Winfield Mfg. Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 12, 1968

173 N.L.R.B. 733 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

WINFIELD MFG. CO., INC.
Winfield Mfg . Co., Inc . and Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America . Cases 10-CA-7180,
10-CA-7227, and 10-CA-7278
November 12, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN , JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On April 30, 1968, Trial Examiner Charles W.
Schneider issued an Order in the above-entitled
proceeding granting the General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment with respect to that part of the
consolidated -complaint alleging that Winfield Manu-
facturing Co , Inc., hereinafter called Respondent,
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and
(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
and denying that part of the consolidated complaint
alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act in order to
afford a hearing on this latter issue. Thereafter, on
July 19, 1968, pursuant to a hearing, Trial Examiner
Herman Tocker issued his Decision in the above-
entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of
the Act, adopting Trial Examiner Schneider Order
granting the General Counsel's Motion for Summary
Judgment with respect to the Section 8(a) (5)
allegation alleged and also finding that Respondent
had violated Section 8(a) (5) of the Act, and
recommending that Respondent cease and desist from
engaging in the unfair labor practices alleged and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent
and the Charging Party, Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision together with supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Motion for Summary Judgment, the Trial Examiner's
Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner,' as modified herein.
In order to insure that the employees in the
appropriate unit will be accorded the services of their
selected bargaining agent for the period provided by
173 NLRB No. 103
733
law, we shall construe the initial year of certification
as beginning on the date the Respondent commences
to bargain in good faith with the Union as the
recognized bargaining representative in the appro-
priate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc, 136
NLRB 785; Commerce Company d/b/a Lamar Hotel,
140 NLRB 226, 229, enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (C.A. 5),
cert. denied 379 U.S. 817, Burnett Construction
Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421, enfd. 350 F.2d 57
(C A. 10).
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relaitons Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein, and orders that Respondent, Winfield Mfg.
Co., Inc., Winfield, Alabama, and Golden, Mississippi,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order, as modified herein.
1 Member Zagoria concurs in the Trial Examiner 's conclusion that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act in connection with
the speech of November 16, 1967 , the questionnaire of November 10,
1967 , and the leaflet distributed the day before the election . He does
not, however, adopt all of the Trial Examiner 's comments and
characterizations , but relies, with respect to the speech , only on the
solicitation of employees to withdraw from the Union and the implied
threat with respect to layoffs , and with respect to the questionnaire,
only on the failure to observe the requisite safeguards concerning
explanation of purpose and assurances against reprisal and as to
voluntary participation , and the fact that the questionnaire sought to
learn the identity of union solicitors even when there was no indication
of improper conduct
2 Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the
record adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERMAN TOCKER, Trial Examiner This proceeding is
concerned with charges alleging unfair labor practices by or on
the part of Winfield Mfg. Co , Inc., the Respondent, which
charges were filed by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, the Union-December 13 and 14, 1967, and January
15, February 28, and March 4, 1968, a total of six, two having
been filed on March 4
An initial complaint was issued January 22, 1968. A second
was issued March 15 and, at the same time, an order was
entered consolidating both cases. Respondent's answers to the
complaints were received Frebruary 1 and March 22, 1968,
respectively.
The January 22 complaint alleged that the Respondent had
violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Labor Management Relations
Act of 1947, as amended, when it issued and distributed to its
employees two leaflets-one allegedly threatening them with
loss of work and plant closure if Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, the Union, was successful in its organizing
campaign and the other allegedly interrogating them
concerning their union membership, activities, and desires, and
the union membership, activities, and desires of other
734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees The Respondent admitted the distributions but
denied that by so doing it had engaged in the alleged unlawful
conduct. Except for these denials and a denial of knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the capacity of the
Charging Union as a labor organization, it admitted all other
allegations of the complaint
The March 15 complaint alleged that Respondent's
President, Milton Weinsten, in a speech to employees on
November 16, 1967, unlawfully solicited them to abandon the
Union and distributed letters to be signed by them for that
purpose, threatened them that it would be futile for them to
join the Union because union demand would result only in
strikes, and also threatened to discontinue its practice of not
laying off employees when profitable business was not
available if the Union succeeded in its organizing campaign.
This complaint alleged also that, following a certification by
the National Labor Relations Board that the Union was the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of a unit of
Respondent's employees at its Winfield, Alabama, plant,
Respondent wrongfully refused to recognize and bargain
collectively with it even though it had been the representative
of Respondent's employees at all times since such certification
and had requested Respondent to bargain collectively with it
as such
While Respondent admitted the Weinsten speech, it denied
that its effect was as alleged Also, while it admitted the
certification of the Union by the Board, did not put in issue
the unit as defined, and admitted that it had refused to bargain
following demand, it claimed that the election preceding the
Board's certification had been "improper " For this reason it
denied that it was required to bargain It denied all allegations
alleging that it had engaged in unfair labor practices but
admitted all others excepting, however, that concerned with
the Union's capacity as a labor organization As to this, it
denied knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
Following receipt of the answers prior to the hearing,
counsel for the General Counsel submitted a motion for
summary judgment. That motion was considered by Trial
Examiner Charles Schneider, and was granted in part and
denied in part A copy of his order is attached to this Decision
as Appendix A Counsel for the General Counsel applied for
reconsideration of the denial portion but this application was
denied The order did not provide for a severance of the
proceeding and the ultimate findings and remedial action, if
any, were reserved for dispostion by the trial examiner to
whom the case was to be assigned for hearing
The case came on for hearing before me on May 7, 1968, in
Winfield, Alabama The General Counsel and Winfield Mfg.
Co., Inc , were represented by Counsel The Union had present
two lay representatives. Counsel for Respondent has submitted
a brief which has been considered with care
THE ISSUES
Although in its answers to both complaints Respondent
denied having knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the qualification of Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, the Union, as a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act, this issue has been settled by the Board in
its decision certifying that Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the unit involved. (Board's
Decision, February 16, 1968, Case 10-RC-7228 )
The remaining issues are:
Were any of the statements contained in that certain leaflet
distributed by Respondent to its employees on the day before
the election susceptible of an interpretation that Respondent
was threatening them with loss of work or plant closure if the
Union won the election?
Did the Respondent, by asking its employees the questions
set forth on the questionnaire distributed to them on the day
after the election, improperly interfere with them in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act "by
interrogating [them] concerning their union membership,
activities and desires and the union membership, activities and
desires of other employees[?] "
Did Respondent, by the speech delivered on or about
November 16, 1967, in the vicinity of its Golden, Mississippi,
plant, and by preparing and distributing resignation letters
addressed to the Union, wrongfully solicit its employees to
abandon the Union?
Did Respondent, in that speech, threaten its employees with
the futility of joining the Union because union demands would
result only in strikes?
Did Respondent threaten them that its practice not to lay
them off in the absence of profitable business would be
discontinued if the Union were successful in its campaign?
Finally, was there an unlawful refusal to recognize and
bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the
Act?
Now, on the basis of the entire record, I hereby make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER AND JURISDICTION
Winfield Mfg Co., Inc., the Respondent, is a corporation
duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Alabama. It manufactures finished articles of apparel at plants
in Winfield , Alabama , and in Golden , Mississippi . It is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended The
National Labors Relations Board has jurisdiction over it and of
this proceeding
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
As heretofore decided by the National Labor Relations
Board in Case 10-RC-7228, Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, is, and at all times involved herein was, a labor
organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Alleged Violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the
Act by Failure and Refusal to Recognize and Bargain
with the Union
This issue has been decided by Trial Examiner Charles
Schneider in his order granting partial summary judgment, a
copy of which is annexed hereto as Appendix A.
WINFIELD MFG CO., INC 735
During the hearing, Respondent sought again to litigate this
issue It sought among other things, consideration of a
document entitled "Amendment to Objections to Election,"
to which were annexed two exhibits, one a letter from "The
Organizing Staff" of the Union addressed to all employees of
Winfield Mfg Co , dated November 7, 1967, two days before
the election, and the other, an analysis of free insurance
offered to union members and their dependents Also offered
at the same time was a letter dated December 15, 1967, from
the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board
for Region 10, whereby he rejected the proposed amendment
on the ground that objections must be filed within five
working days after the date of the election and returned the
three copies Respondent had filed with him. While this offer
had been considered generally by Trial Examiner Schneider in
the order to which I have referred above, it does not appear
that the actual documents had been submitted to him During
the discussion at the hearing, prior to my ruling on the offer, I
ascertained that Respondent failed to appeal from the
Regional Director's rejection of the proposed amendment even
though it could have brought the matter up for consideration
by the Board prior to the Board's decision in the
representation case My examination of the file in Case
10-RC-7228 does not disclose any effort to bring up for
review either the proposed amendment or the Regional
Director's rejection of it. The objections by counsel for the
General Counsel to the receipt in evidence of this offer were
sustained I adhere to my ruling at the hearing
To the extent that it is necessary, if it is necessary, I adopt
the decision of Trial Examiner Schneider and find that
Respondent did, without reason, fail, omit, and refuse to
recognize and bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all its
employees in the following unit.
All production and maintenance employees at
Respondent's Winfield, Alabama, plant, including plant
clerical employees, but excluding officer clerical employees,
engineers, professional employees, guards, temporary
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act
B The Speech of November 16, 1967, at the Golden,
Mississippi, Plant
It is admitted that on November 16, 1967, Respondent's
President, Milton Weinstein, addressed the employees of its
Golden, Mississippi, plant This was just one week following
the consent election held at the Winfield plant following which
the tally of ballots showed that, of approximately 291 eligible
voters, 142 had voted for the Union, 128 against it, 3 ballots
were challenged and 1 was void This speech appears in the
record on more than 22-ih double-spaced, typewritten
legal-size pages It would serve no purpose to set it forth in its
entirety. Apart from its extraordinary length, it included a
violent attack upon the Union, assertions that the Union's
interest was only to obtain approximately $50,000 a year dues
from Winfield employees if it were successful in organizing the
Winfield, Golden, and Puerto Rico plants of Respondent, and
it would be able to get nothing for the employees that they
had not been able to get without it, a most emphatic defense
and praise of its personnel policies, a comparison of working
rates and conditions at Respondent's plants with those at
neighboring plants, a recital of benefits received by
Respondent's employees, all without the benefit of or
assistance from a union, a most emphatic and detailed picture
of the steps which Respondent's President, Mr Weinsten, took
and the financial risks involved in his efforts to obtain business
whereby he could keep the plant working full time, a
statement of his outrage that any employee might join a union
and thereby demonstrate her lack of confidence in him and
her lack of appreciation for what he had done, a sequence of
rhetorical questions as to whether he would want to seek
business or take on risky contracts for employees who had
joined a union, rather thinly veiled intimations that when
plants are organized, organization soon is followed by closing
down of such plants, reference to violence attendant upon
union organization and strikes following such organization or
attempts at organization, assertions that Respondent could not
be forced to make any agreements with any union that it did
not want to make and that, if any such attempt was made, a
strike and attendant violence would be the only result, all of
which and more was followed by an exhortation to pick up
and sign two copies of a letter addressed to the Union, advising
it that the signer had no desire to belong to it and requesting it
either to destroy or to return the card which had been signed
by her or him Two copies were provided, one to be sent to the
Union and another to be mailed to Respondent's attorney in
Birmingham.
I repeat that this speech was made at the Golden,
Mississippi, plant, while a campaign was being waged to
organize the employees there, one week after the Union had
won the election at Winfield, Alabama In some respects the
speech is very much like that set forth in Appendix B of the
Trial Examiner's decision in Lester Brothers, Incorporated,
142 NLRB 992, 1016. That speech was held to be within the
protection of Section 8(c) of the Act as a legitimate exercise of
the right of free speech. The complaint, however, alleges that
Respondent in its speech, went beyond the protection
afforded by Section 8(c)-
(1) That it thereby "solicited its employees to abandon the
Union and distributed letters prepared by [it] for signature by
[them] declaring the employees' withdrawal from membership
in the Union."
After a 19-page harangue, Mr Wernsten continued
The truth of the matter is that I think that several of you-I
don't know how many-that have signed Union cards, I
think really that you are sorry about it I honestly think
that I might be stupid I have been called stupid before but
I honestly think that a lot of you people here who have
signed Union cards are a little sorry about it and for that
reason I am going to make a suggestion. There is no forcing
of anything. It is just a suggestion I want this Union out of
here and I want them off our backs. I don't want to make
speeches like this again. I just don't want them around and
there is only one way to do it I know that they don't have
many cards but this is a suggestion this is not an order I am
not telling you to do it. I repeat "a suggestion". If you
believe the things that I have told you here this afternoon
and if you feel that you-those of you that have signed the
cards-if you fell that you would like to withdraw it, then I
think now is the time to do it because I think if the Union
were to get a lot of letters withdrawing your cards or
withdrawmg your names I think that it might push them
out of here. I am not positive of it but I think that it might
and I honestly, sincerely think that it is the smart thing to
do and I am telling you again that I am not ordering you to
736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
do it because I can't. I can't order you to do anything like
that I can suggest and I can suggest it rather strongly If
you think that you have enough confidence m_ me to
continue to work this business as I have been runing it
which hasn't been too bad and we don't need a Union, we
don't want a Union, then I would suggest very strongly that
you take one of these letters that we are going to pass out
and mail it off. What is this letter? We have two copies here
that read-they are identical Only do this if you believe me
though girls. Only do this if you have a sincere desire to do
it. This letter reads:
TO The Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America
"Gentlemen.
After further thought and consideration I hereby
withdraw the Union authorization and membership card
that I recently signed. I have no desire to belong to your
Union Please destroy the card or return it to me I work
for the Winfield Manufacturing Company in the Golden,
Mississippi plant."
There is a place there for your name and there is a place
there for your address. There is a second copy with an
address on it that we want you to mail to our attorney in
Birmingham. The only reason for that is that in the event
the Union wanted to continue to claim you then we would
have a record of the fact that you did not want your card in
there. As I said you are not obligated to do this I am
merely suggesting it. I think that it is the smart thing to do
We are going to pass these out to everybody in just a few
minutes Those of you and you are the majority I just want
you to take this with you, those of you who have not
signed a card, just take it and take it home with you and
tear it up. Of course, you would have not reason to send it
in. The only reason that I am handing them out to
everybody is twofold. No. 1 I am not supposed to and I
don't want to know who has signed Union cards. I don't
want to know. By just giving them out to those who want
them it would be embarrassing so for that reason we want
to hand them out to everybody in here, those that want to
use them use them Those that have no purpose in using
them, just tear them up when you get home. Again I repeat
I think it is the smart thing to do.
While here and there there are statements that no one is
being forced to sign the withdrawal letter, no one is being told
to do it, that it is only a suggestion, that Respondent cannot
order employees to do anything like that but can only suggest
it, and that employees should sign it and send it to the Union
only if they have a sincere desire to do it but that they are not
obligated to do it, these remarks are interspersed among
others "I want this Union out of here and I want them off our
backs. I don't want to make speeches like this again. I just
don't want them around and there is only one way to do it."
After this, follows a suggestion to sign the letters and more
protests that the employees can't be ordered to do it. Then, "I
can suggest and I can suggest it rather strongly. If you think
that you have enough confidence in me to continue to work
this business as I have been running it which hasn't been too
bad and we don't need a Union, we don't want a Union, then I
would suggest very strongly that you take one of these letters
that we are going to pass out and mail it off." This is followed
by a reading of the letter, instructions as to what should be
done with it, and more protests that the employees are not
obligated to "do this" and that it is merely a suggestion but, I
think that it is the smart thing to do." Next follow the
statements that the withdrawal letters are intended only for
the people who have signed union cards or those that want to
use them. Others are instructed to "just tear them up when
you get home." But this portion of the speech is completed
with a final remark, "Again I repeat I think it is the smart
thing to do."
What Respondent did here is far from what we find in
North American Aviation, Inc., 163 NLRB No 115, and is
clearly within cases like Astronautics Corporation of America,
164 NLRB No. 98, Movie Star, Inc, 145 NLRB 319, and
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc, and Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc., 128
NLRB 574, to name but a few
(2) The next allegation of the complaint concerned with
this speech is that in it Respondent "threatened its employees
that it would be futile for [them] to join the Union because
union demands would result only in strikes."
On the 18th page of the speech, after referring to the
closings of two manufacturing plants, Mr Weinsten said:
This Amalgamated crowd they are a lot different than I. I
am not a violent person. I don't mean to tell you that I'm
temperate necessarily and that I will take a lot of stuff from
anybody. I don't mean it that way but I am not a violent
person I couldn't help but pick up this newspaper here
pertaining to the Russellville plant with the same
Amalgamated people that are outside this door-in fact,
that's where their headquarters are today-they call it a
strike headquarters-strike headquarters The newspaper
article pertaining to the Russellville plant "The Memphis
Newspaper covers the strike Workers are attacked and
beaten. Transformers shot into. Pretmore plant damaged.
That is the name of the Russellville plant Homes and autos
fired upon. Women and children are attacked. More
gruesome details. Women stripped of their clothing. " I
don't know. We think that we want to associate with this
kind of a group. It sure isn't my kind of tea I just don't go
for this kind of stuff. Frankly and honestly I don't think
that you people do either. You know these remarks are
addressed primarily to the girls amongst you I don't know
and I don't have the least idea who you are that signed
Union cards and I know that by far the majority of you
here have not.
On the next page of the type written transcript of the
speech appears the following-
[Referring to the union officials who are looking for
Winfield employees to contribute $50,000 to them a year in
the form of dues ] They sit on their big fannys up there and
they will take the money from you and what are they going
to give you. They can't give you a thing and I'll tell you
why they can't. The Union nor a court and I want you to
digest this and I want you to listen to it carefully, there is
no Union, there is no court that can gauge wage rates or
benefits The success of a business is the only thing that
gauges it. There is no Union or there is no Court that can
force me to do anything that I don't want to do. I am going
to repeat that. There is no Union, there is no court that can
force me to do anything that I don't want to do How they
can go ahead and tell you about Union wages, about
benefits of this sort, benefits of that sort, the vacations, so
on and so forth. I honestly, sincerely don't know I
honestly, sincerely don't know. Because if they attempted
to, Oh they could try If they attempted to what does it
mean. It means this newpaper business. That what it means.
It means strikes. It means the same thing that I just read to
WINFIELD
you from this paper They could try but that's what it leads
to. If that's what we want, that's what we will get.
In the context of this cruelly lengthy speech, Mr. Weinsten
made it crystal clear by these remarks that it would be futile
and dangerous for his hearers to join the Union because, while
the Union "might attempt to" or "could try" to get the
benefits mentioned, its attempts, efforts, or demands would
not be met and would result only in strikes accompanied by
the violence described in the newspaper article read only
seconds before. See Herman Wilson Lumber Company, 149
NLRB 673
(3) Finally, with respect to the speech, it was alleged that
Respondent thereby "threatened its employees that it would
discontinue its practice of not laying off employees when
profitable business was not available if the Union was
successful in its organizational campaign "
After rerrundmg them that Respondent never had a layoff
and never works the employees short hours or short weeks, Mr
Weinsten pointed out that other plants in Mississippi and
Alabama do not operate that way. He told them that his
practice was to go out and get business in order to keep the
people working.
Last April we didn't have any work, you didn't know it,
you didn't know it but I have to look two months in
advance to get contracts for you people No body knew
that we didn't have any work, except, of course, Bill. I had
learned of this company that had bankupted-who had just
gone bankrupt out in California. I called them on the
telephone and I was out there the following morning. I
went to work with them I took my lawyer with me from
New York. We had another lawyer from California who
knew the California law and we went to work. . . I had
made up my mind I had to get that order because you
people did not have any work to do.... the only way that I
could get that order . . was to advance the company, who
was bankrupt-hopelessly bankrupt, a tremendous amount
of money. I didn't have the money. I had to go out and
borrow it-a tremendous amount of dough and I had to
advance that money to them so that the Government would
permit me to take balance of the contract off their hands
700,000 pairs of pants.
Next he told them that his lawyer had advised against the
deal
My answer to him was very simple I said "I have a
responsibility to these people It is my job to present
them."
Then he told of another order he procured to keep the
employees working.
Fortunately, I am respected rather highly with the
Government officers. They told me about this one. I called
this fellow who is down in Miami, Florida. His factory is
down there and I gave him $10,000.00 for an order on
which I could not make a profit if I stood on my head-just
to bring it here and give you an extra couple of weeks of
work and I split it between you people and Winfield. . . I
am telling you these things because I have done them many
times in the past. I have done these things many times in
the past-only for one reason. Not for me. If this place
closed down two weeks ago because I didn't have work I
wouldn't get hurt, honestly I wouldn't. But I have a feeling
for you people out here and that's why I work my darn self
in New York and travel all over the country in Philadelphia,
California, and every place else where there is a conceivable
MFG. CO , INC. 737
order to try to bring it to you.
What does it all boil down tog It boils down to this
Anybody that feels that they have got to have assistance
from arbitration committees, from Unions to work with
me, it means only one thing To me it just means that you
have got no confidence in me for anything that I might have
done that was nice There has been no appreciation for any
of these things that I am telling you about . . I like to be
appreciated. I don't ask for thanks. I don't ask for any
bouquets of flowers but when I do go to Hell and back for
somebody I do like to be appreciated for it. And there is
absolutely no appreciation in my estimation from people
that feel that they have to sign Union cards for Union
representation to work with me-to bargain with me. I
don't feel that I just feel that it is a complete lack of
confidence and it doesn't sit well with me and I don't mind
telling you. You know it is a very easy thing for me to
do-it's a very easy thing for me to say-that if I ever had
any conditions like that in here there is no court, there is no
Union, there is nobody that could ever force me to take an
order or a contract where I wouldn't make a profit . I
am not telling you that I have been losing money because it
is not true but what I am telling you is that there are times
that are rough right now is a time that is rough-right
this very minute and if I can do things for you without
making a profit-fine, I would be delighted to do it but for
anybody who has no confidence in me it is a great big
questionmark (as to ?) that's what I am going to do for
them and I don't say that to scare you I don't say that to
put any fear in your heart. Honestly I don't do it for that
reason. I am just letting you know a little bit about the
insides of Mr Weinsten How I think and how I work
That's why I am telling you these things now. If there is no
profitable work around what do you do? You just close the
doors and when you get work call your people
back. . But if I want to assume a real hard tact which
most businessmen do, I have never seen the President of
Blue Bell ever take an order because Uh and I like Blue
Bell-I think they are a fine company and I am not
criticizing them don't misunderstand me or Arrow Shirt I
could have said or Munsingwear. I have never seen them
take orders at a loss just to keep their people busy and you
people know it better than I do because you have lived here
with them. I never have. You know it better than I do so
that's why I keep saying to you that it's not just by'accident
that Winfield has never had a layoff-why you people have
never had a layoff for three years and a few months that we
have been here or six years that we have been there. These
people tell you that there is a great bit of security-a great
bit of security-belonging to a Union. Let me tell you
something about security. There is only one thing that
makes you People secure and that security comes from
success of a business. If business is successful then you are
just as secure as you want to be but that's the only thing
that gives you security. No Union contracts, no arbitration
business no courts or nothing. It is just the success of a
business that gives you security. They tell you in these
pamphlets that you've got more security-it is just a lot of
boloney. It doesn't mean a thing-any more than what they
tell you about Union wages, better working conditions and
so on and so forth.
Then after telling about two plant closings, strike violence,
the futility of union organization, and next going into the
738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
matter of withdrawing from the Union and the distribution of
the letters for that purpose, he approached the end of his
speech with a last paragraph beginning, "Before we dismiss the
entire group I want to say this. Of couse, it is no secret All of
you people do know that we are out of work. I am trying and I
will know on Monday whether my efforts have been successful
for getting a contract in here in a real big hurry
The foregoing, as is indicated by the dashes and
interpolated remarks, are a number of disconnected quotations
dealing with this subject. Much has been omitted. The material
omitted tended to create a seesaw effect, always stressing
Respondent's concern for the welfare of the employees and
the fact that the business was run in a manner which gave them
maximum benefits not to be equaled or matched by anything
they could obtain with the assistance of a union. What is clear
however from this speech, particularly the portions I have
quoted, is that Respondent's President, Mr Weinsten, was
telling the employees that it is his practice to go out and secure
business in order to keep them working even though this
practice does not result in profits for him and is undertaken
frequently with great risks and a possibility or even probability
of losses. It is, nevertheless, undertaken in order to keep them
working. However, employees who believe they need to have a
union to represent them thereby demonstrate to him that they
do not appreciate his efforts in their behalf and have no
confidence in him. This angers him Being so angered by
people who are unappreciative and have no confidence in him,
should they display such a lack of appreciaton and confidence
by becoming members of the Union, he will not seek out
contracts and take risks of financial loss just to keep such
unappreciative people working
This was clearly the sort of threat alleged in the complaint
to the effect that Respondent "would discontinue its practice
of not laying off employees where profitable business was not
available if the Union was successful in its organizational
campaign." It was not a prediction of what might happen in
the event of union organization It was a prediction of what
would happen with respect to a practice coley within his
control As such it constituted a threat that benefits which
employees were enjoying without union organization would be
denied to them in the event of such organization.
C. The November 10, 1967, Questionnaire
This questionnaire was submitted to the employees on the
day following the holding of the election won by the Union at
Winfield, Alabama, plant. It is clear that its purpose was to
elicit information or evidence on the basis of which objections
to the election might be filed.
Board elections for the selection of exclusive bargaining
agents must be held under what has been described as
"laboratory conditions " If there has been any improper
conduct in connection with an election a party aggreived
unquestionably has the right and obligation to obtain evidence
of such improper conduct and to file objections. This right
includes the right to engage in investigations for the purpose of
obtaining that evidence but it does not result in a nullification
of Section 7 of the Act which grarantees other rights to
employees.
Most recently, in Automotive Warehouse Distributors, Inc,
171 NLRB No 101, referring to Johnnie's Poultry Co, 146
NLRB 770, enforcement denied on other grounds 344 F 2d
617 (C A 8), the Board said
In that case, we noted that both the Board and the
courts recognize that an employer may exercise the
privilege of interrogating employees on matters involving
their Section 7 rights without incurring 8(a)(1) liability. In
seeking to balance the conflicting rights involved, we set
forth specific safeguards designed to minimize the coercive
impact of such interrogation, namely, that "the employer
must communicate to the employee the purpose of the
questioning, assure him that no reprisal will take place, and
obtain his participation on a voluntary basis, the ques-
tioning must occur in context free from employer hostility
to union organization and must not exceed the necessities
of the legitimate purpose by prying into other union
matters, eliciting information concerning an employee's
subjective state of mind, or otherwise interfering with the
statutory rights of employees. When an employer trans-
gresses the bounds of these safeguards, he loses the benefit
of the privilege."
There is nothing in this record to show that Respondent
communicated to its employees the purpose of the
questionnaire. There is nothing to show that any employee was
assured that no reprisal would take place and that his
participation in answering the questions propounded was on a
voluntary basis The contrary may be inferred on both counts
because the questionnaire appears to be a document complete
in itself. Moreoever, Respondent's attorney, in his brief, while
arguing that anwering the questionnaire "was purely voluntary
and no more" also says that it "was made available to
employees without comment " (Emphasis supplied.)
It is clear in the record, particularly from the leaflet
distributed by the Employer entitled, "Facts to Remember,
Excellent Reasons for Voting No in Thursday Election"
(discussed below), that Respondent was hostile to union
organization, and that this questionnaire was prompted by its
anger with the election result.
The questionnaire was objectionable for additional reasons.
There is nothing in it to suggest that Respondent was aware of
any reason why objections should be filed and that the
interrogation propounded was connected legitimately with
such knowledge for the limited purpose of securing the
evidence necessary to prove that knowledge On the contrary it
was nothing but the rankest sort of fishing expedition in which
Respondent engaged on a dragnet basis
To illsutrate, the following were the questions which
employees were expected to answer over their signature and
return to Respondent by mail, marked "Personal"
Who talked to you about joining union or voting for union?
Where did he or she talk to you?
When did he or she talk to you? Date and time.
Did he or she promise you anything? What wild promises
did he or she make?
Did he or she threaten you in any manner?
What pressure did he or she apply to get you to vote and to
vote for the union?
What did he or she say would happen to you in the future if
you didn't vote for the union9
What did he or she say would happen to you in the future if
the union won and you didn't vote for it?
WINFIELD MFG. CO., INC. 739
Did he or she say anything to make you fell that you did
not have a free and open choice as to how you would vote.
What did he or she say?
Did he or she say that you would be sorry if you did not
join and vote for the union?
Did he or she say that you would lose your job or get less
hours of work if you did not join or vote for the union?
Did he or she say your job would not be as good in the
future if the union own, and you had not joined or voted
for the union?
Did he or she say that you might get hurt, beat up or
whipped if you did not join or vote for the union
The questionnaire concludes, following a blank space after
the last question, with another section entitled, "Other
Remarks." Then there is a place for a signature with
instructions to return to Respondent.
Questions such as these, calculated or tending to seek to
ascertain the names of employees who supported and solicited
votes in support of the Union, and seeking to elicit infor-
mation concerning what had been an employee's state of mind
are clear and obvious interferences with guaranteed rights
under Section 7 of the Act They demonstrate quite clearly
that at the time of distribution, Respondent had no valid basis
for assuming that proper objections could be filed and that it
was seeking only to generate in the minds of its employees
states of mind which might prompt them to convert what
might have been legitimate union campaigning into improper
conduct
For example, there is no proper foundation for the
question, "What wild promises did he or she make?" nor for
the question, "What pressure did he or she apply to get you to
vote and to vote for the union9" nor for questions which seek
to ascertain what was said about, "What would happen to
employees in the future who did not vote for the union or if
the union won." An employer may not probe into an
employee's state of mind by asking whether things had been
said or done to make him "feel" that he did not have a free
and open choice as to how to vote or that he "would be sorry"
if he did not join and vote for the Union
By not taking up each and every question separately, I do
not suggest that the others to which I have not referred
necessarily are proper. I mention only these few because they
are so clearly inconsistent with the approved procedure for
gathering evidence and because, instead of minimizing, they
increased "the coercive impact" of the interrogation.
As was said in Automotive Warehouse Distributors, Inc.,
171 NLRB No. 101, "Respondent has not complied,
substantially or otherwise, with the safeguards sent forth in
Johnnie's Poultry Co By failing to do so, Respondent has
abused its privileges of interrogating its employees on matters
involving their Section 7 rights and, thereby has
unwarrantably intruded into their protected activities . . .
D The Leaflet Entitled "Facts to Remember
Excellent Reasons for Voting No in Thursday Election"
This leaflet was distributed to the employees on the day
before the election at the Winfield plant It is alleged that
Respondent thereby threatened "its employees with loss of
work and plant closure if the Union was successful in its
organizational campaign."
The leaflet contained a number of questions with answers
supplied The very first question, "Who is the Amalgamated
Union that is trying to represent you? is answered by a
statement that it is the same union which represented the
employees of two closed plants. The third question, "What
type of people has the union assigned as their leaders?" is
arswered by the statement that they "were around when
Carbon Hill and Russellville [the two plants mentioned
before] closed " Subsequent questions argued against the need
for a union to obtain desirable wages and benefits These,
standing alone, would not be objectionable (Lester Brothers,
Incorporated, 142 NLRB 992, Appendix B, page 1016.)
However, the employees are asked whether they ever heard of
an employer like (Respondent's President) Mr Weistein, "who
would risk" or "intentionally lose money, just to get work for
his people." it is answered with the statement, "We doubt that
you have." A similar question is asked as to whether the
employees "know of one single garment plant in the state of
Alabama that has never to this time, had a layoff or worked
short hours?" The answer given says, "We know of only
one.... Winfield Mfg. Company." The specific question, "If
the plant became union what would Mr. Weinsten's personal
attitude be?" is answered as follows, "He positively would not
close the plant as long as profitable business was available. How-
ever, how do you think he would feel about assuming uncalled
for business risks just to keep the people in work? Under
very competitive conditions such as we have now, how do you
think he would feel about taking contracts at an intentional
loss, or to break even, just to keep people in work9 These are
big questions." The questions are indeed "big." They are
blatantly rhetorical and permit of only one answer. Negative,
even though they are preceded by the assurance that the plant,
"positively would not close ... as long as profitable business
was available." This very assurance is an assurance that the
plant would close or the work would be cut down just as soon
as profitable business was not available. This assurance is
followed by the rhetorical questions which I have said permit
only one answer. That single answer is that Respondent would
not take any "uncalled for business risks," would not take any
"intentional losses," and would not take any contracts which
would only "break even" for the sole purpose of keeping
people at work. The employees are told thus specifically that if
the plant became union a past h actice of assuming business
risks, accepting "break even" contracts, or even taking business
"at an intentional loss," for the sole purpose of keeping them
employed would be abandoned.
The very next question following this one about what
would happen if the plant were organized is, "What happened
at Carbon Hill Mfg Co , and at Russellville Garment Factory
that as soon as the union came in, the plants closed?" The
answer given was, "We don't know, but it seems too
coincidental that successful companies should go out of
business as soon as Amalgamated Workers Union gets in " This is
clearly a statement that organization of a plant by the
Amalgamated results quickly :n the plant going out of
business. There is nothing magic about the use of the words
"too coincidental" that in any way makes the meaning
doubtful. Respondent was telling its employees that it, just
like the other "successful companies [would] go out of
business as soon as Amalgamated Workers Union gets in."
("Coincidental" above would mean "remarkable for lack of
apparent causal connection" but putting the "too" before it,
"too coincident," makes it mean not without, but with causal
connection)
As alleged in the complaint, Respondent by utilization of
740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this leaflet did indeed threaten "its employees with loss of
work and plant closure if the Union was successful in its
organizational campaign "
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Respondent, Winfield Mfg. Co , Inc , is a corporation
duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Alabama with its principal office at Winfield, Alabama, and
with plants located at Winfield and at Golden, in Mississippi,
where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of men's
apparel It is and, at all times material herein, has been engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended. The
National Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction over it and of
this proceeding
2 Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By soliciting its employees to abandon the Union, by
preparing letters to be signed by them for the purpose of
resigning from the Union, by distributing such letters to them
for such signing, by threatening them that it would be futile
for them to join the Union because union demands would
result only in strikes, by threatening them that in the event the
Union was successful it would discontinue its practice of
soliciting marginal or unprofitable contracts to avoid loss of
work and layoffs, by threatening them that if the Union was
successful its plants inevitably would be closed, and by
interrogating them concerning their union membership,
activities, and desires and the union membership, activities,
and desires of other employees, Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the
Act.
4. By failing and refusing to bargain collectively with the
Union following its certification by the National Labor
Relations Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of
its employees in the production and maintenance unit as
defined by the Board for its Winfield, Alabama, plant,
Respondent has violated Section 8(a) (5) of the Act
5. Respondent's solicitation of its employees to abandon
the Union, its threats to its employees, its coercive
interrogation, and its failure and refusal to bargain collectively
with the Union constitute unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a) (5) and (1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities and operations of the Respondent, as set
forth 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.
THE REMEDY
Since I have found that the Respondent has engaged in
numerous unfair labor practices which cover a very wide area,
it should be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and the
order should include a broad, general cease-and-desist
provision.
Now, therefore, on the basis of the foregoing findings of
fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this
case, I hereby recommend the issuance of the following
ORDER
Respondent Winfield Mfg Co , Inc , of Winfield, Alabama,
and Golden, Mississippi, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall-
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Soliciting its employees to abandon or resign from the
Union
(b) Preparing and making available to its employees any
letters or statements intended to be signed by them or any of
them whereby they may resign from or signify their
resignation from or withdrawal from membership in any
union.
(c) Making any statements either in writing or by word of
mouth that it would be futile for its employees to join
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America or any other union
because demands by a union would not be met and would
result only in strikes.
(d) Making any statements either in writing or by word of
mouth indicating or threatening that its practice of not laying
off employees when profitable business was not available
would be discontinued if any union were successful in a
campaign to organize them.
(e) Threatening its employees that they will lose work or
that any plant or factory operated by it would be closed if a
union succeeded in organizing them.
(f) Interrogating employees regarding union matters or
activities in a manner constituting restraint and coercion
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
(g) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or such
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
such activity.
(h) Refusing to bargain collectively with Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America as the exclusive bargaining
representative of all the employees in the unit certified by the
National Labor Relations Board in its order dated February
16, 1968, at its Winfield, Alabama, plant
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, the Union, with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment, for all the employees in the unit at
its Winfield, Alabama, plant, as heretofore certified by the
National Labor Relations Board.
(b) Post at its places of business in Winfield, Alabama, and
in Golden, Mississippi, copies of the attached notice marked
WINFIELD MFG. CO., INC.
"Appendix B "' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 10, after being duly signed
by Respondent's President Milton Weinsten, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to assure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.2
Iin the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board , the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the
words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In
the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a
United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the
words "a Decision and Order."
2In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read " Notify said Regional
Director , in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX A
TRIAL EXAMINER CHARLES W. SCHNEIDER'S
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DENYING IN PART MOTION
OF GENERAL COUNSEL FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Counsel for the General Counsel has filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment with respect to the complaints, on the
ground that admissions in the answer and documentary
evidence attached to the Motion for Summary Judgment
establishes that there are no issues of fact or law requiring
hearing, and that the General Counsel is entitled to judgment
In response to an order to show cause thereon counsel for the
Respondent has filed a Statement in Opposition and a
memorandum brief in support of the Statement No other
response to the order to show cause have been received.
1. The Refusal to Bargain Issue
The complaint alleges, inter aha, that the Respondent has
refused to bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)
(5) of the Act, though the Union has been certified by the
Board as the duly designated collective bargaining repre-
sentative of certain employees of Respondent in an
appropriate bargaining unit. The Respondent contests the
validity of the certification.
The record establishes that upon a Stipulation for
Certification upon Consent Election executed by the parties
and approved by the Regional Director an election was held on
November 9, 1967, in Case No. 10-RC-7228 under the
I Official notice is taken of the record in the representation case as
the term "record " is defined in the Board Rules Sections 102 68 and
102.69 ( f) (Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure,
National Labor Relations Board, Series 8 as revised January 1, 1965).
2 Howard Johnson Company, 164 NLRB No 121, Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company , 163 NLRB No . 71. See Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company v . N.L.R.B, 313 U S. 140, 161-162 ( 1941 ), Sections 102.67
741
supervision and direction of the Acting Regional Director in
which a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit
designated the Union as their bargaining representative.' Upon
timely Objections to the election filed by the Respondent the
Acting Regional Director conducted an investigation and
thereafter, on December 21, 1967, issued a Report on
Objections in which he found that the objections raised no
material or substantial issues effecting the results of the
election, and recommended to the Board that the objections
be overruled in their entirety and that the Union be certified as
the collective bargaining representative in the appropriate unit
Upon exceptions to the Regional Director's Report filed by
the Respondent with the Board in Washington, D C., the Board
on February 16, 1968, found that the exceptions raised "no
material or substantial issues of fact or law which would
warrant reversal of the Acting Regional Director's findings and
recommendations, " and accordingly certified the Union as the
collective bargaining representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit.
With respect to the refusal to bargain allegation of the
complaint the Respondent admits the appropriateness of the
unit, the election proceedings, the Union's request to bargain
and the Respondent's refusal, but contends that the election
was improper and void because the Respondent was required
to furnish an election eligibility list, and that it was not
required to bargain with the Union because of Union conduct
interfering with the election and because the Board denied a
hearing on the objections In its answer and in its response to
the order to show cause the Respondent has also included an
allegation not contained in its objections and exceptions in the
representation proceeding, to the effect that prior to the
election the Union sent prospective voters material stating that
those who joined the Union would be covered by Union
benefits, such as free insurance. The Respondent asserts that it
is entitled to a hearing in order to introduce this evidence,
which it terms newly discovered
In the absence of newly discovered or previously
unavailable evidence or special circumstances, it is established
Board policy not to permit litigation before a trial examiner in
an unfair labor practice case of issues which were or could have
been litigated in a prior representation proceeding.2 This
policy is applicable even though no formal hearing on
objections has been provided by the Board. Such a hearing is
not a matter of right unless substantial or material issues are
raised by the objections.3 That no such issues were raised here
by the Respondent's objections to the election and by its
exceptions to the Regional Director's report thereon, has been
decided by the Board. In these circumstances the Board's
disposition of the representation matter constitutes the law of
the case at this stage of the proceeding.
The Respondent's assertion in its Statement in Opposition
to the Motion for Summary Judgment to the effect that it is
entitled to an opportunity to introduce assertedly newly
discovered evidence bearing on the validity of the election is
not substantiated. No explanantion is offered by the
(f) and 102.69 (c) of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor
Relations Board, Series 8, as amended January 1, 1965.
3 O.K. Van & Storage, Inc, 127 NLRB 1537, 297 F.2d 74 (C.A 5,
1961). And see N L R B v Air Control Window Products of St
Petersburg, Inc, 335 F.2d 245, 249 (C A. 5, 1964) " If there is nothing
to hear, than a hearing is a senseless and useless formality."
742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent as to why this evidence, all of which involved
conduct occurring prior to the election, and some consisting of
material assertedly mailed to prospective voters prior to the
electron, was not discovered or could not have been discovered
during the pendency of the representation proceeding by the
exercise of due diligence. The Respondent's offer is also too
general in nature to warrant the conclusion that it is so
substantial and material as to warrant reopening the
investigation of the election.4
The refusal to bargain with the Union being conceded, the
violation of Section 8(a) (5) is established, there is no issue
relating thereto litigable before a trial examiner, and therefore
no matter requiring hearing thereon
The General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment as to
the 8(a) (5) allegation of the Complaint and the 8(a) (1)
allegation derivative therefrom is granted
2 The Leaflet and the Speech
The General Counsel also contends that the pleadings and
admissions by the Respondent establish additional violations
of Section 8(a) (1) by the Respondent with respect to a leaflet
and a speech The Respondent's distribution of the leaflet
among its employees allegedly constituted threats and illegal
interrogation and the speech to employees (by Respondent's
president) unlawfully solicited employees to abandon the
Union and threatened employees Copies of the leaflet and the
speech are exhibits. The Respondent, though admitting the
contents of the leaflet and the speech and the fact of
distrrbutioii of the leaflet and delivery of the speech, denies
the commission of unfair labor practices by such conduct
On the existing state of the record I am unable to state that
a violation of Section 8(a) (1) in regard to the leaflets and the
speech has been established without opportunity for hearing
being afforded The motion of General Counsel for summary
judgment in respect to this aspect of the complaints is
therefore denied.
The issuance of more specific findings concerning the
refusal to bargain and of a recommended remedy and order
with respect thereto is deferred and referred to the Trial
Examiner who conducts the hearing on the remaining
allegations of the complaints, if such a hearing is held Such
Trial Examiner may, in the light of this order and the entire
record developed at the hearing, make appropriate further
findings and conclusions and issue such recommendations as
will in his judgment best effectuate the purposes and policies
of the Act
If no such hearing is held, I will entertain a motion to issue
a Trial Examiner's Decision making further findings,
conclusions and recommendations.
4 The evidence is thus stated in the Respondent's Statement in
Opposition
(1) That improper statements which required setting aside of the
election were made prior thereto by persons who were agents and
employees of the Union
(2) That prior to the election the Union offered insurance to
employees on terms condemned by the National Labor Relations
Board in Wagner Electric Corporation, 167 NLRB No 75.
As the Court said in N L R B. v. O K Van & Storage, Inc., 297 F 2d 74
(C A 5, 1961) " In order to be entitled to a hearing on its objections to
an election , an objecting party must supply the Board with specific
evidence which prima facie would warrant setting aside the election."
The Respondent's offer here, if offer it is, does not meet that
requirement
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner
of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to
effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, we hereby notify our employees that
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that they will
have less work if the plant in which they work is organized
by a union.
WE WILL NOT threaten that if our employees choose a
union to represent them we will never meet its demands and
that strikes will be the only result.
WE WILL NOT threaten that we will stop any business
practice we have had for the benefit of our employees if
they choose a union to represent them.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that if the plant
in which they work is organized by a union it will be closed.
WE WILL NOT question our employees in a way con-
stituting restraint or coercion concerning any of the
activities, statements, or conduct of other employees
engaged in union activities or seeking support of a union in
or after any election or organizing campaign.
WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to revoke member-
ships in, or authorizations given to, Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT urge our employees to sign revocations
of membership in, or authorizations to, any labor organiza-
tion.
WE WILL NOT prepare or make available to our em-
ployees revocations of membership in, or authorizations to,
any labor organization.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with the Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America as the exclusive bargaining
representative of our employees in the Winfield, Alabama,
plant for the unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the
above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the bargaining unit described below with
respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement
The bargaining unit is.
All production and maintenance employees at our
Winfield, Alabama, plant, including plant clerical
employees, but 'excluding office clerical employees,
engineers, professional employees, guards, temporary
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the
above-named Union or any other labor organization
WINFIELD MFG.
CO., INC.
(Employer)
WINFIELD MFG. CO., INC. 743
Dated By If employees have any question concerning this notice or
(Representative) (Title) compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's *'Regional Office, 730 Peachtree
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days Street, N.E., Room 701, Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Telephone
from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or 526-5760.
covered by any other material