Sunbeam Electric Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 29, 1942

41 N.L.R.B. 469 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter Of SUNBEAM ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING Co. and UNITED
ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED
WITH THE C. I. O.
Cases Nos. R-2697 and R-2093.Decided May 09, 19.42
Jurisdiction : refrigerator manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: interference with Board election by
course of conduct planned to cause the disaffection of employees from the
union and to sway the result of an election.
Remedial Orders : cease and desist unfair labor practices.
Practice and Procedure : election set aside and petition dismissed without preju-
dice.
Mr. Robert D. Malarney and Mr. Arthur R. Donovan, for the Board.
Mr. Robert D. Markel, Mr. Harry D. Dees, and Mr. Isidor Kahn,
of Evansville, Ind., for the respondent.
Mr. James Payne, of Evansville, Ind., for the Union.
Mr. Gilbert V. Rosenberg, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 18, 1941, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers
of America, affiliated with the C. I. 0., herein called the Union, filed
with the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region (Indianapolis,
Indiana) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had
arisen concerning the representation of employees of Sunbeam Electric
Manufacturing Co., Evansville, Indiana, herein called the respondent,
and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives
pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49
Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On August 23, 1941, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued its Decision
and Direction of Election.' On September 16, 1941, pursuant to
1 Matter of Sunbeam Electric Manufacturing Co., and United Electrical Radio & Machine
Workers of America, afilliated with the C. I. 0., 34 N. L. R. B. 831.
41 N. L. R. B., No. 97.
469
470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I
the aforesaid Direction of Election, an election by secret ballot was
conducted among the cabinet division (Building 2) employees of the
respondent. On the, same day'the Regional Director issued an Elec-
tion Report, showing that a majority of the employees voted against
the Union.2 On September 18, 1941, the Union filed' objections to
the conduct of the election, alleging in substance that by numerous
antiunion statements, letters, and speeches, the respondent had pre-
vented a free and uncoerced election.3 In his Report on Objections
to the Conduct of Secret Ballot' and Election Report, dated October
31, 1941, the Regional Director found that the. matters to which the
objections filed by the Union were directed raised "substantial and
material issues with respect to the conduct of • the election and could
have affected the free expression of the choice of representatives by
the employees."
In the meantime, on September 17 and 19, 1941, respectively, the
Union filed a charge and amended charge with the Regional Director.
Thereafter, by order dated November 26, 1941, the Board, having
found that the Union's objections raised substantial and material
issues with respect to the conduct of the ballot of September 16, 1941,
directed that a hearing be held on the objections and, pursuant to
Article II, Section 36 (b) and Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of
National Labor Relations Board' Rules and Regulations-Series 2,
as amended, ordered that Case No. C-2093, the unfair labor practice
proceeding, be consolidated with Case No. R-2697, the representation
proceeding. On January 3, 1942, the Board, by the Regional Direc-
tor, issued its complaint against the respondent, alleging that it had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act. Copies of the complaint, and of notice of
hearing thereon and on the Union's objections to the election, were
duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance that,the respondent: (1) from on or about May 1, 1941,
through January 3, 1942, engaged, in a preconceived and continuous
plan and course of action for- the purpose of interfering with the
2 As, to the balloting and its , results , the Regional Director reported as follows :
Total alleged eligible voters__________________________________________501
Total votes cast----------- --------------------------------------------- 485
Total valid votes cast ________________------ _------------------------ ___.- 431
Total votes for the Union ---------------------------------------------- 155
Total votes against the Union__________________________________ _________ 276
Total void ballots------------------------------------------------------ 1
Total challenged ballots_________________________________________________ 53
s The allegations of the complaint in Case No C-2093, hereinafter summarized ,' include
substantially all the Union's grounds of objections
SUNBEAM ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING CO. 471
self-organization . of its employees and inducing them to • refrain
from becoming members of the Union or 'to abandon their affilia-
tion with the Union; and (2) in furtherance of the plan and course
of action, openly discouraged membership in the'Union by (a) de-
claring to employees that they would lose certain advantages should
the Union be successful in organizing a majority of the employees;
(b) threatening employees with loss of seniority, Christmas bonuses,
and paid vacations, and with a shut-down of the plant if the Union
received a majority in the election ordered by the Board; (c) de-
scribing the leaders of the Union as Reds and Communists; (d)
permitting signs derogatory to the Union to be posted in public
places throughout the plant; (e) issuing and circulating a letter on
or about September 13, 1941, designed to belittle the collective bar-
gaining activities of the Union and to suggest that the union leader-
ship was composed of self-seeking and communistic individuals
rather than unselfish, law-abiding, and thoroughly American per-
sons; and- (f) addressing employees by means of a public address
system in such a manner as to discourage membership in the Union
and to induce them not to vote for the Union in the election.
The, respondent filed an answer, dated January 12, 1942, in which
it admitted the allegations concerning the nature of its business but
in effect' denied that it had committed any unfair labor practices or
that it had engaged in any preconceived or planned course of, action
for the purpose of inducing its employees to refrain from becoming
members of the Union or to abandon the Union.
Pursuant to notice,4 a hearing was held at Evansville, Indiana,
from January 12 to 14, 1942, inclusive, before Webster Powell, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The
Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and the Union
by its field organizer; all parties participated in the hearing. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
At the opening of the hearing the respondent moved to dismiss the
complaint on the ground that the matters alleged therein did not
constitute unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act and on the ground that the complaint did not conform
to the requirements of the Act or of National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended. The respondent fur-
ther moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was not
correctly signed pursuant to Article VI, Section 2, of the Rules and
Regulations. The respondent also moved to strike specified para-
graphs of the complaint. These motions were denied by"the Trial
4 The respondent and the Union both waived the usual 10 -day notice of bearing
472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Examiner. The respondent also moved at the opening of the hear-
ing that the complaint be made more specific, definite, and certain.
The Trial Examiner granted this motion in part, and directed counsel
for the Board to furnish the respondent with the names of the officer;
and agents of the respondent claimed to have engaged in the conduct
alleged to constitute unfair labor practices and to furnish 'the re-
spondent with the appropriate dates of the alleged unfair labor
practices.-' At the close of the hearing, ' the respondent, moved to
dismiss the complaint for lack of evidence and to dismiss the objec-
tions 'by the Union to the Election Report. The Trial Examiner at
the hearing reserved decision on the motion to dismiss the com-
plaint, but later denied it in his Intermediate Report; the motion to
dismiss the objections was referred by the -Trial Examiner to the
Board. The Board hereby denies the motion. A motion by counsel
for the Board at the close of the hearing to conform the pleadings to
the proof with respect to names,, dates,' and other minor particulars
was granted by the Trial Examiner over the objection of the re-
spondent. During the course of, the, hearing the Trial Examiner
made a number of rulings on other motions and on the admissibility
of 'evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed.
' On February 7, 1942, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, in which
he found that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the-Act.
He recommended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair
labor practices and that it take certain affirmative action to effectuate
the policies of the Act. On March 26, 1942, the respondent filed its
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of the
exceptions.
• On March 23, 1942, the Union filed with the Board a "Motion to
Amend the Direction of Election" requesting that the cabinet division
unit of employees, previously found, by the Board in Case No. R-2697
to-be appropriate,6 be enlarged to a plant-wide unit, comprising the
production and maintenance employees in all four of the respondent's
buildings, and that an election be held, in the,, larger unit. In support
of this motion the Union alleged,that it now represents a majority
of the 'production and maintenance employees in the larger unit
requested in its motion. Since our Decision and Direction of Elec-
6 Counsel for the Board complied with thii3 ruling. To make ,the complaint more
spec 8c, the Trial Examiner ordered stricken from paragraph ' 5 of the complaint the
words "including the following, but not limited thereto." - ' _ -
See 34 N. L. R. B . 831.'
SUNBEAM ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING CO . 473
tion was issued on' August 23, 1941, more, than '9 months ago, and
since the effect,of certain unfair labor practices in which the respond-
ent has since engaged must be dissipated before a free election can
be held,.the motion is hereby denied.
Pursuant to notice and, at the request of the respondent, a hearing
was held before the Board at Washington, D. C., on April 2, 1942;
for the purpose of oral argument. The respondent was represented
by counsel and participated in the argument. The Union did not
appear.
The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port and the brief in support thereof and, insofar as the exceptions'
are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth
below, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Sunbeam Electric Manufacturing Co., an Indiana corporation with
its principal office and place of business in Evansville, Indiana, is
engagedin the'manufacture, sale, and distribution of refrigerator units
and cabinets. During 1941 the respondent purchased raw materials,
consisting' principally of steel and sheet metal, valued in excess of
$1,000,000, of which more than 75 percent was obtained from points
outside the State of Indiana. During the same period the - respondent
sold to its only customer, Sears, Roebuck & Company, finished prod-
ucts valued, at more than $1,000,000, of which more than 75 percent
was shipped to destinations outside the State of Indiana. The
respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce, within the
meaning of the Act. S
U. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America is a labor
organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
In January 1941, the Union began, an' organizational campaign
among the employees in the cabinet division at the respondent's plant.
On April 17, 1941, the Union notified the respondent that it repre-
sented a majority of the employees in the cabinet,division and asked
for a conference for the purpose of negotiating an agreement. The
respondent refused the request, asserting that the cabinet division was
474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not an appropriate unit. Thereupon, as stated above, the Union
on April 18 filed with the Board a representation petition. On Au-
gust 23, 1941, following a hearing on July 1 and 2, the Board issued
its Decision and Direction of Election in Case No. R-2697.? Pur-
suant thereto, the Board conducted an election on September 16,
1941, among the employees in the respondent's cabinet division to
determine whether or not they wished to be represented by the Union.
The Union lost the election. The issues herein arise out of the
Union's allegation that, prior to the election, the respondent engaged
in an anti-union campaign designed to coerce its employees into
voting against the Union.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
On or about June 15, 1941, Victor Barnett, superintendent of the
respondent's cabinet division, sent-for .Max Doty and William Bre-
demeier, both of whom were employed as sprayers in the paint de-
partment, and informed them that he noticed they were wearing
union buttons and asked them what they could get from the Union
that they could not'get from the management. Barnett then talked
about the Christmas bonus, vacations with pay, and insurance,benefits
accorded them by the respondent. During the course of the conver-
sation, Barnett made calculations to see whether they stood to gain
or lose by having the Union. On the basis of his calculations, which
included payment of union dues and an estimated loss of 6 weeks'
work because of strikes, Barnett figured that they would lose money
if the Union represented them."
On July 17, shortly after the hearing in the representation case,
J. Henry Schroeder, executive vice president of the respondent, spoke
to the employees of the respondent, including those in the cabinet
division, over the public address system in the plant. Schroeder be-
gan his talk as follows :
We have always operated this business on the theory that we
are all working together toward • a common goal and that all
people on the Sunbean payroll should know about those things
that have a distinct bearing on our individual jobs and our indi-
vidual welfare. For that reason, it has been our practice to
come before you from time to time to tell you of the problems
' See footnote 1, supra.
s These find•ngs • are based on the mutually corroborative testimony of Doty and
Bredemeier. Barnett, without fixing the (late of the conversation , gave a different version
of it He testified that Foreman Edward Keene reported to him that Doty and
Bredemeier wanted to see him and that he then sent foi them '; that they asked for a
wage increase ; and that he then calculated with them what they were earning, including
Christmas bonuses and vacations with pay Keene, who was present at the conference,
did not testify. Although there is some disagreement between Doty and Bredemeier as
to the time at which this conversation took place , we accept their testimony as being
substantially accurate , as did the Trial Examiner.
SUNBEAM ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING CO. 475
and the projects of the company so that you will be fully in-
formed.
Several months ago, we reported to you that the United Electric
Radio and Machine Workers of America, a C. 'I. O. affiliated
union, had written us asking to be 'recognized as the bargaining
agent'.for our cabinet plant. We replied to the union that we
could not recognize them as the bargaining agent because the
cabinet department was an integral part of our whole plant and
was, therefore, not an appropriate bargaining unit. We also
stated that in our opinion, the union did not represent a majority
of our employees in building #2 (the cabinet department) or in
any other building.
Schroeder then summarized the evidence submitted to the Board
at the hearing with respect to the contentions of the parties as to
the appropriate bargaining unit, laying particular stress on the
merits of the respondent's position. Schroeder continued :
We believe that we presented a convincing ease and that the
Board will decide that the cabinet department is not a separate
unit and, therefore, not an appropriate bargaining unit and will.
deny the petition for an election.
In addition to the question as to whether the cabinet plant is
a separate unit or a department of Sunbeam our attorney
questioned the qualifications of the petitioning union as a proper
bargaining agent under any circumstances on the basis that the
union is dominated by recognized communists. Our attorney
took the position that the Communist party advocates overthrow-
ing our government by force, if necessary, and therefore a union
dominated by members of that party is not a proper bargaining
agency for our employees.
He based his statement on reports of the Dies Committee of the
United States Congress, on Un-American activities which were
quoted generally in newspapers, showing that James Matles,
Organizer, Julius Amspak,9 Secretaiy-Treasurer, and William
Senter,10 Vice-President' and Head of this district of the United
Electric Radio and Machine, Workers of America, were all active
members of the Communist party.
This same William Senter, who represented the union at the
hearing, did riot deny being a Communist although he had
several opportunities to do soil
B His correct name is Julius Emspak
10 His'correct name is William, Sentner.
"At the original healing in Case No. R-2697, the Trial Examiner refused to permit
interrogation of witnesses by the respondent conceining the alleged communist connec-
tions of the Union' s officers In its Decision and Direction of Election , the Board
afflimed this ruling
I
476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR : RELATIONS :BOARD
You'may be interested in reading other material used by our
attorney in charging Senter with being a member of the Commu-
nist party. An article in the current July issue of Readers'
Digest entitled, "We Are Already Invaded," by Stanley High,
reads in part as follows :
"Another strategic union is the C. I. O.'s Electrical, and
Machine, Workers of America. Its president, youthful
James Carey, is no communist. But his two chief organ-
izers are Joseph Matles and William Senter. Matles, in
addition to long association with "front" organizations, is
on record with an endorsement of -the Communist party's
election ticket. Senter last year, was a delegate to the party's
Missouri-Arkansas state convention.
It has always been our policy at Sunbeam to manage our busi-,
ness to the best interests of the employees, the customers, and
the owners. The growth of 'the business in recent years testi-
fies that we have done a reasonable good job in dividing the
customer's dollar.
Beginning a month ago and starting with the tool room and
the maintenance'departments,'your inaliagen' entworking with the
Sunbeam Employees Association '12 has started,further increases
'which' will average another 8% and will have as its minimum
57o so that within the neat several weeks, all factory employees
with the exception of those raised- since June 1st, will again re-
ceive pay increases.
The details of the plan are being worked out with the coopera-
tion of the management and your elected representatives in the
Sunbeam Employees Association. As soon as these increases are
in full effect, it will mean that the average Sunbeam factory em-
ployee has received about 16170 increase since the first of the year,
making •a total payroll increase of more than one-half a million
dollars a year.
Our company has recognized and will continue to recognize the
Sunbeam Employees Association as the sole bargaining agent
for our, employees. The National Labor Relations Board has
made no statement' whatsoever about the Sunbeam Employees
Association.
12 Although served with notice of hearing in the representation proceeding, the Sun-
beam Employees Association failed to appear at the hearing ; nor did its name appear
on the , election ballot , of September 15, 1941.
SUNBEAM `EUECTRIC MANUFACT 'URIN'G " Co . 477
Schroeder c6ncluded his remarks by stating :
IWhenever any of us have a decision to make, we should first
get all the facts and then study them in a clear-headed way be-
fore arriving at a decision . You have a decision to make. Will
you continue to follow the method of friendly dealing with your
management that has gained so much in the past? I urge you
to study the facts, to examine the record before deciding the type
of leadership to- follow , to gain the most in lasting benefits.
Above all , discuss this matter freely with your associates, with
your parents or with your wife and consider the effect that
your decision may have on you, your family , and your country.
On September 5, 1941, after the Board 's Decision and Direction of
Election had been issued in the representation case, W. A. Carson,
president of the respondent , talked over the public address system to
all the employees of the respondent , including those in n-the cabinet divi-
sion . Carson began by discussing the need for curtailment of non-
defense production , the coming reduction in the respondent 's refrig-
erator business , and the efforts made by the respondent to obtain war
orders. Carson further stated :
Several labor unions have recently put out petitions purporting
to gain support for obtaining more defense business for Evans-
ville industry . They have also recently proposed a plan of re-
training all employees who might be laid off if refrigerator pro-
duction is curtailed , and suggest a so-called "mass training
program."
In' the first place, no outside group is in any better position
to obtain defense business for us than they are to obtain refriger-
ator business . It has always been in the past , and will always
' be in the future , by the very nature of things; management alone
who can secure orders and contracts for our plant , whether they
- are defense contracts or refrigerator orders.
The ability of this factory or any factory to get defense work
depends on a number of highly complex factors which manage-
ment alone is in a position'to evaluate and handle.
Defense work cannot be obtained by .running up and down
Main Street and getting signatures on a petition. Interferences
and annoyances by outsiders cannoti in any way, speed up the
job of getting defense work here at Sunbeam.
Regardless of what anyone tells you , you can rest assured that
it will be your management , and not an outside group , who will
obtain defense work that will keep the largest possible number of
employees steadily employed. - -
478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Do not be misled by grandiose promises that if refrigeration
production is curtailed and you are laid off that you can be
retained and trained for defense work immediately .. It is self-
evident that before any so-called "mass defense training" pro-
gram can be put into effect , there must be defense business on
which to train . You need only stop and ask yourself what you ias
an individual would train on, if refrigerator production com-
pletely stopped here at Sunbeam tomorrow.
Carson concluded his talk by saying :
The success with which we are able to deal with the difficult
problems that lie ahead depends to a large extent upon the frank-
ness ; honesty , sincerity and cooperation that exists between Sun-
beam employees and their management.
I pledge you the cooperation of your management.
The rest is up to you !
Early in September 1941, Otto Drilling, general foreman, informed
Dennis Scheessele , an employee , that he was in line for a better job.
During the conversation, which took place in Superintendent Bar-
nett 's office, Drilling inquired if Scheessele thought that he and the
other men were doing the right thing "talking at lunch .. .
talking between times . . . talking in the morning . . . about trying
to get [the men] to sign cards." Scheessele replied that many of the
men wanted to get advice from those who were already in the Union.
Drilling then remarked that these were critical times and inquired
of Scheessele what the latter thought it best to do . Scheessele testi-
fied, as to this remark, "I took it that he meant regarding the union.
I didn't say nothing about that. I went on to say that I noticed the
Evansville Cooperative League wasn't so active up there ... any
more." At this point in the conversation Barnett came into the office.
Drilling then told Barnett that he had mentioned to Scheessele that
he liked his work and,that there ought to be a better job for him, but
that "it [«ould] take some cooperation ." Barnett then turned to
Scheessele and said, "Yes, you will have to cooperate." At this
point, Drilling said that he did not think' Scheessele had changed his
mind any, and that he noticed Scheessele still had [union] cards
and a pencil in his pocket yesterday morning when he came, in the
door. Either Barnett or Drilling then mentioned the possibility of
everybody 's being laid off in the cabinet plant. Barnett added that
there would be "plenty of jobs on the other side," 13 but that if the
men went ahead and voted "this thing in here and get a uliion,"
it would be impossible for them to transfer any of the men over to the
other "side," even if they wanted to. Barnett ended the conversation
"We find ; as did the Trial Examiner , that by this remark Barnett wa's referring to
defense work in the unit plant located across the street from the cabinet plant
SUNBEAM ELECTRIC MANUFAC TURING Co. 479
by urging Scheessele to'think the matter over, and offered to advise
him further if there was anything else Scheessele wanted to know.14
On or about September 9, 1941, William Doench, foreman of the
assembly line in the cabinet division, asked Joseph Feldhaus, an
employee, whether he would better himself and whether he would
continue to receive vacations with pay, insurance, and Christmas
bonuses if the Union "would get in the shop." Feldhaus replied that
he thought he would. Doench also asked Feldhaus whether he had
any trade he could fall back on if he was laid off, and informed
Feldhaus that, if the Union won the election, "the old man was
going to shut the cabinet plant down." Feldhaus testified that he
understood that Doench was referring to'Presidei t Carson.15
On or about September 11, 1941, games Payne, union organizer in
the Evansville, Indiana, area, was passing out leaflets in front of
the plant where he accosted Stanley Duncan, assistant foreman in the
cabinet division, and complained about a supervisor's annoying the
union employees. Duncan replied that the supervisors had a right
to talk to the employees in the plant and advise them on what the
supervisors thought was right or wrong about the Union. Payne
disagreed, stating that he felt that, inasmuch as foremen were not
involved in the election, "it was none of their business." Payne added
that it was a violation of the law, to which Duncan replied, "Even
if' it is a violation of the law, I still think the law is unfair, the
law is wrong." The conversation was ended by Duncan's saying,
"Well, Payne, you will have to admit that we are carrying on the
most ,intelligent campzlign against the union ever carried on in this
town." 16
" These findings are based on the testimony of Scheessele Drilling and Barnett both
denied that they had any conversation with Scheessele, either jointly or individually, in
which unions or the election were discussed They both testified to a conversation had
with Scheessele early in September which conceined only the withdrawal by Scheessele
of his Christmas savings club money Scheessele's testimony is consistent with the anti-
union attitude of the respondent manifested in its various letters and speeches herein
`set forth. Upon the entree record the Trial Examiner did not credit the denials of
Drilling and Barnett, nor do we -
"These findings are based on the testimony of Feldhaus Doench admitted that he
had a conversation with Feldhaus in which the Christman bonus and the possibility
of a lay-off were discussed, but denied that he mentioned unions or informed Feldhaus
that the plant would shut down, if the Union "got in " Doench's remarks to Feldhaus
were made during the peak of the Union's election campaign and are consistent with
the anti-union conduct during this period by officers of the respondent We credit Feld-
haus' testimony, as did the Ti ial Examiner
16 The fact that Payne was not an employee of the i espondent does not privilege
Duncan's anti-union statements to him or remove such statements from the proscription
of the Act In considering similar circumstances in flatter of The Federbusie Co , Inc
and United Paper WPorkerc, Local 292, etc, 34 N L R B .53f, we pointed out that
An employei may make his opposition and hostility to a union known to his
employees in- many ways other than by stating it to them personally [The em-
ployer's] statements, made to the Union organizer, were of a character not nially to
be calculated to %ieach the employees and to discourage them fiom joining or
assisting the Union
I
480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On September 13, 1941, 3' days prior to the scheduled Board elec-
tion, President Carson sent the following letter on the respondent's
official stationery to each of the employees in the cabinet division:
Since many of you will participate shortly in a Labor Board
election, I am writing'you at this time for the purpose of ex-
plaining a few matters about which you may not already be
fully informed.
1. This election will be by secret ballot-the same as in any
political election. No one can know, by any means, how you
vote. ,BE SURE TO VOTE! The decision vitally affects each
and every one of you. The election will be determined by a
majority of those voting at the election. Your failure to vote
gives someone else the, right to decide who will represent you.
A failure to vote is equal to a vote in favor of the side you
oppose.
2. The "Yes" is placed first on the ballot because that is the
way it has always been done in political elections. By being
placed first, it has no more significance than the "No." Each is
equally important for you to consider.
3. If the union leaders say to you, or lead you to believe, that
you will get certain things if the union wins this election, it
does not necessarily follow that you will get these things. As
the result of the election, the union can only gain the right to
be the sole, collective bargaining agent of our production em-
ployees in Building No. 2.
4. What you will get depends on what the company erns and
not upon the union's demands.
a. You-especially those of you who have been with us for
some time-know that it has always been our policy to do the
best we could for you in wages, hours and working conditions.
We intend to continue this policy in the future regardless of t_he
outcome of the election, and we can do no more, regardless of
the outcome.
Ib. What we can do in the future will depend, as it has in the
past, on competition and the prices at which we are able to sell
our product. If we cannot sell our product, we are all,out of
luck.
c. Very large portions of our earnings have been put.back into
the plant and equipment so that we have been able to give em-
ployment to approximately 3,000 instead of the 100 employees
which we had in 1929.
5. The Company does not have to agree to the union's demands,
and will never agree to anything which will require any em-
ployee to belong to a union in order that such employee may
SUNBEAM ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING CO. 481,
get or keep a job, or which will give any employee any advantage
or preference because of his membership in a union.
6. We suggest you think this whole matter over` very carefully.
You might wish to consult with your friends or with people who
have had experience in matters of this kind. It would probably
be well that you consult with the members of your immediate
family. 'Then be sure to vote the way you feel is right, and
regardless of what anyone tells you or promises you. You have
the right to vote in accordance with your desires and regardless
of anything you may have said or done in the past and regard-
less of whether you belong to the union or not, or whether you
signed an authorization card, application or anything. -
7. If a majority decides in this election that the union shall
be the exclusive bargaining representative, then that decision
will bind all of the production employees in Building No. 2.
S. One of the things we think you should carefully consider
is the character of the leadership of the union seeking to be
your exclusive bargaining representative-that is to say, is such
leadership unselfish, law-abiding, and thoroughly American, or is
it self-seeking and Communistic?
I hope this letter will assist you in arriving at a proper con-
clusion.
Carson followed his letter with an address on September 15, the
day before the Board election, delivered in the plant to the cabinet
division employees. Carson stated, in part :
Tomorrow you cabinet plant employees will vote in an election.
It will be the most important election in which you have ever cast
a ballot. It will be the most important, because in choosing the
method of bargaining you want, you are making a decision that
will involve your wages, job security, seniority, opportunities, and
other things that will have a direct effect upon your individual
welfare, and that of your family.
You have a heavy obligation to yourself to make a careful
decision.
On the surface, the "Yes" and the "No" that are printed on the
ballot are to decide the question of whether the CIO is to be your
sole and exclusive bargaining agency.
A more direct and frank statement of the question that prob-
ably will be in your minds as you mark your ballots will be
whether the CIO will be able to get more out of the company for
you than you can obtain by any other way,
You will have to decide whether you are willing to pay for
being represented by the CIO.
463892-42-vol. 41--31
482' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Many of you who vote tomorrow have not been with us very
long. You are not familiar with the long road that many of us
have traveled together-a road that has taken us through good
times and bad, with overtime during some periods, short hours
and layoffs during' others, but through the years a road that
has led to, an ever-growing, a constantly progressing and more
prosperous Sunbeam-a road that has led to more jobs, steadier
work, higher pay, and more opportunities for a constantly
increasing number of people. '
Carson then gave a brief history of the respondent's progress from
the' time it started as a small business to the present date, when it
employs approximately 3,000 people, setting forth the benefits being
received by employees at the present time. Carson then continued :
I would like to come to you today and make promises
that far exceed anything that the CIO has so recklessly promised.
I won't do that but I will promise you that. I will continue to
follow the same policies in the future that have proved successful
in the past. To the utmost of my ability I will do everything I
can to keep the pen that has written Sunbeam's record of prog-
ress, filled with ink. _
A few of you may feel that while Sunbeam's record of prog-
ress has been a good one, you're not concerned so much with
what has happened in the past' as_ you are with who's going to
do the most for you in the future. There may be a few of you
who feel that had it not been for the CIO there would have never
been such things as wage increases. Christmas bonuses, paid
vacations, etc., and that if you do not vote for the CIO all of
these things are likely to be discontinued in the future.
I can answer these questions for you in a, hurry. The CIO
has never been responsible for any progressive step that your
company has, ever taken. These progressive, steps were started
long before the CIO was ever heard of.
Payment of wage increases, Christmas bonuses, paid vacations
have always been based on the ability of the company to pay
them. Whether the CIO wins the election or not, whether there
will be bonuses or paid vacations will, in the future as in the,past,
depend solely on the company's ability to pay them, and not on
any other thing.
There are probably a few of you who think that the CIO has
scared or forced Sunbeam's management into raising wages' and
doing other things that are part of Sunbeam's record of progress.
I can best answer this by saying that the CIO did not scare your
management into building this cabinet plant. They did not
SUNBEAM ELECTRIC. MANUFACTURLN'G CO. 483
frighten your "management into, building the porcelain plant,
expanding the unit plant, or increasing the number of employees
from 100 to 3,000. No, and they were not responsible, either, for
our sales increasing from 12 refrigerators in 1929 to 350,000 in
1940. You can decide for yourself who has been responsible for
this progress, and by the same token who will be responsible for
progress in the future. All of us working together accomplished
these things. Sunbeam's record of progress was being written
in big letters many years before the CIO had eves' been heard of.
I say to you that even though the CIO should win the election
tomorrdw, I will never agree to any demands that they may
make if I feel that such demands are detrimental to the security
of the business, to the maintenance of steady jobs, to steady in-
come of our employees, or if such demands are beyond the
company's ability to meet.
Insistence upon any unreasonable demands might easily result
in a strike, which would throw employees out of work. Loss of
wages suffered during such a period would' probably never be
made up.
Even If the CIO should win the election tomorrow, your man-
agement and not the CIO will determine whether wage increases
are possible. The, CIO, cannot obtain higher prices for our prad-
ucts, they cannot guarantee a steady flow of orders, or steady
employment. They can guarantee -none of the things that are
essential for a successful business. They can promise but they
cannot deliver.
* * *
No labor union can change the simple little formula for success
in business which is to make the income greater than the outgo.
It is not a question of the management not wanting to raise
wages. Does the CIO in claiming that they will get a wage
increase for you tell you where it was coming from? I'll tell you
where the money comes from-it comes from our customer, and
if we raise prices to a point where he quits buying, we are simply
killing the goose that laid the golden egg. It is only by increased
efficiency, and hard work on the part of management and em-
ployees alike that wage increases have been or ever will be
possible.
A few employees, have expressed fears that if the CIO does not
win the election, rates of pay may be reduced, t13at the manage-
ment will show less interest in the employee's welfare, and .they
will not get as fair treatment. All of these fears and doubts are
484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
based on the assumption that the CIO has been wielding a big
stick over your management's head.
You have heard and read bulletins put out by the union claim-
ing that the CIO is a peaceful bargaining agency, that they sit
down with management around the conference table and quietly
work out the differences that exist. As long as we have talked
about, records, I ask you to look at the record for complete denial
of this claim. Are the hundreds of strikes, acts of violence and
exorbitant demands we read about in the newspapers, the peaceful
means that the CIO claims to use?
As a matter of policy, regardless of the result of the election
tomorrow, I will never, as long as I am president of Sunbeam,
require any man or any woman to pay for the right to work.
Membership in a labor union will never be a condition of employ-
meat in this plant. I do not propose that any employee shall be
required to pay for the privileges that he now enjoys free of
charge and will enjoy in'the future.
There are a few employees who have signed union cards who
feel that by so doing they are bound to vote "yes" in the election
tomorrow. This is not true. You have no obligation but to your
own conscience, and can vote YES or NO as you desire.
We are faced with certain curtailment of refrigerator produc-
tion by government order. How severe this curtailment will be
we do not know as yet. However, it is certain that when the
curtailment order is issued, a tremendous responsibility will be
thrown on your management to get sufficient defense business to
give employment to those people laid off because of the reduced
production.
The full time and thought of your management should right
now be devoted to getting defense business instead of being
harassed by interference from outside union agitators. If there
was ever a period in Sunbeam history when we all should be
pulling together it is now.
In the'past the greatest source of encouragement to me, when
the going has been pretty tough, has been the loyalty and the
devotion of all our employees to Sunbeam, which I like to think
has come to mean something more personal than a company,
something more than a group of brick and stone buildings, of
machinery. and conveyors. I like to think of the name Sunbeam
as being symbolical of a spirit of loyalty, of working harmoni-
ously together in a mutual, effort. There is no question but that
SUNBEAM ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING CO . 485
the spirit of the Sunbeam organization has been the essence of
whatever success your company has attained.
In the final analysis, the election tomorrow is really a contest
for leadership. You are being asked to decide the type of leader-
ship you wish to follow. I have reviewed -the record of my
leadership during the last twenty years, in order to enable you
to decide whether on the basis of the record you can look forward
to a continuation of that record in the future or whether you feel
that it has not been good enough, and can be materially improved
by following the leadership of an outsider who has nothing on
the record but promises-promises of what will be done, but
little of what actually has been accomplished.
Before making your choice as to the leader you feel will do
the most for you, it would be well to examine both Mr. Sentner's
record and mine. Who is this William Sentner, the head of the
UE-CIO? What is his record? Where did he come- from?
What does he represent and why is he suddenly taking an interest
in all Sunbeam employees? Who, on the basis of his record, has
done more.to earn your confidence and win your respect? Whose
leadership forecasts greater opportunities for you-Carson or
Sentner? The choice is yours.
C. Conclusions
The Act contemplates selection by employees of their bargain-
ing representatives free from, employer interference, restraint, and
coercion. Such freedom on the part of employees imports a corre-
lative duty on the part of employers to maintain complete neutrality
with respect to elections conducted to ascertain bargaining repre-
sentatives.'7 Without regard for this obligation of neutrality and the
right of its employees to a free election, the respondent engaged in
an outspoken campaign- to defeat the Union at the polls.',, This cam-
paign began just prior to issuance of notice of hearing in the repre-
sentation proceeding on June 20, 1941, and continued with increasing
intensity until the eve of the Board election on September 16, 1941.
On about June 15, 1941, Barnett, superintendent of 'the cabinet
division, deliberately engaged employees Doty and Bredemeier in a
17 See National Labor Relations Board v Norman A. Stone, 125 F. (2d) 752 (C. C. A. 7) ;
Valley Mould and Iron Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 116 'F ( 2d)- 700
(C. C. A. 7) : National Labor Relations Board v. Burry Biscuit Corporation , 123 F. (2d)
540 (C. C. A. 7).
11 That the statements , speeches and letters described above were not isolated or
unconnected occurrences , but were rather a series of deliberate acts by the respondent
designed to drive the Union from its plant, is clearly indicated by Assistant Foreman
Duncan 's remark to Unior Organizer Payne on September 11, 1041, that "we are carrying
on the most intelligent campaign (against the union ever carried on in this town."
(Italics supplied.)
486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conversation in which,he made it clear that the respondent opposed
the Union and sought to convince them that representation by the
Union would mean a financial loss. In a speech to the employees on
July 17, shortly after the hearing in the representation proceeding,
Executive Vice-President Schroeder reiterated the charge, previously
made by the respondent during the hearing, that the Union Was not a
"proper bargaining agency for the [respondent's] employees" because
its leaders were Communists. Whatever the motive for them, these
statements were clearly an attempt to undermine the confidence of
the respondent's employees in the Union and to discourage member-
ship therein. During his speech, Schroeder also enumerated the
wage increases previously given the employees by the respondent and
spoke of comparable increases to be given in the future, all of which
he attributed to the bargaining efforts of the Sunbeam Employees
Association. With respect to the Association, lie unequivocally stated
that the respondent "has recognized and will continue to recognize the
Sunbeam Employees Association as the sole bargaining agent for our
employees." By these statements, the respondent sought to convince
its employees that the Association was an,effective bargaining repre-
sentative and that no purpose would be served by the employees'
selecting the Union as their bargaining representative. Significantly,
Schroeder gave no indication , in his speech that the Union or any
labor organization other than the Association would be recognized by
the respondent, even if designated as the employees' representative in
a Board election.
Thereafter, on September 5, 1941, shortly after the Board had
issued its Decision and Direction of Election and 11 days before the
scheduled election, the respondent's president, Carson, delivered a
speech to the employees in which lie disparaged the activities of
unions in the Evansville area by ridiculing their efforts and sug-
gestions for securing war work for industries in Evansville, and by
deriding the mass training program suggested by the unions and the
"grandiose promises" made by them. At about the same time , Super-
intendent Barnett and Foreman Drilling gave union member Schees-
sele to understand that the cabinet-division employees might lose
their jobs if they selected the Union. The same theme was stressed
by Foreman Doench on or about September 9, 1941, when he warned
employee Feldhaus that the respondent would discontinue the bene-
fits then enjoyed by its employees and would shut down the plant
if the Union "got in ." These incidents were not, in our opinion,
unbiased discussions or expressions of opinion intended to give the
respondent's employees information on a theoretical problem; they
were rather unmistakable statements of the respondent's opposition
to the Union and threats by the respondent that it would use its
SUNBEAM ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING CO. 487
economic power over its employees to their distinct disadvantage
if they were rash enough to disregard its views and to select the
Union as their bargaining representative.
The respondent's anti-union campaign reached its climax just
prior to the election in President Carson's letter of September 13'
and his speech of September 15, in both of which he reiterated and
emphasized the respondent's opposition to the Union. He belittled
the collective bargaining advantages to be gained from representation
by the Union. He accused the Union of making exaggerated promises
to the employees which it could not fulfill, and at the same time re-
counted the advantages obtained for the employees by the respondent.
The clear connotation of the letter was that selection of the Union in
the election would be of no help to the respondent's employees in
any attempt to gain wage increases. Carson charged. that the Union
was not a peaceful bargaining agency and that representation of the
employees by the Union would result in strikes and financial loss to
the employees. He intimated that, if the respondent were "harassed
by interference from outside union agitators," 19 it would be unable
to find employment for employees laid off as a result of the curtail-
ment in refrigerator production which was "certain."- In substance,
Carson told the respondent's employees that the Union was not to be
trusted.. indicated that the respondent would not bargain collectively
with the Union as 'to wage increases even if it were selected by the
employees as their representative, and warned the employees that
adherence to the Union would entail financial loss to them.
Carson concluded his speech by posing a false issue between voting
for the Union and loyalty to the respondent, as if those were mutually
exclusive alternatives. He told the employees that they had the
choice of following his leadership with all that he had accomplished
for their benefit or "following the leadership of an outsider who had
nothing on the record but promises." No such choice is presented
to employees participating in an election conducted pursuant to the
provisions of the Act; the only question involved in such an election
is whether the participating employees want to designate a represent-
ative for the purposes of collective bargaining with their employer
and, if they do, which if any competing representatives shall be desig-
nated. An election is not a contest between a labor organization
and the employer of the employees being polled, and participation by
an employer in a pre-election campaign as if he were a contestant
19 See Roebling Employees Association, Inc. v National Labor Relations Board, 120 F.
(2d) 289 , 291 (C C. A. 3) :
The connotation of the terms "misleading," "outsiders," and "strangers ," as applied
by the respondent to adversaries in a labor controversy, has an appropriate place in
a consideration of the respondent's attitude toward "outside" labor organizations and
the probable effect of that attitude upon the employees.
488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is an interference with the employees' right to bargain collectively
through representatives "of their own choosing." 20
The respondent contends that the above-described speeches, letters
and statements involved "nothing more or less than an expression of
the respondent's opinion," 21 and that such expressions are protected
by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. As the Su-
preme Court of the United States has recently pointed out, however,
the First Amendment does not, privilege "pressure exerted vocally"
by an employer, where that employer's "whole course of conduct,"
properly appraised, constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion
within the meaning of the Act.22 We' are convinced by the record,
and we find, that each of the speeches, letters, and statements de-
scribed above was not an isolated and academic expression of a point
of view, but was rather an integral part of a "whole course of con-
duct" on the part of the respondent planned and calculated to cause
the disaffection of its employees from the Union and to sway the
result of the election.23 The statements which the respondent now
so earnestly characterizes as mere expressions of opinion did not at
any time "set forth the right of the employees to do as they please
without fear of retaliation" by the respondent.24 On the contrary,
their clear import was that the respondent's cabinet-division em-
ployees would be made to suffer substantial financial loss if they
selected the Union as their collective bargaining representative in
the election. So-called "expressions of opinion" which, in their con-
text, convey such a meaning to the employees involved can destroy
the rights guaranteed in the Act,25 particularly when, as in this case,
they are timed to coincide with a crucial period in union organiza-
tion and growth, and are given strength through repetition by a
21 See National Labor Relations Board v. Norman H Stone, 125 F . (2d) 752, 756
(C C A 7) • "The [election] campaign then being conducted, however, was not one
between the Union and the respondents . It was a contest toward which they should
have maintained a strict neutral attitude"
2' Pa_e 18 of the respondent 's brief.
22 \!afioaal Labor Relations Board v.. Virginia Electric & Power Company , 314 U. S 469.
21 That the respondent 's conduct in fact affected the employees ' choice of a bargaining
representative may be inferred from the fact that, prior to the representation hearing,
the Union submitted membership and authorization cards signed by 423 employees In
the cabinet di\vision, whereas only 155 employees in that division voted for the Union
In the subsequent election.
)24 See National Labor Relations Board v. Virginia Electric & Power Company, 314
U S 46)
25See National Labor Relations Board v. Chicago Apparatus Co., 116 F. ( 2d) 753
(C. C A 7), in which the Court, stated in part (at p 756) :
Expressions of opinion concerning labor unions , by an employer . . . may be of
snch a nature that their effect is to coerce and intimidate the employees . . .
To hold that such expressions , when employer manifestly intended to give them such
an effect , are not violative of the Labor Act would be to nullify the provisions
of the Act and to thwart the public policy evidenced by said Act.
See also National Labor Relations Board v. New Era Die Co ., 118 F. ( 2d) 580
(C. C. A. 3).
SUNBEAM ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING CO. 489
corporate employer's most important officers on company time and
with company facilities . Unless employees are protected by the Act
from such "pressure exerted vocally," they are not free to choose their
collective bargaining representatives.
We find that, by the respondent's entire course of conduct, as'
disclosed by the speeches and letters of Vice-President Schroeder and
President Carson and by the anti -union statements of Superintend-
ent Barnett, Foremen Drilling and Doench, and Assistant Foreman
Duncan, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.26 J
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMIERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and
to take affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
VI. THE PETITION
Since we have found that the respondent has, by its unfair labor
practices, interfered with the free choice of representatives by its
employees at the election of September 16, 1941, we shall set aside
the election.27 For the reasons stated above 'in connection with our
denial of the Union's motion of March 23, 1942, requesting another
election in a larger unit, we shall also dismiss the Union's petition,
but without prejudice to the filing of a new petition.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the en-
tire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
21 In his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner found that the evidence was In-
sufficient to sustain the allegation of the complaint that the respondent discoid aged
membership in the Union by permitting signs derogatory to the Union to be posted
throughout the plant. The Union filed no exception to the above finding of the Trial
Examiner . We have considered the record and find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
the record does not sustain this allegation in the complaint.
2t See Matter of The Letz Manu.tactuting Company and Federal Labor Union No. 22226,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, et al , 32 N. L R. B. 563.
490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
• 1. United Electrical, Radio -and Machine Workers of America,
affiliated with the C. I. 0., is a labor organization, within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act. -
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees• in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Sunbeam Electric Manufacturing Co., Evansville, Indi-
ana, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Distribute notices to all its employees stating that the respond-
ent will not engage in the conduct from which it ;is ,ordered to cease
and desist in paragraph 1 of this Order;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant at Evans-
ville, Indiana, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive days from the date of posting, notices stating (1) that
the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is
ordered to cease and desist in paragraph 1 of this Order; and (2)
that the respondent's employees are free to become or remain mem-
bers of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America,
affiliated with the C. I. 0.;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what
steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the' petition for investigation and
certification of representatives filed by the Union in Case No. R-2697
be, and it hereby is, dismissed without prejudice.