil u[lles.
the interpreter admitted that in contcxt. the v .ord luitch he ltii,,l ited is
"jobs" could he translated as "compans"
On cross-examinlltion the wiltnes testified Iha;l nothin w:. si, ;Ihd abOil
leave: however. it is unclear whether this ansiw.c relat.led on,,1 Ih te quie-
tion-and-answer period ' his same tllncerta.illlt tCles it to cIlllp r cc he bi
free to s.ote for either the (Compan;n or the I nion
"Van ( amp Canners emploNs aboutl the sname number of cnlploees, a,
Respondent. Together thes are the largeest pri.lte crnpl.lmie indlslr ii1
American Samoa. On October 23, the L nion ion .n electiorn i. ;tn1 ( .alilp
in a unit of production emnploees. iLirra\ testified trhat about liec tIdlell4c of
October to the first few ;,dass of Nonclthcr. the *.alincric ,ere e hrc ll di.t, l1
According to him, this was caused principa:lls hi the ,il cmbih.lrir, oth
canneries lost a number of bioat (ra, fish I sulpphied hs i fleet of Korlc
and I aiwanese boats). Turing the approsimateil Il5 nths prctcdllmg \,
vember. Respondent's fish suppl had dllntlicd ftin that furnishelcd b
approxinalcel 110 boaits to 49 hoats Ivo ecer hic also teitied lihai the -s
of boats did not hother Rs,pondel t il buitt \.lrlh i,r Apell 1Iq7 a nid .ie
admits that emph!Iecs were ncser Inefirmed lf the ,il crisis tie a ..t lc
the l nion enters Star Kist. vwe will be in the same situa-
tion our V.ork schedule will be irregular. lie further said
the Itnin t .as not suitahle for American Samoa. that it
wias onl, suitable for Amlerica. He explained that this was
because America has man) employers but American Sa-
mnoa does not. Therefore. if an employee is discharged by
Star lKist ancl gCoes to the l nion for help. the U nion does
not ha, e the alternatis e of securing other employment for
emplo, ees 9
Counsel read portions of Murray' s prepared speech to
Tati and she agreed that such statements were made by
Poumtele. One such statemrnent concerned the short supply
of fish. causing a cutback in the work schedule. However.
lai deniies that this ssas the statement to which she referred
when she testified that Poumele said work would be irregu-
lar if the I nion canme in.
Vi Browun worked at table 2. She attended the meeting
for the emploees on that table. Murray spoke, Poumele
spoke, and there were questions and answers. According to
Bro n. w hen MNurra' spoke he did not have any papers in
his hand nor did she see him look at any papers. When
Pounmele spoke. he had papers in his hand. During a por-
tion of his remarks. he looked at the paper as he talked. At
other times, as he spoke. he held the paper down by his
side without looking at it. Brown testified that Poumele
said "If the Utniton wins. that means that the Company will
immediatels be closed down: then. if the U nion takes over.
the U nion will look for its own employees. The Compan,
will go and find employees from Manua and Upolu tl to
work for the CornpanN." She further testified that Poumele
said. if the ( ompant is closed down, the Company will
send assax all its fishilig boats and will look for its own
boats to supply the fish for the plant. Also, the employees
w.ill no longer receive Christmas presents from the Compa-
n's. I Poumele also said, according to Brown. that the em-
plosees at \V'an C(amp had been reduced because of the
union entrance into Samoa and into Van Camp.
Fa'alili Pola also attended the meeting for employees at
table 1. Murray spoke in English, then Poumele spoke in
Samoan. Murray spoke again and then Poumele. As Mur-
ray spoke he had papers in his hand and at times he would
look at the paper. Poumele had no papers in his hand. She
did not observe whether there were papers on the table in
front of Poumele, but she never noticed him looking at any
papers.
Poha testified that Poumele said if the Union was of no
use to ernplosees. that it had no source of income to pay
the employees. that if the Union entered the Company, the
Company would close down immediately and the Union
would take over the operation. He also said that there are
no funds in the Union that could fulfill its promises to
employees. Poumele further said, according to Pola. that
the employees should observe what happened at Van
Camp. that as soon as the Union entered, Van Camp be-
thi allthtloulh Cllil'Z .es were t1o Iforlmeid lt d a a meeting thai the fish sup-
plN wai short, "e let the upcrsu-r, let the people know,."
NlMurras seuited I ll i tShere is a . ork force of approximnatels .0()K In
Amnerlca.l ,arlloit. ouf ;ihorn aboul 4.5(K) are emploued hb the (ovsernment
Of the ilell idcr the Iv o fish canneries emplos .i toal of approvximatels
I ptN ci-suti
A :eter.r Samllloi.
ReRV.p, usle o ti i ills , cia etpl\es ( hristtt .is presents
241
DF C(ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gan laying off employees. He also said that if they were
under the Union, there would be no more leave.
Counsel for Respondent read a number of statements to
the witness from Murray's prepared text,"2 and the witness
agreed that those statements were made. C(ounsel then re-
ferred to the witnesses' testimony and asked in several in-
stances if the statement he read to her were the statements
to which she referred when she gave her account of the
Poumele speech. In each instance, she replied yes. How-
ever, upon specific questioning as to her statement regard-
ing leave, it became clear that she did not understand, and
did not intend that her affirmative answers to counsel's
questions should negate her account of what was said at
the meeting, and I so find.
Another employee, Afiogna Noa, also testified. Her pre-
hearing affidavit 0 which was received in evidence for im-
peachment purposes, conflicts in most respects with her
testimony on the witness stand. Based upon a consider-
ation of her demeanor and her testimony. I found Noa to
be a very confused witness whose testimony is completely
unreliable. Accordingly, I do not credit her in any respect.
Poumele testified that Murray read the first few para-
graphs of a prepared statement in English. Poumele then
read the Samoan translation of these paragraphs and con-
tinued to read the Samoan translation of much of the re-
mainder of the prepared statement. Murray then read in
English two or three more paragraphs near the end of the
prepared text. Poumele read the Samoan translation of
these paragraphs and continued through the end of the
translation. At all times, according to him, as he read the
prepared statement, he held the statement directly in front
of his chest.
At certain points, employees were permitted to ask ques-
tions, which Poumele would translate into English. One of
the Company's representatives would answer in English,
and Poumele would translate the answer into Samoan. He
denies that he said anything other than to translate. Yet he
admits that when an employee asked if the management
representatives from California belonged to a union, he
said "I don't know, let them answer if they belong to any
union, but I did not know." He also admits he made a
direct statement in response to a question regarding ('hrist-
mas presents. Thus it is apparent that he spoke words other
than in translation of words spoken by others.
Poumele specifically denies saying that if the Union won
the election, the Company would close the plant or move
away; or saying that the employees would be terminated or
lose benefits, including leave and Christmas presents, if the
Union won the election. He also denies saying that if the
Union won, it would control the affairs of the Company,
and would have no money to pay wages, or that employees
would lose their jobs, or be laid off, or would work irregu-
1 In general. these quotations read hb counsel were nillre than Itl) u,lds
in length.
13 During the course of the hearing the affidavit was recei.ed Init/ eil-
dence for impeachment purposes under the Fed. R Esid Rule h61 and
ruling was reserved on the question of admissibilits under Rule 8011(d)(i)lA.
Charging Party continues to urge admissibility under this rule. however,
General Counsel concedes. in her brief, that the affidali:t is not adnlisslblc
under this rule. I agree and the affidavit is hereby rejected as suhstanitise
evidence.
larly. tie further denies saying that if the Union won the
election, the aliens Aould be deported or that the Union
was trying to gain control of Respondent for the benefit of
their members in California. Yet, this latter statement ap-
pears in the prepared statement.
Poumele further testified that the employees asked ques-
tions regarding uniforms, Christmas presents and
workmen's compensation. Poumele further states that he
cannot recall saying anything regarding Van Camp but
that he might have because it might have been mentioned
by some employee. He denies making any reference to
what had happened at Van Camp.
Murray and Zaninovich testified in agreement with
Poumele as to the format of the meetings. Murray con-
tends that Poumele only read the prepared translation, yet
he admits that as Poumele talked he. Murray, was looking
around, and that he does not understand Samoan. Murray
also testified that employees asked if it were true that the
Union could arrange for them to be paid when they were
not working. Zaninovich answered that there was such a
law in the United States, but not in Samoa. Someone asked
if it was true that the Union was responsible for the Christ-
mas presents the employees received each year. Murray
responded that Respondent had always given the employ-
ees the Christmas presents, but he denies that he made any
reference to future Christmas presents. At one of the meet-
ings, an employee said the Union had said the Company
should provide uniforms. Murray responded that Respon-
dent did not provide uniforms even in California and that
they should confirm this with the Union.
Zaninovich testified that Poumele had instructions that
his sole function at the meetings was to translate. He also
testified that Poumele read the translation but he admits
that he was not in a position to see whether Poumele con-
stantly read from a paper. He also admits that as Murray
read, he. Zaninovich, looked around, observing the reac-
tions of people. I am inclined to think that if he was inter-
ested in reactions to a speech that most employees could
not understand, he would be even more interested in reac-
tions to a speech given in Samoan, which all employees
could understand, particularly since he could not under-
stand and follow what was said.' 4
Maui'u Scanlan. the head floorlady and an admitted
supervisor, testified that she attended the meetings of the
table I and table 2 employees, staying only about 10 min-
utes at each meeting. She testified that both Murray and
Poumele read from papers and that Poumele translated
what Murray said into Samoan. Yet, she admits that she
does not understand English very well. According to her,
Poumele said each individual had the right or freedom to
vote as she or he wishes, "don't force anyone and don't
threaten anyone, but let each individual exercise his own
freedom to vote as he or she wishes and so that everyone
will be the same." He also said at the first meeting that the
Union could guarantee nothing, and that he believed that
the employees had nothing to gain and much to lose by
bringing the Union into the plant.
Respondent adduced no testimony from employees as to
what transpired at these meetings.
14 Neither Murray nor Zanlnovich speaks. reads, ior understands Samoan
242
STAR KIST SAMOA. INC
Since General Counsel's witnesses could not understand
English, there is no evidence that Murray made any state-
ment violative of the Act. Similarly, since Murray and Zan-
inovich cannot understand Samoan, they have no knowl-
edge of what Poumele actually said. They could only
testify that he was to give the prepared text. Yet the em-
ployee witnesses testified that he did not read the statement
he made and it is apparent that neither Murra' nor Zani-
novich was watching Poumele closely enough to tell
whether he appeared only to be reading the prepared text.
Counsel for Respondent urges that there is no reason to
disbelieve the testimony that Poumele merely read the pre-
pared statement unless one believes that Respondent
"perpetrated some kind of monstrous fraud or hoax." I
disagree. No planned hoax is necessary for Poumele to in-
clude some remarks of his own. By his own admission, he
certainly did so during the question-and-answer period.
Also, considering the difficulty he had during his testimony
confining his remarks to strictly answering the questions
asked, it is not difficult to envision him expanding on the
prepared statement. More significant. however. Is the fact
that the testimonies of the employee witnesses tend to be
mutually corroborative. Thus. Tipa. Brown. and Pola testi-
fied that Poumele said if the Union won, the plant would
be closed. Tai., Brown, and Pola testified that he called
their attention to Van Camp and blamed layoffs and irreg-
ular work schedules at Van Camp on the fact that the
Union won the election there. Pola. Tai, and Tipa testified
that Poumele said if the Union won the election, the'
would lose their leave bonuses. Brown testified that he said
employees would no longer receive Christmas presents if
the Union won. Tipa and Brown testified that he said the,
would lose their fish suppliers if the U:nion won. I found
these employee witnesses, who are all presentl' in Respon-
dent's employ, to be honest reliable witnesses whomn I
credit. Accordingly. I find that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)( 1) of the Act by threatening to close its plant and
threatening its employees with loss of employment ani
benefits if thev selected the Union as their collective-har-
gaining representative. Montgomerl' 1Ward d C(.o Incrrpo-
rated, 228 NLRB 750 (1977); Scientific Component.s (Corro-
ration d b a Mini-Circuits Laborator'-. 228 NLRB 601
(1977): Ramelli Building Maintenamnce Service, Inc., 224
NLRB 815 (1976); M-W Education (-orporation, 223 NLRB
495 (1976).
C. The Allegations Involving Scanlan
Tipa testified that on the Monday preceding the election,
she had a conversation with Maui'u Scanlan, the head
floorlady and an admitted supervisor. During that conver-
sation Scanlan said the employees should consider their
vote, that it was all right whether the5 voted for the tUnion
or for the Company. Scanlan further said that if the Union
enters the Company, that Star Kist would no longer own
the Company, but it would be owned by the Union. Scan-
lan also said the Union is not a good thing, and if the
Union won and was head of the Company. there would he
no more jobs.
On Tuesday, according to Tipa. Scanlan again directed
some remarks to her, but in the presence of other emplos-
ees. Scanlan said "your vote is entirely up to you, however,
consider the Star Kist because the Union is not a good
thing." Scanlan further said that the aliens 15 are the only
ones voting for the Union, that if the aliens vote for the
Union, and if the Union wins. thes would be returned to
Western Samoa. She also said something about the Com-
pans closing. Further, during this conversation Scanlan
said the employees should be deeply concerned not only
about the election, but also about the Company. Tipa also
testified that after the election Scanlan said she knew who
had voted for the Union but she was not going to reveal the
names.
Tai testified that on the das of the election, Scanlan told
her to be considerate of the vote, that she knew the people
voling for the Union. When a portion of her affidavit was
reiad Taii agreed that during that morning Scanlan told the
emploxees, "good luck for your vote, keep in mind the
Compan' and don't vote for the Union."
Polai testified that on the day before the election, as
Scanlan walked along table 1, she heard Scanlan say, "The
employees should sote for the Company; there is no reason
for themr to sote for the Uinion because the) get nothing
from the Union." At another time she also heard Scanlan
say, as she walked near table 1, that anyone found voting
for the L nion w'ould be fined.
Brown testified that on November 12, the day before the
election, as Scanlan walked beside the table, she said, "Be
concerned about the Company, for it is the Company from
whom we get moneN so that we can buy clothes for our
children. If the Irnion comes, we will lose all our leave."
Scanlan further said, according to Brown, "At present we
are aible to eat fish. go to the toilet and to go to take a
drink, but if the Union enters, then we will not be able to
eat fish, nor go to the bathroom, nor go to take a drink."
Scanlan further said. "Even though you say today that you
do not vote for the Union. at the time of the election, we will
know which of you voted for the Union." Brown also testified
that Scanlan made this latter statement again on the das of
the election.
Scanlan denies making an, of the statements attributed
to her. In fact. at first, she denied that she talked to Tai and
Pola. I ater she testified that she spoke to Pola in greeting
and that when she makes her check rounds, if she needs to
talk to Tai regarding her work, she does so. She further
denies that she spoke to any employees at the two meetings
she attended. She also denies even being in the packing
room at the time the employees at the various tables were
released to vote. According to her. in an abundance of
caution, after she made her round of the tables, she went to
her office and remained there, except when she went to the
personnel office. No testimony was adduced from other
witnesses as to her whereabouts on the morning of the elec-
tion.
I have heretofore found Tai. Pola. Tipa, and Brown to
be honest reliable witnesses. I also credit them as to their
testimons regarding Scanlan. Accordingly. I find that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by Scanlan's statement
that alien employees would be deported if the Union won
P-11, f-i ~ctcr hpa , orni V-esieri Samoad
243
DECISIONS OF: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARI)
the election, that employees who voted for the Union
would be discharged, that employees would lose their leave
pay and that working conditions would be more arduous if
they selected the Union as their bargaining representative.
Ramelli Building Maintenance Service, Inc., .supra, I R. I., In-
corporated. 220 NLRB 330 (1975). I further find that an
impression of surveillance was created in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by Scanlan's statements before the
election that regardless of what an employee said, Respon-
dent would know who voted for the Union. and by her
statement, after the election, that she knew who had voted
for the Union. Coosa V'aller' (Convalescent ( enler, 224
NLRB 1288 (1967).
D. The Allegations Involving 'uitmaono
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated the Act
through the acts of certain third parties A. U. Fuimao-
no 16 and a group which called itself the Economic L.iera-
tion Movement. Fuimaono translated for Murray in the
television programs in which Respondent espoused its po-
sition in opposition to union representation. However.
there is no evidence that Fuimaono ever engaged in any
activity 17 which could be considered violative of the Act
unless he was in some way connected with the Economic
Liberation Movement. General Counsel argued such a re-
lationship. However, I find the evidence insufficient to es-
tablish that he had any connection with this group. Both
Fuimaono and Herman Thompson, an admitted member
of the group, deny' that he was in any way connected with
the group. The only evidence adduced was that given by
Edward Lefeiloa'i, special assistant to the president of the
Union and head of the Union's organizing campaign at
Star Kist. He testified that he saw Fuimaono talking with
Pat Reid, spokesman for ElEM, in the hotel lobby and that
he saw Fuimaono going into Pat Reid's hotel room 1 on
November 10, and November 12. At no time did he hear
any conversation between them.
E. The Allegations Involving the Economic Liheration
Movement
The Economic Liberation Movement, herein called
ELM, is composed of five members of the community with
no known ties to Respondent Herman Tlhompson. I ony
White, Tumua Anoa'i, Pat Reid, and his brother. Eugene
Reid. Following several discussions with union representa-
tives in one of the local bars, they concluded that they
should oppose union representation at Star Kist and pro-
ceed to campaign against the Union. In this regard, they
I F:uimaono is a piaramlount chief I he paranmounl chiefs appeal Io cnlil
the highest social and political slatus accorded individuals Itn the Samliali
society. It is unclear to what extent, If an', hbiint a meilbehr lif the lcglsl.tturc
enhances this status and it appears thalt soiTle plaramounlillt chcf i are held In
more esteem than others.
17 Apparently. his children, aLcompanied hb his wife, carried some pro-
company signs ouiside the company gate and distributed some TlcolonulclT
Liberation Movement poster.s F uimaion, leales the Stil-Kist ( afcll:.ii
which is operated b) Mrs i'uimillnom Ihere is lto allcgilml that [i t ii on-
duct of Mrs. Fuimaonlo or the I uilllTaono children is iloitive oif the Act
I1 This room was utilized ais the headquarlers of Fl:I
held daily strategy meetings in Pat Reid's hotel room.
talked to their friends who worked for Respondent and
distributed campaign literature.
On November 10, Pat Reid telephoned Murray, told him
he was interested in the union election and requested an
appointment with Murray. Murray said they were very
busy but he would contact Reid before the end of the day.
Thereafter. Murrav. Zaninovich, and O'Hara discussed
this telephone call and around noon Murray telephoned
Reid and agreed to see him.
Later that day, according to Murray, Reid, Thompson,
and another person, whose name is unknown, came to Re-
spondent's plant and met with Murray, O'Hara, and Zani-
novich. Reid said they were interested in the Union, that it
had generated a lot of interest in the community and they
wanted to form a committee to campaign in opposition to
the Union. He asked what the issues were and what Re-
spondent's position was. One of the company representa-
tives said Respondent opposed the Union, that the election
was to he bN secret ballot, and they did not have time to
discuss the issues. However, the company representatives
did give Reid a copy of the letter distributed by Respon-
dent to the employees on November 7. Reid requested that
Respondent support his group. 19 One of the company rep-
resentatives said Respondent could not support them, they
were strictly on their own, that they were at liberty to ex-
press their opinions, but neither they nor the Union would
be permitted on company premises.
On November II or 12. ELM placed posters on the out-
side of the Star Kist facility, throughout the bay area (the
main business and governmental area) and at various
places between those two locations. The English portion of
the posters read:
BI wi151 & (ONSI[)R
thInNK
Let us not lose something good. Be wary of too many
promises by the UNION.
UNIONS CAN ONLY EXIST ON THE MONIES
TIHEY TAKE FROM YOU
VOTE NO
LET US KEEP WHAT WE HAVE
THE CANNERIES
PROVIDING US PAYCHEKS Isic] EVERY WEEK
E(CONOMIC I IBERATION MOVEMENT
I he translation of the Samoan portion of the posters
read:
DIX)] ('HOSF [sic] WISFI Y
IHINK Dl)ErPLY
IX)N'I IFl' I ()SE IOF() OUR F OR rUNE
BE ('AREI:t[ F I Of il PROMISES BY THE UNION
I NI(INS il.PENI) ON [I I[F I MONIES THEiY TAKE FROM YOU
V(OTI E NO
[IXI KFEEP O1 R FORTUINE
[IX)OI IKEEP WH1It HAVE I
THIE FISII) ( OMPANY
IROV(II)IN( t S PAY ( Il-('KS
IVStRY WIFiK
No nTi, 'ettioll w s nlmade if the lialT I i.M
244
ST'AR KISI SAMOA, IN('
On November 12. from about 0:30 a.m. until work started
at 7:30 a.m.. ELM distributed leaflets to emplosees outside
the gate of Respondent's facilit, .The translation of the leaflet.
in pertinent part. reads:2?
IF THE CANNERIES ARE (I.OSD DO;WN.
The supply of fish is diminishing drasticall',, and it mas
be that Cannery Operation will close down. Add to this
the efforts of the Union to establish itself, and the
likelihood of the Canneries closing down and leaving is
increased. Then man' of us will be wsithout ,aork. Ihe
Union therefore will also leave again and we will be in
trouble without jobs.
CHOOSE W'ISELY VOL E "NO."
Later that morning, in the dining room of the hotel where
they were both staying, Union President Steve Fdnes told
Zaninovich that the ELM was distributing literature and
causing problems. Zaninosvich i mmediately telephoned M ur-
ray and verified that ELM had indeed distributed literature
that morning at Respondent's gate. Zaninovich told EdneN
he would take care of it immediatel,. He then went to the
plant, had the ELM posters removed., 1 and informed 'dne':.
by telephone. of his action.
Murray telephoned Reid, told him he had the right to
express his opinion but Respondent was not responsible for
anything Reid did or said, and he would appreciate It if Reid
and his group stayed awa, from Respondent's premises.2
Later that day Murray had hand-delivered to Reid a letter.
the body of which reads:23
We recognize that you and your group have a right
to express your views on the election which will be held
at our plant tomorrow.
However, we want to make it clear to Nou that the
Company is not responsible for an's statements or mate-
rials issued by you and you have no authorization to
speak for the Company. We also wish to advise y(su thai
neither your representatives nor those of the i nion has e
any right to come on our property. or to camnpaign on
our premises. We do not want to create any' situation
under which the Union can object to the results of the
election, which we expect to win.
Under all the circumstances, we request that vou and
your group stay away from our gates today and tomor-
row. We do not want to have any violence or outbursts
such as occurred in connection with another union
election on this island.
We trust that you can find some other means and some
other lohcation to express your views.
Also, on that same day. Respondent distributed the follow-
ing, signed by Murray,. to all employees:
t' Iho mpsorn testified tlIt leaflois ariiltlCr i I }E. pto, [ l-h T 1r 11,1 i 1.i1C r l. ,
been distributed and that the leaflet diltrlhied oin Ihe d1s, htefo,u the Ccl
lion nlav have been prosld
1 Actualkl according to 7Zatlilnt ch. the gul rd relll-ced ,ll prstrs r
side the building. iniudng those posted h, R p,,pndlentl anid rihe t iii
2- this I fronm the teoilnlllOr of M urr.is irid /ri ,ll\lclih
2 A Cl ps , %il glve I he lh¢ t Illo l it the nree C tlmIml II lIfe l hI< d e L lIcr
I II idas
NOIl(CE 10 ALl. S'lAR KIST SAMOA
EMPLOYEES 24
November 12. 1975
Some people who call themselves the Economic Liber-
ation Movement were outside of the plant this morn-
ing.
We want all employees to know that this group is
not sponsored or financed by the Company. Any
statemlents or materials issued by the Economic Liber-
ation Mlosvemient express only the views of that group.
1They do not speak for the Company.
I want each of syou to vote in this election without
an's promise or threat. Our Company does not believe
in scare tactics. We have been in Samoa for man,
sears. We like the Samoan people. We do not intend
to let any Utnion scare us away.
I urge sou to exercise your right to vote, and request
that you vote "NO".
Il'he translation of the Samoan version reads:
ANNOUNCEMENT FOR ALL STAR-KIST
EMPLOYEES
November 12. 1975
This morning, at our gate. were some people who said
they were members of the Liberation Economic Devel-
opment Movement Organization.
F:or the understanding of all Star-Kist employees, the
group is neither sanctioned nor financed by the compa-
n). Whatever statements or public declarations the Eco-
nomic Deelopment Group has made are their own
convictions. They are neither stating nor expressing the
Company's views.
I do wish you to vote without your being influenced
by promnises or threats. Our Company, indeed, does not
believe in such things like intimidation or threats. This
Company has been in American Samoa for many years.
And we are extremely happy with the people of Samoa.
We do not intend to let the Union scare us away.
I urge you all to exercise your human right to vote,
and I implore you to vote "NO".
Also distributed to employees at the same time was Respon-
dent's final piece of campaign literature--a series of questions
and answers regarding the Union. According to Murray.
these were the questions most asked during the employee
meetings.
I find that the ELM leaflet contained a threat that union
representation would result in the closing of Respondent's
plant. Such a threat is clearly violative of Section 8(a)( 1) of
the Act if it can be attributed to Respondent.
Respondent contends that it is not responsible for the acts
of the Economic .iberation Movement, and there is no
evidence of direct responsibility. However, such evidence is
not essential to a finding of a violation of the Act. The Act
expressly provides in Section 2(13) that the common law test
of agency is not controlling. Here. Respondent took its case
I[ I tic, II .CTrr I
245
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELA IONS BOARD
to the community. It issued news releases and had television
programs and radio spot announcements. Since Respon-
dent's campaign of employee meetings and employee distri-
butions forcibly presented its point of view to its employees,
one must infer that by its television and radio messages it
sought to invoke community support in its campaign against
the Union. Similarly, it encouraged ELM to the extent of
meeting with this group and providing it with campaign
propaganda. At no time did Respondent request that Et..M
cease its activities. It merely requested, in essence, that EL.M
proceed in such a manner as to give Respondent an opportuni-
ty to claim it was not responsible.
In these circumstances, in a small, nonindustrial commu-
nity where Respondent is one of the two principal private
employers, where Respondent took affirmative steps to influ-
ence community opinion against the Union and gave some
aid to ELM, I conclude that ELM activities are attributable
to Respondent unless Respondent sufficiently disavowed
such activity. See Henry 1. Siegel Co., Inc., 172 NLRB 825
(1968), enfd. in pertinent part 417 F.2d 1206 (C.A. 6, 1969);
Dean Industries, Inc., 162 NLRB 1078 (1967): General
Metal Products Company, 164 NL.RB 64 (1967). enfd. 410
F.2d 473 (C.A. 6, 1969). In reaching this conclusion, I have
considered the case cited by Respondent, Rartheon Conipa-
ny, 179 NLRB 678 (1969), but find that it is distinguishable
in that there, the respondent was somewhat remote from
the alleged activity. Here, Respondent engaged in similar
activity, took steps reasonably aimed at invoking commu-
nity pressure against the Union and aided ELM. Further,
the activity occurred at Respondent's gates.
Respondent contends that it effectively 'disavowed the
activities of ELM. I disagree. True, it distributed a letter to
all employees stating that it was not responsible for the
activities of ELM. However, its letter did not refute the
contents of the ELM literature. Specifically, it did not deny
any intention to close its plant. Under the circumstances
herein, particularly since Poumele had also threatened that
union representation would result in the closing of Respon-
dent's plant, I find that Respondent was obligated to disa-
vow the ELM activities and that it did not effectively do
so.
F. The Motion to Amend the ('omplaint to Delete the
Allegation that a Bargaining Order Is 'Warranted Herein
At the hearing, ruling was reserved on General Counsel's
motion to amend the complaint to delete paragraph XI
which alleges that Respondent's conduct warrants a bar-
gaining order remedy.- The motion was based primarily
on General Counsel's inability to establish that the Union
had ever represented a majority of the employees in the
appropriate unit. The Charging Party, while stipulating
that majority representation could not be established, op-
posed the granting of this motion, contending that Respon-
25 Due to a mishap, that portion of the official Iranscript between pales ('
and I(a) is missing. The parties agree and I find that in that poiion of the
transcript I granted General Counsel's motion to delete paragraphs 7(b). 8.
and 9 from the complaint and reserved ruling on (General Coiunsel's milton
to delete paragraph II from the amended complaint. All parties siipulated
that at no time has the Charging Party represented a maijorit? of Resplm-
dent's employees in the appropriate unit.
dent's conduct constitutes the type of exceptional situation
contemplated by the Supreme Court as warranting a bar-
gaining order even though the Union had never enjoyed
majority status. N.L. RK.B. v. Gisel Packing Co., Inc., 395
U.S. 575 (1969).
I conclude that Respondent's conduct was not so egre-
gious as to be arguably within the purview of that portion
of the Gissel rationale. The motion to amend the complaint
is hereby granted.
1 ItHE OBJ(IIONS o ('(CONDUCI AFFECt'IINC IlHE RESULTS OF THE
Objections 4 and 8 allege that the Employer threatened
that both its cannery and Van Camp's would be relocated
outside of American Samoa, and that Respondent engaged
in spying and other surveillance of the union activities of
its employees. No evidence was adduced in support of
these objections.2" Accordingly, I shall recommend that
Objections 4 and 8 be overruled.
I have found that certain conduct engaged in by the
Employer constitutes unfair labor practices. I further find
that, with the exception of the one postelection statement
by Scanlan, this conduct, which is described in Objections
I and 9, must have reasonably affected the results of the
election. Accordingly, I shall recommend that Objections I
and 9 be sustained.
Objection 5(a) alleges that the Employer told employees
not to vote for the Union. but rather to wait for an election
in I year, after they have an opportunity to see what the
Union does at Van Camp. According to Respondent, the
following statement was made at each of the employee
meetings on November 7, 10, and II:
If the Union should win the election on November 13,
all Star-Kist Samoa employees will be stuck with this
organization even if they later want to get rid of the
Union. It is theoretically possible to decertify a union,
but it is extremely difficult as a practical matter. Un-
der the circumstances, Star-Kist employees would be
wise to wait and see what happens at Van Camp for
one year. If employees at Star-Kist are unhappy with
conditions one year from now they can have a union
election in November 1976. Why not wait and see for
the next year and it will not cost you anything in
union dues or hazards.
In the context of Poumele's statement linking the Union's
victors at Van Camp with layoffs and loss of jobs, I find
that this conduct reasonably tended to prevent the holding
of a fair and free election. I shall, therefore, recommend
that Objection 5(a) be sustained. Accordingly. in view of
my findings as to Objections I, 5(a) and 9. 1 shall recom-
mend that the results of the election held on November 13.
1975, be set aside.
"h I haze noted ( harging Parln's argument that the evidence which I have
f.illii.l ihO, e ti. conSlltuic a threat to close the plant and to create an impres-
sion of surveillance is suiffi lent to sustain Objections 4 and 8. I disagree.
Although I find below that this evidence is sufficient basis to set the election
aside. it does, nlt establish Ihat Respondent threatened the relocation of the
plints or thai Respondent engaged In anN actual spying or surveillance of
n1111ii1 actl i etlC
246
STAR KIST SAMOA. INC.
CONCI.ItSiONS oi- LAW'
1. The Respondent, Star Kist Samoa. Inc., is an em-
ployer 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 meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has interfered with. restrained. and
coerced employees in violation of Section 8(a)( I ) of the Act
by threatening to close its plant and threatening its em-
ployees with loss of employment, loss of benefits, and \with
more arduous working conditions, if they select the Union
as their collective-bargaining representative: by threaten-
ing that employees who vote for the Union would be dis-
charged; by threatening that alien employees would be de-
ported if the Union won the election: and by creating the
impression of surveillance of employees' union activities.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. As alleged in Objections I and 9, by the aforesaid
unfair labor practices, the Employer engaged in conduct
which interfered with the employees exercising a free and
untrammeled choice in the representation election held in
Case 37-RC-2153 on November 13, 1975.
6. As alleged in Objection 5(a). the Employer has inter-
fered with the employees exercising a free and untram-
meled choice in the aforesaid election by urging employees
to wait and see what happened at Van Camp.
7. The evidence does not establish, as alleged in Objec-
tions 4 and 8, that the Employer threatened that both its
cannery and Van Camp's would be relocated outside of
American Samoa, and that Respondent engaged in spying
and other surveillance of the union activities of its emplo,-
ees.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that Respondent
cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative
action in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law, and upon the entire record in this proceed-
ing, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act. I hereby
recommend the following: 2
ORDER 8
The Respondent, Star Kist Samoa, Inc., Island of Tutui-
la, Pago Pago, Territory of American Samoa. its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns. shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening its employees with loss of employment.
loss of benefits and with more arduous working conditions
if they select the Union as their collective-bargaining repre-
sentative.
(b) Directly., or indirectly, threatening to close its plant
if its employees select the Union as their collective-bar-
gaining representative.
(c) Threatening to discharge its employees who voted
for the Union.
(d) Threatening that its alien employees would be de-
ported if its employees select the ULnion as their collective-
bargaining representative.
(e) Creating the impression of surveillance of its em-
ployees' union acti, ities.
(f) In any related manner interfering with, restraining.
or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its place of business on the Island of Tutuila,
Pago Pago, in the Territory of American Samoa. copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix A." 29 Copies of
said notice. in English and in Samoan, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly
signed b; its authorized representative, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof. and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter. in con-
spicuous places. including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken hb Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered. defaced. or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writ-
ing. within 20 davs from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
II IS IS Ii R I f ( ( N1OM IEND)ED that Petitioner's Objections
1. 5(a). and 9 be sustained and that the election held on
November 13. 1975. be set aside and a second election by
secret ballot be conducted among the employees in the ap-
propriate unit at such time and manner as the Regional
Director deems appropriate.
I I 1s Al so i R HI: R Ri( I1MMI NODFD that Objections 4 and 8
be overruled.
Ihe :nllhsh ersin lf the prepared speech which Resprondent con-
lends was given at each meeting is set forth in Appendi\ B I fundlillf 1l
significanl sariation from the English version in the transliatrn if Ihe Sa.
: In the cent n exceptlls are fled 1as pros ided bs Setilon 102 4 lof the
Ruc an.Id Rcguli.tians f the National I hbor Relations Board. the findings.
nclil.liollI.I auld reonlllllended ()Oder herein shall. as proided n Sertion
Ii2 .Is of the Rules .ind Regulatiuns. he adopted hs the Board mind hbecome
Its flitridrs. coltiusions iind Order. and ill objecTilns thereto shall be
deemed ui aed for ali purposes
:~In the eveni hit th ()rder is enforced h, a judgment of a L nited
States ( ourt of appeals. the iords In the notice reading "Posted b) Order
of the Na.lllul Labr Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to ;
Judgmcent .f the I ntied Sta.tes ( urt of A.ppeals tnforcing an Ordei of the
NAilont l IL.abor Rclailns B.oard
APPENDIX A
NOT I(t To EiMPLOY lS
POSTED BY ORDER OF HFE
NArlONAI LABOR RFIAIIONS BOARD)
An Agency of the Ulnited States Government
After a hearing in which all parties were represented, it has
been found that we have violated the National Labor Rela-
tions Act in certain respects and we hase been ordered to
post this notice and to carry out its terms.
The National Labor Relations Act gives all emplosees
the following rights:
247
IDF( ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
To organize themselves
To form, join, or support unions
To bargain as a group through a representative
they choose
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all such activities.
In recognition of these rights, we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
WE WII.t NOI threaten our employees with loss of
employment, lossof benefits, or with more arduous
working conditions if they select U nited ('annery and
Industrial Workers of the Pacific, AFL C10. or any
other labor organization. as their collective-bargaining
representative.
WE WILL NOT directly or indirectly threaten to close
our plant if our employees select the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge our employees
who voted for the Union.
WE Win.l NOT threaten that our employees who are
aliens will be deported if our employees select the
Union as their collective-bargaining representative.
WE Wi1i No'r create the impression of surveillance of
our employees' union activities.
WE WILL NOI in any related manner interfere with.
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in the Act.
STAR KISI SAMOA, IN(
APPENDIX B
WS'AR KISI S.4 1;().
Final Pre.entation to Itniployve.
November 10 and 11. 19)75
John J. Murray
This will be my last opportunity to speak to you before
the election on Thursday. I would prefer to speak to you
without notes or other written material. However, I have
been advised that it is safer for me to read my message to
you so that there is a record of what I say and the UInion
cannot misquote me or claim that I made ans promises or
threats to influence your vote.
This election on Thursday is extremely important to you
and your family, to me as your manager-to Star-Kist
and to the people of Samoa. I want to be sure that you
have all the facts and that you know how the outcome of
this election will affect your future and the future of our
company.
This election will decide whether we go on working to-
gether as friends to try to solve the problems of our compa-
ny and our industry or whether you want the Cannery
Workers from California to represent you in your dealings
with me and the other members of management. Naturally,
I would prefer to continue working with all of you on a
personal hasis, as we have in the past, rather than to deal
through outside union representatives.
Before ;ou vote in this election on Thursday, you should
ask yourself what do I have to gain and what do I have to
lose with the ('anners Workers Union? I sincerely believe
that you have nothing to gain and there is much for all of
us to lose by bringing the Cannery Workers Union into our
plant. Iet me tell you the reasons for my opinion.
1. The Union can guarantee you absolutely nothing.
Fhev can only ask the Company for what they want. Ask
the Union representatives if they can guarantee higher
wages. Ask if they can guarantee that there will be no
strikes. Ask if they can guarantee that your job will contin-
tie. Ask if they can guarantee any of the benefits they have
promised. The answer to all of these questions is NO-and
that is whi you should vote "NO" on Thursday.
2. If a union makes excessive or unreasonable demands
on this company or any other company the answer will be
N()" \What can a union do if the company refuses to
grant those demands? The union has only two choices:
First, it can take what the company is willing to give, or
Second, it can get the ernploorees out on strike. Striking em-
ployees are strictly on their own. They receive no wages or
benefits. but the union officers and representatives contin-
ue to draw their salaries while the strike goes on. Employ-
ees on strike may also be replaced permanently by the
C'ompany.
3. The Cannery Workers Union would take lots of
money out of the pockets of our employees in the form of
initiation fees, dues, assessments and fines. Membership
dues alone would amount to $3000 per month from Star-
Kist Samoa Employees. This is approximately $36.000 per
sear. Why should employees pay this kind of money to the
('anners Workers Union?
4. Our company and fish canneries elsewhere in the
world have many problems at the present time. We do not
have enough fish to make our operation at Samoa success-
ful. We have been required to cut down on the work sched-
ule and this has been a hardship for our employees.
The Union cannot help with these problems. The Union
would just create a new kind of problem and this would
make our existing problems worse. Let's face it--the only
real job security for you and me is a successful and profit-
able compans which can afford to pay better wages and
benefits.
We do not need any interference from this outside Cali-
fornia Union. I have been working with the other officials
of our company to find solutions to the problems of our
company and our industry. I need the help and coopera-
tion of all employees of Star-Kist Samoa.
5. The Cannery Workers Union obviously has a greater
interest in the mainland canneries than the canneries in
Samoa. The Union has hundreds of members in California
who pay substantial membership dues. This money is being
used now to send these Union representatives here to un-
ionize the workers of Samoa. If the canneries of Samoa
were forced to shut down for any reason, the Cannery
Workers Union would not suffer any loss. The Union
would be strengthened because it would mean more jobs in
California.
I do not believe that the C'anners Workers Union is here
248
STAR KIST SA(OA)A IN(
to help the people of Samoa. In m5 opinion the,, re I tr\
to control the fish canneries in Samoa for the benefit of
their members in California.
6. All of you know that the workers at V\'n ('amp ,oted
for the Union on October 23. I have been told that the
employees at Van ('amp are now vers unhapp? about the
election-but it is too late. Ask 'ourself 'What has the
Union done for the people at Van ( amp since the election.
I do not believe that Nou need a L mion to protect sour
interests. In Puerto Rico the Van Camp employees are rep-
resented bh the Seafarers International Union ,.ith ,Ahich
Canner'y Workers is affiliated. but the Star-Kist emplosces
do not have any union to represent them. Ihis condition
has existed for 15 'ears. The Star-Kist emplosees rcceisc
wages and benefits which are practicall identical to those
received by Van Camp employees. but our people do not
pay union dues. fines or assessments and the', haet neeir
been required to strike.
7. If the Union should win the election on Noclnmber
13. all Star-Kist Samoa emploNees 'ill be stuck with this
organization even if the' later swant to get rid of the I nioln.
It is theoretically possible to decertif' a union. hut it is
extremely difficult as a practical matter
Under the circumstances. Star-Kist emplo)ees would be
wise to wait and see what happens at Van ('amp for one
year. If employees at Star-Kist are unhapp> with condi-
tions one sear from now the call have a unlion Clection inI
November 1976. Why not wait and see for the next \'.ar
and it will not cost vou anything in UInion dues or ha/zard,''
8. The Union has not told the truth in its canmpairn. I ht
Union has claimed that it will arrange matters so that em-
ployees will be paid for periods that the\ are not working.
This is ridiculous. No company can be successful or profit-
able if it continues to pay people for not w orking.
The Union has said that there are no Uanion fines. This is
false because the Union's own Ci onstitution and B' LI ats
expressly provides for fines.
The LUnion has said that emplo.ces will not have to pa'
membership dues while they are not working. Hoesteer, in
the Union contracts in California employees are required
to pay or make up the membership dues whether the! are
working or not.
Ask the Union representatives whether they' intend to
pay you for times when you are not working. 'he answer is
"NO".
9. Some employees believe that if a union wins an elec-
tion that the employees are guaranteed present benefits
and automatically become entitled to additional increases
in wages and benefits. This is not true!
If a union wins an election all benefits, both present and
future, become the subject of negotiations. Emploxees can
end up with more and they can end up with less benefits.
Unions have been known to trade off existing benefits for
concessions which the Union wants such as dues checkoff
or a union shop clause.
1(0. 1heie are many obligations of membership in a
union w5hilch crnploees do not realize. I have studied the
('onsttlUtion and B, I .aaws of the C'annerr Workers Union
and hia\e found mnans amazing provisions.
For example. do ,ou know that sou can be fined or
penalized for not going on strike? Do you know that you
can he fined for continuing to work during a strike? Do
\ou kinus that \ ou can be fined for failing to attend certain
i nionl meetinrgs Do \ou know that if ,ou owe the UInion
for an' liahbilitt, that sou can he sued in court and sou ma\
haxc to pia the I niion's attorney fees' Ask sour supervisor
to shlI\s sou the L nion ('onstitution and B' I Laws
nider the law. the Compans is forbidden to make an'.
promises. I herefore, all I can tell sou is that I am dedicat-
ed to finding as man!' solutions as I can to our problems. It
is iur comrpatn polic? to paI X ates and benefits which are
comparirable to those paid bh other competing companies in
our industr' and in our area. I will always listen to sour
st. LCStlIOns andis willr' to see that you are treated fairl.
You do nlot haie to belong to any Uinion to be assured of
sour fair share as we make progress in our compan.
I .i ant to urec sou ' er\ ro.)l uil to exercise your right to
vote in this election. If sou do not vote. you are letting
others make ,our decision for sou. Ihe law guarantees to
each of vou the right to cast a secret ballot. No one will
e\er know h\ow (,u voted. Some emploxees signed a union
cai-dl before the' learned all the facts. Others ma, have
been pi'cssurcd into signing union cards. The fact that you
ma'n hia\e signed a union card in the past makes no differ-
etice Ahatsoe\er no\r. Thursdas \ou are free to cast sour
ballot as sour conscience tells sou. There is no obligation
X hlutsoe cci to sote for the Union merely because you
si ened a union card some time ago. If \ou are convinced
thlat it is better for sou not to be represented bh the Can-
nes- WVsorkers l nioni then sou should vote "NO."
I haxe instructed all those in management not to make
an' promises or threats. No one in management had any
authority' whatsoever to nmake any such promises or threats
to influence \our sote. Each one of you is free to vote as he
or she wishes without an' fear of any reprisal of any kind.
If at an' time during this campaign you feel that anyone in
mainaLement has said or done anything to pressure you or
to make ,ou an' promise in return for sour vote. I would
appreciate it if sou would let me know as soon as possible.
You are entirel, free to sote as you wish.
I ask ,ou to cise me and the other members of manage-
ment a chance to continue to work with sOU and to show
sou that we can succeed together to solve our problems
without an', outside interference. I ask you to show your
confidence in our future together by voting "NO" in
Thursdas's election.
In conclusion. I w ant to thank you for listening to me.
but above all. I want sou to exercise your free choice in
this election.
Thank Nou.
249