W A Krueger Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 1066 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
W A Krueger Co and Graphic Arts International
Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner Case 26-RC-5060
June 17, 1976
DECISION , ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election executed on August 12, 1975, an
election by secret ballot was conducted on Septem-
ber 5, 1975, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for Region 26, among the em-
ployees in the stipulated unit At the conclusion of
the election the parties were furnished a tally of bal-
lots which showed that of approximately 133 eligible
voters 129 cast valid ballots, of which 39 were cast
for the Petitioner, 88 were cast against the Petitioner,
and 2 ballots were challenged The challenged ballots
were not sufficient in number to affect the results of
the election Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely
objections to the election
In accordance with Section 102 69 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series
8, as amended, the Regional Director conducted an
investigation and on October 17, 1975, issued and
duly served on the parties his Report on Objections,
in which he recommended that the objections be
overruled in their entirety, and that certification of
results of election issue Thereafter, the Petitioner
filed timely exceptions to all of the Regional Direc-
tor's recommendations except with regard to Objec-
tion 5
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 Regional Director's
report, the Petitioner's exceptions thereto, and the
entire record in this case, and makes the following
findings
1 The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein
2 The Petitioner is a labor organization which
claims to represent certain employees of the Em-
ployer
3 A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer, within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act
4 The following unit, as stipulated by the parties,
constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act
All production and maintenance employees
employed by W A Krueger Co at its Senato-
bia, Mississippi, location, but excluding all other
employees including casual part-time employ-
ees, office clerical employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act
5 The Regional Director found no merit in Peti-
tioner's objections and recommended that the results
of the election be certified With regard to Objection
1, the Regional Director found that the Employer's
preelection statements, oral and written, did not ex-
ceed the bounds of permissible campaign propa-
ganda, as alleged In support of its objection the Peti-
tioner (also called the Union) offered a letter sent to
all employees by Employer's general manager, Cal-
vin Seaquist, and the texts of four speeches given by
Seaquist to assembled groups of employees during
the 6 weeks preceding the September 5, 1975, elec-
tion
The record shows that on July 22, 1975, a week
after the instant representation petition was filed,
General Manager Seaquist delivered a speech to all
employees during working time In the course of his
speech, Seaquist stated
At this time, however, I want you to know
how your company feels about Union represen-
tation of its employees I also want you to know
that your management will strongly resist, with
every legal means possible, this attempt by out-
siders to put themselves between you and your
company in matters dealing with your employ-
ment The time has come for straight talk to help
you realize just what is involved in this kind of
situation The plain facts are that no union can
do anything for you to make this a better place
to work
Later, Seaquist added
If you were to appoint this union as your rep-
resentati,,e, your company would not have to
agree to anything the union proposes We would
not agree to anything we feel is not right for you
and the company If we couldn't agree, the only
recourse the union would have would be to get
you to strike And if you would strike, we would
have every legal right to replace you in order to
continue our operations A union can only guar-
antee to collect dues and provide a constant
source of agitation between the employees and
the plant management which could ultimately
[a]ffect the continued growth and success of the
Senatobia Plant and the employees involved
224 NLRB No 148
W A KRUEGER CO
Finally, in response to his own question, "why are
we against union involvement in our employee-man-
agement relationship," Seaquist alluded to an earlier
speech, on June 6, and reminded the employees that
"hundreds of people have lost jobs because of lost
business and plant closings [at several named em-
ployers] " Seaquist then added
All of these plants, totally union, were unable
to successfully compete in the industry any lon-
ger We don't want that to happen here, to hap-
pen to you, and I am going to do everything I
can to prevent it I don't know of a single plant
where more jobs have been created by union in-
volvement I don't know a single customer that
will give us business because of union involve-
ment The truth is, only the company can pro-
vide jobs, only the company can give you securi-
ty, and only the company can provide the
necessary dollars for growth to create more jobs
and advancement opportunities for its Senato-
bia employees
In his next speech to these employees during work-
ing time on July 31, Seaquist stated
I want you to know how union representation
can seriously affect you personally, your job,
and the future of this plant I also want you to
know that your management will strongly resist,
with every legal means possible, this attempt by
outsiders to put themselves between you and
your Company No union can do anything for
you that the Company has not already done or
will do for you as you develop your skills and
the plant becomes successful
The general manager then told the employees that
"I have worked in union plants and have tried to deal
reasonably with unions It just can't be done' Sea-
quist also remarked that he was "extremely disap-
point[ed]" to learn that a sufficient number of em-
ployees had signed union authorization cards "to
allow the Union to ask for a representative election "
Seaquist then added
Now, in the middle of trying to make this op-
eration successful-to give an excellent opportu-
nity to all of you and others-we have to spend
a lot of time and money trying to prevent an
internal disaster Do you know why it would be
a disaster? Because having a Union in the plant
will make it difficult, if not impossible, for this
operation to be successful That is why it could
be a disaster I am seeing some of it here already
in the way it is affecting relationships between
employees
Finally, after again emphasizing that plant closings
1067
and job losses were attributable to "restrictive union
contracts" and the Union's unsuccessful "effort to
deliver" promised benefits, Seaquist stated
Don't be misled by false promises or false
hopes The Company is going to continue to
manage this business to insure success and
growth for both the plant operation and the em-
ployees involved, not in accordance with any
union dictates, regardless of what we can do and
how we can do it That won't work In fact, a
union won't work in this plant
In a speech on August 14, Seaquist traced the ori-
gins of the Senatobia plant Thus, as Seaquist ex-
plained, following a 14-week strike at the Employer's
Wisconsin plants, the Employer "realized that manu-
facturing at plants where unions had a foothold was
no longer a safe idea [and] the Company had to
plan for its growth in other places," including Sena-
tobia After mentioning financial losses which the
Employer had encountered since opening the Senato-
bia plant in 1973, Seaquist stated
Today as we work hard to do the job we must
do, we have to divert our effort to fight the
union organizers and everything we have been
trying to achieve What are you doing9 Are you
trying to throw away the thousands of dollars of
education and training that you have received9
Are you going to throw away all the anguish and
trials you went through to learn your jobs Are
you going to throw away the future prosperity
that you are earning for yourselves? Are you
going to destroy one of Mississippi's biggest
chances to show the rest of the country what it
can do? Where do you want to be next year and
five years from now? Do you want to be work-
ing at a good paying job in a nice place as good
or better than your neighbor's? Do you want to
buy the things you want for your children
Do you want to feel proud of the type of prod-
uct you're working on, and/or feel like you've
accomplished something" Do you want to pro-
vide a place where your children might want to
works Think on September 5th-Is this
what you want to throw away?
After itemizing the "petty gripes" and "individual
problems" of employees who would vote for the Peti-
tioner, Seaquist mentioned, but not by name, four
former employees who "started this CANCER" and vol-
untarily quit rather than face "what they knew was
going to be a Hassle, a Struggle, a Mess " Finally,
Seaquist said "I would leave too-if I had started
something I couldn't control, couldn't stop, and
knew it was going to hurt not only my friends, but
hundreds of people in this area "
1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On August 28 and 29, Seaquist delivered his last
speech to all employees before the election In his
opening remarks, Seaquist advised employees of the
Employer's duty, as "required by law," to substanti-
ate certain "facts " Thus, in response to the rhetorical
question, "What really happens if the [Petitioner] is
voted in on September 5th and is certified by the
N L R B ," Seaquist answered, "All benefits and
wages will be frozen " Later, Seaquist elaborated
[W]e know from our past experience, that [the
Petitioner] would either then or in the future,
start to make unreasonable demands which we
could not agree to There probably would be
many meetings to discuss the Union demands,
demands on your time and our time to discuss
exactly all the things you now have Remember
"Negotiations start from Ground Zero "
AGREEMENT
Remember-when we are all attending nego-
tiating meetings we are not solving your prob-
lems We must define everything We possibly
could reach agreement with the union, but from
past experiences I doubt it Every agreement re-
quires submission to the International that
would demand the same work restricting rules
and regulations they have forced on other com-
panies-Example Williams Press and Western
Publishing in Hannibal, which are now closed
plants
IMPASSE
Maybe we couldn't agree Could not negotiate
a contract The union would have two choices
a) Continue negotiating indefinitely or
b) Strike
The National Labor Relations Act says "no
changes to anything while negotiations are in
process" even if at impasse I This could be indef-
initely At Holiday Press a year went by, then a
strike, then 55 out of 58 people were replaced
If the Union members strike, everyone is im-
mediately [a]ffected-You, Your family, Your
job, Your friends, and Your Company You may
have no choice but to be in the middle
I'll tell you right now our customers will not
stand for any type of work stoppage We will
continue to operate with all those who wish to
continue employment The others obviously
quit, and will be replaced
TO THE COMMUNITY
1 Friendships can be lost
2 Brothers and sisters and family relation-
ships will be damaged
3 Business may become concerned about
charging items to you or loaning you money for
cars, homes, and bills They know Unions mean
work stoppages, strikes, layoffs, plant closing-
basically-a real chance they may not be paid or
repaid
The Union's only leverage for getting their de-
mands is to strike, and use force Don't be
fooled by a Union organizer's promise that their
Union doesn't strike
a) GAIU does believe in strike, they struck over
50 plants during the last three years and paid
out $20 million dollars in strike benefits during
the last 15 years
Seaquist then offered several "examples" of
strikes, including one "close to home Western Pub-
lishing in Hannibal Mo," which was marked by vio-
lence and the use of guns, pipes, and dynamite Sea-
quist ended this portion of his speech with the
exhortation, THE ONLY WAY TO PREVENT ALL THIS FROM
HAPPENING IS TO VOTE NO" and the statement WE
WOULD OPERATE WITHOUT A CONTRACT
Toward the close of his final speech Seaquist again
discussed shutdowns at some 21 printing plants dur-
ing 1972-75 which were organized and the "hun-
dreds" of employees thrown out of jobs Seaquist
concluded with an appeal to reject the Petitioner at
the election and "avoid all the potential hassle and
heartache I've just described "
Finally, in a letter sent to employees on August 28,
Seaquist, under the heading "WHAT COULD HAPPEN,"
wrote
We should all be concerned that if the GAIU
were to be voted into Modular, the result could
be disastrous for you, the Company and the
Community Union demands during negotia-
tions can lead to many undesireable conse-
quences One such consequence is a strike,
which is the basic weapon of the Union, or, in
the extreme, a plant shut-down which is the ulti-
mate result when an employer yields to unrea-
sonable demands The GAIU, like all printing
industry unions, considers the strike a very
strong weapon in their arsenal when they sit to
negotiate a contract Strikes are nasty, wretching
and often violent affairs, which, in small com-
munities like Senatobia, can leave permanent
scars in the community as well as among the
employees involved, no matter what the out-
come Plant closings, on the other hand, are a
much more damaging consequence which can
W A KRUEGER CO 1069
occur when an employer can no longer continue
to operate a competitive plant When the plant
loses its competitiveness, due to unreasonable
union contract settlements, it loses customers,
becomes unprofitable, and finally, in too many
well documented cases, the business is forced to
shut down Such a consequence of having a
Union in the plant is always a possibility I am
concerned that it could happen here and you
should be too
I have a strong concern that the disruptive in-
fluence of the GAIU in our plant could make it
impossible for Modular to be strong enough and
capable enough to survive, and you should be
too Our competitors, mostly non-union, would
be only too glad to see the GAIU put a Union
millstone around our necks
I am unwilling to believe that such a future is
really the hope of our employees and the people
of this community, however, I must again tell
you that I am very much concerned, and you
should be too
In assessing the reasonable impact of the foregoing
statements, we are mindful of the Employer's right to
discuss freely and frankly its views concerning
unions, strikes, collective bargaining, plant closure,
and any other topics it considers important But it is
equally clear that employees have the statutory right
to associate freely and to express their desires in an
atmosphere free from fear and futility It is the
Board's duty to balance these rights and to provide
the laboratory conditions, as nearly ideal as possible,
to determine the uninhibited desires of employees In
this regard it is important to take into account the
economic dependence of employees on their employ-
er "and the necessary tendency of the former, be-
cause of that relationship, to pick up intended impli-
cations of the latter that might be more readily
dismissed by a more disinterested ear " N L R B v
Gissel Packing Co, Inc, 395 U S 575, 617 (1969)
Applying these standards to the instant case, we
find, contrary to the Regional Director, that the fore-
going statements exceeded the bounds of permissible
campaign propaganda It is clear that the overall ef-
fect of this preelection campaign propaganda was to
drive home the warning that "a union won't work in
this plant," to establish an atmosphere of fear and
futility in selecting a bargaining agent that prevented
the employees from exercising a free choice in the
election, and to convey to the employees a thinly
veiled threat of plant closure should the Union win
the election See Kellwood Company, 206 NLRB 665,
672-673 (1973), and cases cited therein See also
Amerace Corporation, EGNA Division, 217 NLRB 850
(1975), and Thomas Products Co, Division of Thomas
Industries Inc, 167 NLRB 732 (1967)
From the beginning, the Employer, through Gen-
eral Manager Seaquist, noted its "extreme disap-
point[ment]" with those employees who, in the exer-
cise of statutory rights, had signed authorization
cards in support of the Union's petition for an elec-
tion In a recurring theme, Seaquist explained that
the Employer would "strongly resist," albeit lawfully,
the Union's campaign with "a lot of time and mon-
ey," and would "fight the union organizers" and
their adherents who created this "internal disaster "
While Seaquist did not conceal his displeasure with
employee union adherents in general, he held the
Union's earliest followers in special contempt be-
cause they had "started this CANCER," "a Hassle, a
Struggle, a Mess," which they "couldn't control,
couldn't stop" and which could "destroy" the Em-
ployer, the employees, and the community in which
they lived
Seaquist warned of a number of adverse conse-
quences flowing from a union victory in the election
for example, employees could experience difficulty in
obtaining loans or credit from local business con-
cerns "for cars, homes, and bills [because] [t]hey
know Unions mean work stoppages, strikes, layoffs,
plant closings-basically-a real chance they may
not be paid or repaid" And the Employer warned
employees that within the plant the Union, "a con-
stant source of agitation" and a "disruptive influ-
ence," could make it "difficult, if not impossible, for
this operation to be successful " Seaquist asserted
further, and incorrectly if meant as a requirement of
law, and amounting to a threat if meant to describe
the Employer's own future conduct, that if the Union
were certified, "all benefits and wages will be fro-
zen "
Furthermore, the Employer predicted that follow-
ing certification the Union would not be successful in
collective bargaining because the Employer was the
sole source of all benefits Thus, emphasizing the im-
potence of the Union, Seaquist stated that the "plain
facts are that no union can do anything for you to
make this a better place to work" and "[n]o union
can do anything for you that the Company has not
already done " Seaquist further underscored the fu-
tility of collective bargaining by driving home the
point that the parties would simply be discussing "ex-
actly all the things you now have `Negotiations
start from Ground Zero "' Speaking from "our past
experience," Seaquist predicted that the Union's de-
mands would be "unreasonable" and would inevit-
ably lead to a strike, which would fail because "WE
1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WOULD OPERATE WITHOUT A CONTRACT " Clearly such
talk was not mere campaign bravado, for as Seaquist
warned
I have worked in union plants and have tried to
deal reasonably with unions It can't be done
and
We could possibly reach agreement with the
Union, but from past experience I doubt it
and, finally,
In fact, a union won't work in this plant
To counter the Employer's predicted intransi-
gence, and the likelihood that no agreement would
be reached, the Union's "only recourse" would be to
strike And Seaquist used several examples of "nasty,
wretching and often violent" strikes, including "one
close to home" and the Employer's past experience
with such "disasters " Thus, Seaquist made it clear
that because of its unfortunate experience the Em-
ployer "realized that manufacturing at plants where
unions had a foothold was no longer a safe idea"
For this reason, as Seaquist explained, the Employer
had moved from Wisconsin to Senatobia in order to
escape an area of union strength This, coupled with
repeated references to plant closings after employees
had chosen a union, including two in nearby Hanni-
bal, Missouri, could hardly fail to convey to the em-
ployees the thought that this Employer would or
might close this plant or move it again to escape the
Union I
The intended implication of these statements is
clear Based on past experience the Employer pre-
dicted with some measure of certainty that the em-
ployees who supported the election petition threat-
ened to bring about a disaster because, if certified,
the Union, which could do nothing "that the Compa-
i As shown the Employer s overwhelming preoccupation with strikes and
strike related violence permeated all of its campaign utterances Indeed the
Employer concluded its campaign with a showing of the film And Women
Must Weep The showing of this film is the subject of another objection
Therefore it is unnecessary to make any finding in this regard
ny has not already done," would certainly meet the
Employer's pledge to freeze wages and benefits (or
bargain from "Ground Zero") with "unreasonable"
demands with the result that collective bargaining
would revert to a test of wills during a bitter strike at
the end of which the Employer, having made no con-
cessions (WE WILL OPERATE WITHOUT A CONTRACT )
might close or, as in the past, simply relocate its plant
elsewhere to the lasting detriment of the employees
and their community To underscore the inevitability
of such a "disaster" employees were told that THE
ONLY WAY TO PREVENT ALL THIS FROM HAPPENING IS TO
VOTE NO"i
It is true that this propaganda contains no express
unqualified rejection of the collective-bargaining
principle Yet it is also true that some of its state-
ments came perilously close to doing so and, when
coupled with the Employer's preoccupation with
strikes, shutdowns, plant relocation, violence, job
losses , and economic deprivation, could reasonably
create in the minds of these employees the impres-
sion that theirs was a choice between no union or
striking See Boaz Spinning Company, Inc, 177
NLRB 788, 789 (1969) Thus, against this back-
ground, it is clear that the employees did not have an
opportunity to express their uninhibited desires
Therefore, we find merit in Objection 1, and we
shall set aside the election and direct a second elec-
tion In these circumstances, we find it unnecessary
to decide matters raised in the Petitioner' s remaining
objections
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the election previously
conducted herein on September 5, 1975, be, and it
hereby is, set aside
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication ]
CHAIRMAN MURPHY, concurring
I concur in the decision to set aside the election
herein under the facts of this case