Reliance Manufacturing Co. of Hattiesburg, Mississippi

In the Matter of RELIANCE MANIIFACTURIxG COMPANY OF HATFIESBURG, Mississippi and UNITED GARMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L. In the Matter of RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF HATTIESBURG, MISSISSIPPI and UNITED GARMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L. Cases Nos. 15-R-1326 and 15-C-1058, respectively.Decided April 19, 1946 DECISION AND ORDER On January 8, 1946,1 the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer- tain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. No request for oral argument before the Board at Washington, D. C., was made by any of the parties, and none was held. The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul- ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the additions and modifica- tions hereinafter set forth. 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that by the totality of the acts and statements of Superintendent Day, Head Mechanic Day, Foremen Bowman and Hyatt, and Foreladies Fairchild, Mooney, and Langford, the respondent engaged in a coercive course of conduct violative of Section 8 (1) of the Act. In arriving at this conclusion, however, we have not relied upon the Trial Examiner's finding that Foreman Bow- man's remark to employee Harper "that from the reports he had re- ceived,2 he did not think the Union would win," indicated that the 1 The Trial Examiner inadvertently dated his Intermediate Report January 8, 1945, instead of January 8, 1946. 8 The record shows that Foreman Bowman stated "from all accounts he had got." The Intermediate Report is hereby corrected in this respect. 67 N. L. R. B., No. 67. 515 516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sentiments of the employees were being investigated; nor have we relied upon the finding that Forelady Gilmore's statement to employee Knight that "When they get through with you, your tail will be dragging on the floor," constituted an adverse reflection on Knight because of his union activities. 2. Like the Trial Examiner, we.find that Rule 7 of the respondent's rules and regulations is violative of the Act insofar as it prohibits union solicitation on company property during the employees' non- working time. The restraint on the employees' right to self-organiza- tion is not cured by the qualification in the Rule "without written per- mission from the Superintendent." As the Board has previously held, with such a qualification "the rule exercises a still greater restraining influence due to the natural reluctance of employees to disclose to their employer their interest in a union." 3 3. As recommended by the Trial Examiner, we shall also sustain the objections to the election held on May 9, 1945, and set aside the results thereof. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Reliance Manufacturing Company of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Threatening to take economic reprisals against its employees because of membership in or activities on behalf of United Garment Workers of America, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization; (b) Questioning its employees regarding union membership and activities on behalf of the above-named or any other labor organiza- tion, and concerning how they intend to vote in an election for a bar- gaining representative; (c) Directing employees to vote for or against the above-named or any other labor organization; (d) Interfering with the self-organizational rights of its employees to select the above-named or any other labor organization as their bargaining agent. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act; (a) Rescind immediately its no-solicitation rule insofar as it pro- hibits its employees from engaging in union solicitation on company property during the employees' non-working time. (b) Post at its plant at Hattiesburg, Mississippi, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be 8Matter of Tomlinson of High Point, Inc , 58 N L R B. 982 RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF HATTIESBURG, MISS. 517 furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on May 9, 1945, among the employees of Reliance Manufacturing Company of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, at Hattiesburg, Mississippi, be, and it hereby is, set aside. MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above :Decision and Order. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : We will not threaten to take economic reprisals against our employees because of membership in or activities on behalf of United Garment Workers of America, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization. We will not question our employees regarding union member- ship and activities on behalf of the above-named or any other labor organization, and concerning how they intend to vote in an election for a bargaining representative. We will not direct our employees to vote for or against the above-named or any other labor organization. We will not interfere with the self-organizational rights of our employees to select the above-named or any other labor organiza- tion as their bargaining agent. We hereby rescind our no-solicitation rule insofar as it prohibits our employees from engaging in union solicitation on company property during their non-working-time. All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named union or any other labor organization. RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF HATTIESBURG, MISSISSIPPI. Dated--------------- By--------------------------------------- (Representative) • (Title) 518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. T. Lowry Whittaker, for the Board. Messrs. Daniel D. Tucker and H. A. Newman, of Chicago, Ill., for the respondent. STATEMENT OF THE CASE On March 3, 1945, United Garment Workers of America, A. F. of L., herein called the Union, filed with the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, a petition for investigation and certification of representatives pur- suant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. A hearing was held on April 5, 1945. On April 21, 1945, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election ordering that an election be conducted among employees of Reliance Manufacturing Company of Hattiesburg, Missis- sippi, herein called the respondent.' On May 9, 1945, an election by secret ballot was conducted by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana), among the em- ployees in the unit found appropriate. The Tally of Ballots certified on the same day showed that a majority of the votes had been cast against the participating union 2 On May 11, 1945, the aforesaid Regional Director received from the Union a telegram "protesting" the election. Thereafter, on June 15, 1945, the Regional Director issued his Report on Objections. Respondent filed exceptions to this report and the case was remanded by the Board to the Regional Director for further investigation. The Union later filed a statement of objections to the election, dated July 10, 1945. Thereafter, the Regional Director issued a Supple- mental Report On Objections, dated August 17, 1945 finding that the objections raised substantial and material issues with respect to the conduct of the elec- tion and recommending that the election be set aside. This report together with respondent's exceptions thereto were considered by the Board and on August 31, 1945, it issued its Order Directing Hearing On Objections To Election. On June 11, 1945, the Union filed a charge that the respondent had violated Section 8 (1) of the Act. The Board, on October 19, 1945, ordered that the complaint case and the case on objections to election be consolidated. On October 19, 1945, the Board, by its aforesaid Regional Director, issued a complaint against the respondent alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean- ing of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the com- plaint, together with notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance that respondent, by its supervisory' employees, from and after April 1945, to 1 61 N. L. R B. 673 2 The tally was as follows : Approximate number of eligible voters------------------------------------ 552 Valid votes counted--------------------------------------------------- 1 463 Votes cast for the Union------------------------------------------------ 178 Votes cast against participating union----------------------------------- 285 Challenged ballots----------------------------------------------------- 12 Void ballots----------------------------------------------------------- 1 RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF HATTIESBURG, MISS. 519 the date of the complaint, made statements discouraging organizational activity among its employees ; questioned employees concerning their union activities, how they intended to vote in the election, and how they actually had voted ; disparaged the Union ; made an anti-union speech to its employees and distributed copies thereof to the employees ; threatened to discriminate against and dis- charge employees because of their membership in or activities on behalf of the Union ; warned that if the Union won the election wages would be reduced and certain supervisory officials would resign ; prohibited employees soliciting mem- bership in any labor organization without written permisson ; acquiesced in, permitted, condoned and ratified a "Vote No" campaign directed against the Union. The respondent, in its answer dated October 24, 1945, denies engaging in the unfair labor practices alleged. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Hattiesburg, Mississippi, on December 12, 1945 before the undersigned, Sidney L Feder, the Trial Examiner duly desig- nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. No appearance was made on behalf of the Union. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel. Full oppor- tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi- dence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the opening of the hearing, the respondent made a motion to dismiss the proceedings. The motion was denied as to the complaint case. Decision was reserved as to the Objections to the Election. The motion is hereby denied as to the Objections' During the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to amend the complaint by adding to the list of supervisors who committed unfair labor practices the name of Foreman J. L. Bowman. The motion was granted without objection. After the presentation of all the evidence, counsel for the Board moved to amend the pleadings as to formal matters. This motion was granted without objection. Opportunity was afforded counsel to present oral argument and to file briefs. The respondent contends that the Union failed to comply with the Rules and Regula- tions of the Board as to the filing of objections to the election , and that the objections filed are invalid and cannot be made the basis of further proceedings. Section 10 of Article III of said Rules and Regulations provides , in part , as follows Upon the conclusion of such election, the designated agent shall cause to be furnished to the parties a Tally of the Ballots within five ( 5) days thereafter , the parties may file with the designated agent an original and three copies of Objections to the conduct of the election or conduct affecting the results of the election . Copies thereof shall be served upon each of the other parties by the party filing such Objections. There is no dispute as to the basic facts herein . The election was conducted on May 9, 1945. On May 11, 1945, the Regional Director received from a representative of the Union a telegram reading, "we are protesting election Reliance Hattiesburg Case 15-R- 1326 charging and supporting evidence will be filed next week " The Union advised the respondent of its position by telegrams on May 14 The Regional Director , treating the message received by him as objections to the election within the meaning of Section 10, Article III, filed his Report on Objections, dated June 15, 1945 Respondent filed excep- tions to the report on June 23. On June 27, the Board remanded the proceeding to the Regional Director for further investigation In a document, dated July 10, 1945, duly served upon the respondent , and filed with the Regional Director, the Union set forth the substance of its objections to the election. The original telegram 'sent to the Regional Director and the messages sent to the respondent by the Union were all sent within 5 days after the election. While the mes- sages did not contain the substance of the Union's contentions the respondent was clearly advised of its position. There was no showing that the respondent was prejudiced by the delay of the Union in amplifying its objections. The undersigned finds that the Regional Director did not commit an abuse of discretion in receiving the original telegram from the Union as objections to the election and receiving its statement of July 10, 1945, as a supplement or amendment of the original objections (Matter of Pacific Gas & Electriic Oo., 13 N. L. R. B. 268, 273, enf'd 118 F (2d) 780, 788 (C. C. A. 9) ) The Rules and Regulations must be liberally construed to effectuate the purposes and provisions of the Act (Article IX, Rules and Regulations.) The rejection of the Objections to Election would not effectuate the purposes of the Act but would have a contrary effect 520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Counsel for the Board and the respondent presented oral argument, but stated that they would not file briefs. Upon the entire record in the cases , and from his observation of the witnesses the undersigned makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent is a Mississippi corporation maintaining a plant at Hattiesburg, Mississippi , hereinafter referred to as the plant , where it is engaged in the manufacture of garments. During 1944 the respondent purchased raw materials valued at approximately $700,000, of which approximately 90 percent was shipped to the plant from points outside the State of Mississippi. During the same period the respondent's total sales were valued at approximately $1,000,000, of which approximately 90 percent was shipped from the plant to points outside the State of Mississippi. During 1945 the business operations of the respondent con- tinued at approximately the same level as in 1944 and the ratio of goods shipped and received from and to the plant from points outside the State of Mississippi was maintained . The respondent concedes that it is engaged in interstate com- merce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Garment Workers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Statements of supervisory officials Organizational activity at the plant commenced about 15 months prior to the election. As heretofore stated, the Union filed a Petition for Investigation and Certification of Representatives on March 3, 1945 On April 21, 1945, the Board directed that an election be held.' The Regional Director conducted the election on May 9, 1945. The events hereinafter discussed took place prior to the election or immediately thereafter. A group of witnesses who had been employed at the plant at the time of the election testified concerning statements made by supervisors concerning the election, the Union, or both. Mrs. Jewel Humphrey testified that approximately a week before the election, while she was riding to work in a bus which brought employees to the plant, Forelady Fairchild had a conversation with her. An employee having handed Mrs. Humphrey a signed union membership card, Forelady Fairchild inquired what the card was. When Mrs. Humphrey told her that the card was a union card, Fairchild said, according to Mrs. Humphrey , that if the Union won the election the employees would be on strike half the time, wages would probably be lower, the prices of certain services maintained at the plant, such as a beauty parlor, would be higher, and Superintendent Day would probably not remain. Fairchild then said if Mrs. Humphrey did not like conditions at the plant she should leave and that if she did not watch out she would be discharged. This 4 The appropriate unit as found by the Board consisted of "all production and mainte- nance employees at the Hattiesburg plant of the Company, excluding clerical employees, superintendents , foreladies , foremen, and any othei supervisory employees with authority to hire , promote, discharge , discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action " RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF HATTIESBURG, MISS. 521 conversation was in the hearing of other employees who were passengers on the bus. Mrs. Humphrey's testimony was corroborated by another former produc- tion employee, Mrs. Tannis Graves Forelady Fairchild did not testify. The testi- mony of Mrs. Humphrey is credited. Mrs Humphrey further testified that during the morning of the day of the election her forelady, Mrs. Mooney, questioned her and other employees in her department as to how they intended to vote. This testimony, which was not con- tradicted, is credited. Alonzo N. Harper testified that the day before the election his foreman, J. L. Bowman, asked him what he thought would be the results of the election. When Harper said he thought that the Union might win, Bowman remarked that from the reports he had received he did not think the Union would win. Bowman's reference to "reports" indicated both that the sentiments of employees were being investigated and that Bowman's statement had a basis in fact and was not mere opinion. The undersigned finds that Bowman was inferentially urging Harper to join the winning side and was interfering with the freedom of choice of rep- resentatives guaranteed to employees by the Act Harper further testified that several days before the election Lonnie Day, head mechanic, had told a group of employees in a rest room that if the Union won there would be strikes, losses in wages, no overtime, and probably wage cuts. Harper further testified that several days before the election Lonnie Day, head tell a worker that if the Union won both Superintendent Day and she would quit. The undersigned credits Harper's testimony, which has not been contradicted. Thomas W. Knight acted as an observer for the Union at the election, having been so designated approximately one week earlier. He testified that on the morning of the election a clerical employee , Annette Trigg, called him from his work at the plant and told him to report to the office. On the way, they met Forelady Gilmore who said, "When they get through with you, your tail will be dragging on the floor." Trigg agreed. Neither Gilmore nor Trigg made any explanation of the statement. In fact, Knight had been summoned to the office to receive instructions from a Board representative concerning his official duties at the election. Knight's undenied testimony is accepted as true. Under the circumstances revealed by the record, it being a few hours before the election and Knight being as yet unaware of the purpose for which he had been called to the office, the undersigned finds that Gilmore's statement could be reasonably interpreted only as an adverse reflection on Knight because of his union activities, and that it was so intended by Gilmore. Edward Ford testified that the morning of the election he asked Foreman Hyatt whether he was eligible to vote in the election. Hyatt replied that Ford had better go to the election booth and inquire there. Ford also testified that he asked Hyatt what he thought about the election. Hyatt inquired whether Ford was satisfied with his job. Ford replied that he was, but complained of the pay scale. Hyatt then said, according to Ford, that Superintendent Day was trying to secure salary increases and that if Ford was satisfied with his job he had better "let the Union go." Ford's testimony, which was not contiadicted, is credited. While Ford initiated the conversation with Hyatt the evidence estab- lishes that Hyatt availed himself of the opportunity presented by Ford's inquiry about the possible results of the election to make a recommendation that Ford i o' e against the Union. Lucille J. Smith testified that the day after the election Foreman Hyatt told her that he noticed that since the election was over she was working harder. Later, he asked her where she had obtained union cards, but she refused to give this information. Her testimony is accepted as true. 522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mrs. Smith also testified that Assistant Superintendent Martin told her on the day after the election that she could not work overtime in the future. She maintained that it was the practice for those employees doing the work to which she was assigned to complete work on the day it was received, that she had been allowed to work overtime in the past, and that since the election she had been given little overtime while other employees doing similar work were allowed more overtime work Martin testified and admitted that lie told Mrs. Smith that her overtime work would be cut down. He testified that this decision was due to a drop in govern- ment contract work requiring speedy delivery as well as the requirements of the production budget set for the plant He denied that there had been any discrim- ination against Mrs. Smith in the allowance of overtime, and asserted that all employees had received equal treatment in the allowance of overtime. The Board offered no proof of difference in treatment as to Mrs. Smith except her general statement. The undersigned credits Martin's explanation. B. Respondent's no-solicitation rule All new employees received a handbook of the respondent's rules, regulations, and policies, entitled "Your Job At Reliance". General Rule 7 which was in effect at the time of the election is as follows : Soliciting among employees for funds, membership in any organization, or for any other purpose, is prohibited during working hours or at any time on company property without written permission from the superintendent. This rule, by its terms, prohibited activity on behalf of any organization among the employees on plant premises. This included labor organizations. Respond- ent does not challenge this construction of the rule. The undersigned finds that at all times here relevant employees of respondent were prohibited by rule from soliciting membership in the Union or any other labor organization on plant premises at any time, both working and non-working time. C. The speech of Superintendent Day On May 7, 1945, two days before the election , at about 11 :40 a. in. all motors in the plant were stopped . Assistant Superintendent Martin spoke to the em- ployees over the loud speaker system and , after asking for attention , stated that Superintendent Day wished to address them . Day then read a statement to the employees which is set forth in full in "Appendix A". After Day had finished talking, operations were resumed . The talk took place during working hours and employees were compensated for the time lost from work while listening to Day. Copies of the speech were mailed to all employees eligible to vote in the forthcoming election. In his speech, Day told the employees that the respondent recognized their rights under the Act, that they were free to join labor organizations , and would not be discriminated against because of such affiliation . He then proceeded to discuss union representation and said, "It is my opinion that you have nothing to gain by selecting a union as your bargaining agent." His principal argu- ment was that a union would not be as fully cognizant of local conditions as the workers themselves. Day then listed certain aspects of working conditions at the plant which he claimed proved that the respondent was interested in the employees' welfare. He concluded by urging all eligible voters to vote. Concluding findings The undisputed evidence establishes that the respondent by Foreladies Fair- child, Mooney, Langford, Gilmore, Foremen Hyatt, Bowman and Head Mechanic RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF HATTIESBURG , MISS. 523 Day, engaged in activities designed to hinder and defeat the self-organization of the respondent's production employees and the free expression of their wishes at the election.' These activities took the form of statements to various em- ployees that if the Union won the election the employees would suffer definite economic loss in the form of wage cuts, strikes, loss of overtime, and increased expenses of employee services. Employees also were questioned concerning the possession of union cards and how they intended to vote in the election. Finally, supervisors evinced a definite hostility to the Union and talked of quitting their jobs if the Union should be successful, and one employee was threatened with discharge for union activity. Respondent contends that as to each supervisor there was no proof that that supervisor carried on a definite anti-union campaign or spoke to more than one employee about the election. However, the effect of these statements on the em- ployees was greater than if the statements had each evinced the attitude of one supervisory employee who conducted a thorough campaign, since the statements were indicativb of a common attitude on the part of the supervisory staff as a whole. The respondent also urges that the coercive effect of the statements, if any, was nullified by the speech of Superintendent Day wherein he declared that employees had full freedom to join labor organizations and to exercise the rights guaranteed by the Act. However, the record clearly establishes that supervisors committed acts in violation of the rights guaranteed by the Act both before and after Day's speech. The undersigned concludes and finds that Day's generaliza- tions concerning the rights of the employees would not and did not eliminate the harmful effect of these activities by the respondent's supervisors, for which conduct the respondent is responsible. The undersigned concludes that the general statement of the rights of the employees contained in Superintendent Day's speech were not sufficient to counteract the effects of the activities of the afore-mentioned supervisory em- ployees. The undersigned further concludes and finds that by the activities of those supervisors the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. The rights of the employees were further infringed by the respondent's no- solicitation rule. As heretofore stated this rule was sufficiently broad to pro- hibit solicitation for any purpose, including self-organization for collective bargaining, at any time, non-working or working, on respondent' s premises without permission of the superintendent. The Board and the Courts have passed upon the validity of rules of this type. In the Peyton Packing case" the Board set up the following standard: The Act, of course, does not prevent an employer from making and enforcing reasonable rules covering the conduct of employees on company time. Working time is for work. It is therefore within the province of an employer to promulgate and enforce a rule prohibiting union solicitation during working hours. Such a rule must be presumed to be valid in the absence of evidence that it was adopted for a discriminatory purpose. It is no less true that time outside working hours, whether before or after work, or during luncheon or rest periods, is an employee's time to use as he wishes without unreasonable restraint, although the employee is on company property. It is therefore not within the province of an employer to promulgate and enforce a rule prohibiting union solicitation by an " No evidence was presented by the Board concerning the activities of Forelady Agnes Patterson, a supervisor named in the complaint as guilty of unfair labor practices. " Peyton Packing Company, Inc., 49 N. L. R. B 828, 142 F. (2d) 1009 (C. C. A. 5 ), cert. den. 323 U S 730 524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employee outside of working hours, although on company property. Such a rule must be presumed to be an unreasonable impediment to self- organization and therefore discriminatory in the absence of evidence that special circumstances make the rule necessary in order to maintain production or discipline. The United States Supreme Court has also ruled upon this question in the Republic Aviation and Le Tourneau cases.? In the Republic case, an employee was discharged for violating a company rule, providing that "Soliciting of any type cannot be permitted in the factory or offices." An employee had persisted after being warned of the rule in distributing union literature on his own time during lunch periods. In the Le Tourneau case, two employees were suspended for distributing union literature on their own time on company property in violation of the following rule : In the future no Merchants, Concern, Company or Individual or Individuals will be permitted to distribute, post or otherwise circulate handbills or posters, or any literature of any description on Company property without first securing permission from the Personnel Department. In both cases, the Court upheld the findings of the Board that the rules set forth had been applied in violation of the Act. As to the rule enunciated by the Board in the Peyton Packing case, the Court said : We perceive no error in the Board's adoption of this presumption. The Board previously considered similar rules in industrial establishments and the definitive form which the Peyton Packing Company decision gave to the presumption was the product of the Board's appraisal of normal conditions about industrial establishments. The rulings in the Le Tourneau and Republic Aviation cases are controlling in this case. Respondent offered no proof that the no-solicitation rule herein was necessary to maintain production or discipline. The undersigned finds that respondent by its no-solicitation rule placed an unreasonable and unlawful restraint upon the organizational efforts of its em- ployees. The effect of this restraint was aggravated by its existence at the time of an election to determine collective bargaining representatives. The speech of Superintendent Day which was delivered just 2 days before the election and during working time is of great importance in the determination of the issues herein In his speech, Day openly opposed the selection of the Union as a collective bargaining representative and advanced arguments for that posi- tion He also sought to demonstrate that the respondent was interested in the welfare of the employees and had done a "splendid job." The Board contends that the respondent by this speech, in the circumstances under which it was delivered, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees within the mean- ing of the Act The respondent contends that the speech was an exercise of the constitutional right of free speech. In the absence of other evidence, the presenta- tion of an argument, temperate in form, such as appeared in the American Tube Bending case is a legitimate exercise of the right of free expression' However, the speech herein cannot be considered by itself, but can be properly evaluated only against the background of the respondent's total activities. It must be considered together with the conduct of the supervisory officials. The respond- 7 Republic Aviation Corporation v. N. L. R B, 324 U S. 793, affirming 142 F. (2d) 193 (C. C. A. 2), enforcing 51 N L. R B. 1186; N. L. R. B. v. Le Tourneau Company of Georgia, 324 U S 793, reversing 143 F. (2d) 67 (C. C. A. 5), setting aside 54 N L R B. 1253. 8 N. L R B. v. American Tube Bending Co., 134 F. ( 2d) 993 (C. C. A. 2), cert. den. 320 U. S. 768 RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF HATTIESBURG, MISS. 525 a'nt's no-solicitation rule which hampered organizational activity must also be weighed. In summary, the existing case is not one where the respondent merely expressed its opinion concerning the Union, but one where its total conduct took on the character of a campaign designed to defeat the organizational efforts of its employees. The speech as an integral part of this program was not privileged.9 The undersigned finds that the respondent has interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with its operations described 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 Since it has been found that the respondent has violated Section 8 (1) of the Act it will be recommended that the respondent, pursuant to the mandate of Section 10 (c), cease and desist therefrom. The cease and desist order is also predicated upon a finding that the respondent's illegal conduct discloses a pur- pose to defeat self-organization and its objects among its employees. Because of the respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose the under- signed is convinced that the unfair labor practices are persuasively related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed and that danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the respondent's conduct in the past 10 The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless this recommended order is coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, it is recommended that the respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. It will be further recom- mended that the respondent take certain affirmative action designed to effec- tuate the policies of the Act. The undersigned will also recommend that the objections to the election be sustained and the results of the election be set aside. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : CONCLusIONs OF LAW 1. United Garment Workers of America, A. F. of L., 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. 9 N. L. R. B. v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 314 U. S. 469, 477; N L. R. B. v. Trojan ,Powder Co., 135 F. (2d) 337 (C. C. A. 3), cert. den. 320 U, S. 768. 11 See N. L. R. B. V. Empress Publishing Company, 312 U. S 426. 526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law the undersigned recommends that the respondent Reliance Manufacturing Com- pany of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to joint or assist United Garment Workers of America, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization, 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 or protection as guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will effec- tuate the policies of the Act : (a) Rescind immediately its no-solicitation rule insofar as it prohibits em- ployees from exercising their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza- tions, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain- ing or other mutual aid or protection on plant premises except during working hours ; (b) Post at its plant at Hattiesburg, Mississippi, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix B". Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Fifteenth Region, shall after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon re- ceipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus- tomarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps respondent has taken to comply therewith. It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, respondent notifies said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring respondent to take the action aforesaid. It is further recommended that the Board sustain the objections to the election which was held on May 9, 1945, and set aside the results thereof. As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended , effective November 27, 1945, any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations , file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such state- ment of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board request therefor RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF HATTIESBURG, MISS. 527 must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board. SIDNEY FEIIEa, Trial Examiner. Dated January 8, 1945. APPENDIX A SPEECH OF SUPERINTENDENT DAY HATTIESBURG, MISSISSIPPI, May 7, 1945. FELLOW EMPLOYEE : Tomorrow an election will be held for the purpose of enabling you to determine whether you do or do not wish to designate as your exclusive bargaining agent United Garment Workers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. So that there may be no possible question in your minds concerning the position of the Company as regards this election, I have prepared this statement for you. The Company recognizes gladly all rights guaranteed to you under the National Labor Relations Act. You are free to join a labor organization of your own choice and you are equally free not to join. The Company has not discriminated and will not discriminate against any one of you because of any expression of your wishes in this respect. The one question for you to decide is whether it is to your best interests to be represented by a labor organization in your dealings with the Company on wages, working conditions and such related problems, or whether it is to your best interests to deal directly with the Company, as you have done in the past. It is my own opinion that you have nothing to gain by selecting a union as your bargaining agent. I believe that you, as employees, know more about the problems' which affect both you and the Company from time to time than would any labor organization. You know more about these problems than any organization whose interests are not limited to you and your problems. You are better able than any such organization to solve such problems as they arise. I do not believe that you have anything to gain by selecting an organiza- tion as your representative whose decisions may be influenced by something other than the local conditions in which you are interested. In making this state- ment, however, I want to stress the fact that I am only giving my opinion, and that you are free to decide the question just as you see fit, without any fear of hurting your position with the Company. It has always been the policy of Reliance Manufacturing Company to pay wages as high or higher and maintain working conditions as good or better than any in the industry. You can judge for yourselves whether the Company has succeeded in that effort. This is not a temporary policy of the Company, but is a continu- ing effort which will be maintained, regardless of the outcome of this election. The following are typical examples of what has been done : (1) Wages being paid are the highest in the area for the industry. (2) Working conditions in this plant, from a sanitary and health point of view, are equal to any in the country. (3) A cafeteria has been established within the plant, where employees may secure nourishing meals at cost. (4) A beauty parlor was established within the plant to enable the girls to get expert service at a reasonable cost. (5) A vacation plan has been put in operation. 528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (6) Personal complaints are given prompt and sympathetic consideration by your Superintendent and his Supervisory Staff who work with you every day and know your problems (7) The Company maintains a competently staffed Engineering Depart- ment, qualified to give you rates for your work and secure for you the best possible working conditions. Your Company has tried to indicate, not only by what it has said, but also by what it has done, that it is interested in your welfare, and I hope that you will agree that it has done a splendid job. The election tomorrow will be by secret ballot. It will be conducted as closely as possible like the ordinary city or town election. No one can know how you vote-your ballot says "this is a secret ballot and must not be signed". Nothing you have said or done in the past is in any way binding upon you.-You can and should vote exactly as you think best-free from pressure or influence from any source. You have an absolute right to vote as you desire regardless of whether or not you belong to any group-regardless of whether or not you signed an application card, authorization or anything else. The outcome of this election will be decided by the majority of those voting. This means that if more than half of those voting make a decision, it is binding on all the rest of you. This is much different from a majority of those entitled to vote. See that you vote yourself if you want this election to actually reflect your wishes. Failure to vote means you will be letting the other fellow decide a question which is vital to your welfare and which you must decide for yourself. Sincerely, DOEL F. DAY, Supt. Reliance Manufacturing Co. DFD/mf APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Garment Workers of America, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization, 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 or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other labor organization. Our employees are free to exercise their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection on plant premises, except during working hours, and Rule 7 is rescinded insofar as it conflicts therewith. RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF HATTIESBURO, MISSISSIPPI. Dated------------------------ By---------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.