Super Sagless Spring Corp.

1214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Super Sagless Spring Corporation and Upholsterers' Inter- national Union of North America, AFL-CIO and General Drivers, Salesmen and Warehousem en's Local Union No. 984, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen & Helpers of America, Interested Party. Case No. 32-CA-605. December 29, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On March 23, 1959, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter- mediate 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 certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor prac- tices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with respect to them. Thereafter, the Respondent, the Charging Party, and the Interested Party filed exceptions 1 to the Intermediate Report. The Respondent and the Charging Party filed briefs in support of their exceptions. The Interested Party's motion requesting the Board to consider the General Counsel's brief to the Trial Examiner in support of the Interested Party's exceptions is hereby granted. 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 In- termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the exceptions and modifica- tions noted below : 1. We disagree with the Trial Examiner's finding that President Katz's speech to the Respondent's employees violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. The speech predicts the effect of union activity upon the economic future of the Respondent and states the attitude of one of its major customers. Although its tone is antiunion, the speech does not contain threats of reprisal or promises of benefit. Accord- 1 Respondent moved to strike the exceptions of the Interested Party upon the grounds that they were not timely filed and that Local No. 984 is without standing to file them. We find that Local No. 984, as successor to the rights and interests of Local No. 591 In the 1957 organizational campaign at the Respondent's Tupelo, Mississippi, plant, is an interested party. See Rules and Regulations, Section 102.8. We also find for the reasons stated in our Order dated May 4, 1959, that the exceptions of Local No. 984 were timely filed. The motion is denied. Respondent also moved to strike the Charging Union's exceptions upon the grounds that they were not timely filed and are not legible. We find that the Charging Union's exceptions are legibly duplicated. See Rules and Regulations, Section 102.46(e). For the reasons stated in our Order dated May 4, 1959, we also find that the 'Charging Union's exceptions were timely filed. Accordingly, the motion is denied. 125 NLRB No. 118. SUPER SAGLESS SPRING CORPORATION 1215 ingly, we find that the speech comes within the free speech protection of Section 8(e).2 2. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) by interviewing individual employees in connection with their union activities. However, we adopt the Trial Examiner's find- ings only insofar as they are based upon the threats of reprisal made by the Respondent's president and plant manager in the course of the interviews. 3. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) by encouraging, condoning, and ratifying the preparation and circulation of two disaffiliation peti- tions among its employees. Although the General Counsel introduced testimony to the contrary, the Respondent's foremen, Franks and Bishop, testified that they neither suggested nor permitted the circulation of the petitions in the plant and that they neither discussed the petitions with nor urged their signing by any employee. Their testimony was not discredited by the Trial Examiner and we perceive no reason for discrediting it. Thus, we find that the General Counsel has failed to sustain the burden of proving that the Respondent encouraged, condoned, or ratified the preparation and circulation of these petitions.3 4. In agreement with the Trial Examiner, and for the reasons stated in the Intermediate Report, we find that the discharge of Luther Whitten was and that of Kenneth B. Goggans was not in violation of Section 8(a) (3). 5. As did the Trial Examiner, and for the reasons given in the Intermediate Report, we find that the Respondent did not violate Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act .4 ORDER Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Super Sagless Spring Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Threatening and interrogating employees concerning their union affiliations or activities in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. a Edmont Manufacturing Company, 120 NLRB 525 , 528-580; The Lux Clock Manu- facturing Company, Inc., 113 NLRB 1194 ; Southwester Co., 111 NL11B 805, 806. 31Vhite Motor Company, 111 NLRB 1272. 4 Member Jenkins in concluding , as his colleagues do, that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a) (5) of the Act, also relies on the fact, borne out by the record, that the Union did not press its demand for recognition sufficiently to impose a duty to bar- gain on the Respondent. See Longview Furniture Company, 100 NLRB 301, enfd. as modified 206 P. 2d 274 (C.A. 4). 1216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Discouraging membership in Upholsterers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, and General Drivers, Salesmen and Warehousemen's Local No. 984, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or any other labor organization, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist Upholsterers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, and General Drivers, Salesmen and Warehousemen's Local Union No. 984, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or any other labor organiza- tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Luther Whitten immediate and full reinstatement to his former or !substantially equivalent position' without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges of employment; and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimi- nation against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally have earned from the date of his discharge to the date on which Respondent shall offer to him proper reinstate- ment as herein provided, less net earnings,' to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and N. L. R. B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Company of Miami, Inc., 344 U.S. 344. Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the backpay liability for any other such period. (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social se- curity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to determine the amount of backpay due and the rights of reemployment under this Order. (c) Post at its place of business in Tupelo, Mississippi, the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall, 5 See The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, an Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827. 9 See Crossett Lumber Company , 8 NLRB 440 , 497-498. 7In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order." SUPER SAGLESS SPRING CORPORATION 1217 after being duly signed by a duly authorized representative of Super Sagless Spring Corporation, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond- ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Super Sagless Spring Corporation has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTIIER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis- missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not found herein. MEMBERS RODGERS and BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. APPENDIX 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, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Upholsterers' Interna- tional Union of North America, AFL-CIO, and General Drivers, Salesmen and Warehousemen's Local Union No. 984, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or any other labor organization, or discour- age any employee from exercising the rights secured to him under the National Labor Relations Act by means of discriminatory discharge or discriminating in any manner in regard to hire, or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT threaten or interrogate employees concerning their union affiliations or activities in a manner constituting inter- ference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self -organiza- tion, to form, join, or assist Upholsterers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, and General Drivers, Salesmen and. Warehousemen's Local Union No. 984, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any or all 1218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor or- ganization as a condition of employment in accordance with the provisions of the Act. WE WILL offer to Luther Whitten immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other employment rights and privi- leges and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suf- fered by reason of the discrimination against him. All of our employees are free to become and remain or to refrain from becoming or remaining members of any labor organization, ex- cept to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. SUPER SAGLESS SPRING CORPORATION, Employer. 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. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE These proceedings authorized and conducted under Section 10 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act, were heard before the duly designated Trial Examiner in Tupelo, Mississippi, on October 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 and November 1, 18, 19, and 20, 1958 . Upon a charge filed on September 30, 1957, a first amended charge filed on October 9, 1957, and a second amended charge filed on November 25, 1957, by Upholsterers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Charging Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint against Super Sagless Spring Corporation, herein called Respondent Company, alleging unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)fl), (3), and (5) of the Act, affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. General Drivers, Salesmen and Warehousemen's Local Union No. 984, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, was named therein as Interested Party by reason of succession to the contractual rights and privileges of Teamsters Local 591, whose identity was merged with the former on or about May 1, 1958, after having filed a joint petition with the Charging Union for certification of representatives by the National Labor Relations Board in Case No. 32-RC-1073. Copies of the charges, complaint, notice of hear- ing, and other pertinent processes were duly served by registered mail on the Respondent and all other interested parties. The complaint alleges more particularly in substance that the Respondent Com- pany: (1) On and after September 27, 1957, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by interrogating and intimidating them concerning their organizational activities; threatening to discharge them if they went out on strike; suggesting, condoning, and ratifying the circulation of two disaffiliation petitions in the plant during working hours; and promising rewards to those who would withdraw their membership in the unions; (2) on or about September 28 and 30, 1957, respectively, discriminated in regard to hire or tenure of employment to discourage membership in a labor organization by discharging employees Kenneth Goggans and Luther Whitten, and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate them because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the unions; and (3) on or about October 2, 1957, and at SUPER SAGLESS SPRING CORPORATION 1219 all times thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the Upholsterers' Inter- national Union and Teamsters Local Union 591 (including its successor Teamsters Local Union 984) as the jointly exclusive representative of its production and maintenance employees in an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargain- ing in respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. In due course the Respondent Company filed an answer to the complaint , admit- ting certain jurisdictional allegations with respect to commerce, etc., but denying all allegations of unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, all parties appeared at the hearing, and were represented by counsel. Full opportunity was afforded all parties to be heard, to introduce testi- mony and other evidence pertinent to the issues involved including certain deposi- tions with respect to rebuttal testimony, to examine and cross -examine witnesses, to present oral argument on the record , and to file written briefs and proposed find- ings of fact and conclusions of law with the Trial Examiner . The Trial Examiner has given due consideration to written briefs filed by counsel for the General Counsel and Respondent Company. Upon the entire record in the case , and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT COMPANY Super Sagless Spring Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Mississippi , having an office and factory in Tupelo, Missis- sippi, where it is engaged in the fabrication of metal springs and other hardware for upholstered furniture . In the course and conduct of its business during the year 1957, which period is representative of all times material herein , Respondent Com- pany manufactured , sold, and shipped from the Tupelo plant finished products valued at more than $ 100,000 to customers outside the State of Mississippi. I find, therefore, that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. At times pertinent to this case , the corporate officials, agents, and supervisors of Respondent Company, within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, included President Alex J. Katz, Plant Manager James S. (Jim) Wilson, General Foreman J. C. Buskirk, and Foremen Herman Ray Bishop , Harvey Franks, Charles Gusmus, and George Thomas Greenwood. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED (a) Upholsterers' International Union of North America , AFL-CIO, and Gen- eral Drivers , Salesmen and Warehousemen 's Local Union No. 984, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. (b) Prior to May 1 , 1958, Local No. 591, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America, was also a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, when it ceased its independent existence by transferring all of its members and assets to and merging with afore- said Teamsters Local No. 984. (c) On September 10, 1957, Upholsterers ' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, and aforesaid Teamsters Local No. 591, jointly filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board in Case No. 32-RC-1073 seeking certification as joint representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining of all production and maintenance employees of Respondent Company. Thereupon , the Board conducted a representation hearing on October 8 , 1957, and, thereafter , on November 18, 1957, issued its Decision and Direction of Election (unpublished ) finding, inter alia, that: 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: 1 All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Tupelo, Missis- sippi, plant, including truckdrivers, janitor, shipping clerk, production clerk, 'By footnote the Board specifically included in the unit a female clerk who assists the production clerk and performs general clerical duties, the serviceman who visits customers concerning problems involving the Employer 's products and also works in the plant and as occasional truckdriver ; but specifically excluded the sales and serviceman who sells the Employer' s products and is paid on a salary-plus -commission basis. 1220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD production schedule and inventory clerk, the clerical in the plant office, and service man, but excluding the sales and service man , plant manager, general foreman, departmental foremen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (d) The appropriate unit: I find, therefore, that the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining in this case consists of all production and maintenance employees at the Tupelo, Mississippi, plant, of Super Sagless Spring Corporation (the Employer) with inclu- sions and exclusions set forth above in the Decision and Direction of Election issued by the National Labor Relations Board in Case No. 32-RC-1073, on November 8, 1957. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The organizational campaign During the latter part of August 1957, Kenneth B. Goggans and Charles G. Davidson (employees) sought and obtained an interview with George Evans, In- ternational representative of Upholsterers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, with respect to organizing the employees of Respondent Company at its plant in Tupelo, Mississippi. Evans told them that he was fully occupied in prepar- ing for an election on August 31, 1957, at the plant of Stratford-Futorian Furniture Mfg. Company in New Albany, Mississippi, and suggested that they come back to see him shortly after that date. These two employees returned to see Mr. Evans at the union hall in Tupelo on September 4, 1957, at which time Evans explained that it was the policy of his labor organization to operate through an inside shop com- mittee composed of seven or eight responsible employees to assist in an organiza- tional campaign. On the following day a group of employees from the plant, in- cluding Kenneth B. Goggans, Charles G. Davidson, Joe L. Sudduth, W. T. Green, Jack Farris, James Dill, Ralph Long, and Luther Whitten, assembled at the union hall for further discussion of an organizational campaign with Mr. Evans. P. L. Parks, business manager of Teamsters Local 591, was also present. Evans and Parks told the group that they had decided to conduct a joint organizational campaign; to solicit truckdrivers for membership in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc., and all other employees for membership in the Upholsterers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO. This group of employees agreed to act as an or- ganizing shop committee and consented to sending a telegraphic notice to Respond- ent Company to that effect. Consequently a telegram was sent to Respondent Com- pany on September 5, 1957, as follows: MR. JIM WILSON-MANAGER TUPELO MISS SUPER SAGLESS SPRING CO TUPELO MISS SEPT 5 1957 THIS IS TO FORMALLY ADVISE YOU THAT THE FOLLOWING NAMED EMPLOYEES OF YOUR FIRM ARE ENGAGED IN CON- CERTED ACTIVITY WITH CERTAIN OTHER EMPLOYEES OF YOUR FIRM IN THEIR PROTECTED RIGHTS TO FORM OR ASSIST THE UN- DERSIGNED LABOR ORGANZIATION IN FORMING A LABOR UNION IN YOUR PLANT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 7 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT. CHARLES G. DAVIDSON-RALPH LONG-W. T. GREEN-JOE SUD- DUTH-KENNETH GOGGINS [sic]-JACK FARRIS-JAMES DILL- LUTHER WHITTEN. A COPY OF THIS TELEGRAM IS BEING SENT TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOR IT'S FILES AND RECORDS. UPHOLSTERS INT'L UNION OF N. A., AFL-CIO GEORGE EVANS-INT'L REPRESENTATIVE. The first general organizational meeting was held at the union hall in Tupelo on the night of September 9, 1957, with an attendance of approximately 30 employees, and International Representative George Evans presiding. No representative of the Brotherhood of Teamsters was present. Mr. Evans presented a general outline of the methods to be used in promoting the organizational campaign, conducted a ques- tion and answer discussion, explained the procedure of obtaining an election under the auspices of the National Labor Relations Board, and agreed to file a petition for representation if those present would sign authorization cards sufficient in number to meet the Board's requirement of 30 percent for a showing of interest in represen- tation by a labor organization. Cards were distributed, and the required number of signatures was obtained. Consequently, the two labor organizations involved herein filed a joint petition with the Board's Regional Office in Memphis, Tennessee, on September 10, 1957. SUPER SAGLESS SPRING CORPORATION 1221 A second general meeting with representatives of the joint-petitioner was held at the union hall in Tupelo on September 16, 1957, with an attendance of approximately 45 employees. A comprehensive discussion was conducted with respect to the joint campaign, the shop organizing committee, the telegram previously sent to the Em- ployer, the signing of union authorization cards, etc. Several employees requested that their names be added to those listed as the shop organizing committee in the aforesaid telegram of September 5, 1957. In lieu thereof, Mr. Evans suggested that a registered letter be sent to Respondent Company setting forth the names of all employees that had signed union authorization cards and by unanimous vote of all present at the meeting such a letter was authorized. Consequently, a letter dated September 17, 1957, was sent to Respondent Com- pany by registered mail, as follows: 2 112 Stone Street Tupelo, Mississippi September 17, 1957 Mr. JIM WILSON, Manager, Super-Sagless Springs Corp., Fulton Dr., Tupelo, Miss. CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Re: Super-Sagless Springs Corp. Tupelo, Mississippi Case No. 32-RC-1073 DEAR MR. WILSON: This is to formally advise you that the following-named employees of your firm not only have signed union authorization cards with the undersigned labor organizations but also are engaging in concerted activity with certain other of your employees in their protected rights to form or assist the undersigned labor organizations in forming a union in their place of work, pursuant to Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. The names of those employees referred to above are: Charles G. Davidson Archie Kilpatrick James McMullen Ralph Long Grady B. Hicks B. L. White James Stephens Thomas Hale James A. Reick W. T. Green Hiles Carlock Carl Bishop Joe Sudduth Charles Blake Tracy Harbor Kenneth Goggins [sic] Clyde Davis Clinton Davidson Jack Farris Ernest Davis John D. Colsen James Dill Thomas McCormack James Berryman Luther Whitten Archie M. Carter Boyd Dill, Jr. Claude McCollum R. C. Wimbs Raymond F. Flimn John Dill Bruce Williams Bill Hathaway Donald K. Lamphere James Franks Earl Buskirk Woodrow Bunch Don Watts William Willis Terry Helms John R. Christian E. M. Tigner Melvin Carlock William Wiggington M. Timms Ralph Parnell Crisco Hubbard This is to further advise you that the discriminatory tactic engaged in recent days subsequent to the filing of the petition in the above-entitled matter, of transferring certain employees to perform certain jobs and operations on which they have no previous training or experience in the hope a cause may be found to discharge them will result in the instant filing of unfair labor practice charges should any of the above-named be terminated as a result of such or any other discrimination because of their union membership and activity. A copy of this letter is being sent to the National Labor Relations Board for its files and records. Very truly yours, -------------- -------------- UIU of N.A. IBT, AFL-CIO AFL-CIO Local 591 cc: National Labor Rel. Bd. 714 Falls Bld'g Memphis 3, Tenn. 2 Possibly a third general meeting for employees was held at the union ball on Monday, September 23, 1957, but the record is not clear with respect thereto. 535828-60-vol. 125-78 1222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Thereafter, the Respondent Company discharged two members of the original organizational committee , and President Alex J . Katz made an antiunion speech to all its employees at an involuntary assembly in the plant lunchroom during working hours on September 30, 1957. Immediately following these events, the Upholsterers' International Union of North America , AFL-CIO, and Local 591, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , etc., by registered letter, dated October 1, 1957, jointly requested the Respondent Company to recognize and open negotiations with them as the bargaining agent of its employees, as follows: 3 Mr. JAMES WILSON, Manager, 112 Stone Street Tupelo, Mississippi October 1, 1957 Super-Sagless Springs Corp., Fulton Drive, Tupelo, Mississippi. CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED DEAR MR. WILSON: This is to advise you that a large majority of the employees of your com- pany has signed authorization cards and have designated the undersigned labor organizations as their bargaining agent with respect to wages, hours and working conditions. In view of that, I am requesting recognition and that you meet with me in your office on Friday morning at 10:00 A.M. October 4, 1957 for the purpose of opening negotiations in regard to wages, hours and working conditions among the employees of your company. In the absence of any word from you to the contrary before the above time and date, I will assume that your company has agreed to such recognition and will meet with me for the aforementioned purposes. Very truly yours, (S) GEORGE Evnrrs, Int'l Rep., (S) P. L. PARKS, Sec.-Treas., Upholsterers' Int'l Union of N.A., 1BT, Local 591, AFL-CIO AFL-CIO cc: National Labor Relations Board Falls Bld'g, Memphis, Tenn. Within the hour designated in the foregoing letter for negotiations , International Representative George Evans called the office of Respondent Company and was told by a female office employee that Plant Manager Wilson was not present or available. Consequently, no meeting was held, although Wilson credibly testified that he was at his office during the entire day of October 4, 1957. Respondent Company, admittedly, made no reply thereto. Thereafter, based upon the joint-petition of the unions involved herein, a rep- resentation hearing was conducted on October 8, 1957, at the county courthouse in Tupelo, Mississippi, at which all parties were represented , and the joint-petitioner at that time renewed its demand for recognition by reason of union authorization cards signed by a majority of the employees of Respondent Company. Following this hearing, the National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election in Case No. 32-RC-1073 dated November 18, 1957. On April 17, 1958, the Board issued an order amending its direction of election, after being advised by the Regional Director that a longer time in which to conduct the elec- tion was necessary pending disposition of unfair labor practice charges in the instant Case No. 32-CA-605. Consequently, no election has been conducted and on September 17, 1958, a request to the Board by the joint-petitioner to' withdraw was granted with prejudice to its filing a new petition for a period of 6 months from date of the order, unless good cause be shown why a new petition should be entertained prior to the expiration of such period. B, Speech of President Katz-September 30, 1957 Respondent Company introduced in evidence a written speech admittedly de- livered by President Alex J. Katz to all its employees involuntarily assembled in the lunchroom at the Tupelo plant during working hours about 9:30 a.m. on Monday, September 30, 1957, as follows: 3 Registered Receipt No . 15571.0 of the Post Office Department indicates receipt of this letter on October 2 , 1957, and Plant Manager Wilson admits receipt by him on October 3, 1957. SUPER SAGLESS SPRING CORPORATION 1223 TALK FOR TUPELO PLANT 9/30/57 I got one of the biggest disappointments of my life several weeks ago when Jim Wilson told me that a union had filed a petition to get into this plant. When I heard this I was forced to assume that we had in some way failed in our relationship with you men-and failed to the extent that at least some of you had indicated your interest in a union. When a man puts his heart and soul into any work like I have into this plant- when you see hard work and good intentions failing to inspire in some of your fellow workers the same kind of trust and confidence you have in them, you have a right to be disappointed-and I am-but I am not discouraged. Let me repeat, I am disappointed, but I am not discouraged. I've had several weeks to think this entire thing through and I want to tell you what I think and why I am not discouraged. Three years ago I came here looking for a possible location for a plant. I told you folks here in Tupelo that I was tired of fighting a losing battle up North against rising costs and poor attitude. I was tired of working with people who had forgotten how to do a decent days' work. I was tired of seeing people stay away from work on Monday because they drank too much on Saturday and just didn't feel good. I was tired of having to weed out a hundred poor workers to find a single good one-tired of searching through all kinds of misfits-whites and colored alike-plenty of troublemakers and smart alecks looking for an easy buck-people with strong backs but weak minds-people with all sorts of diseases and illnesses. I just decided that life was too short to fight that kind of battle to get a few, sincere, good workers. I told you people here that I wanted to build my plant someplace where there were plenty of good, solid respectable folks who weren't afraid of honest work. People who still had a desire to work to build something together. Well sir, we talked a long time. They told me about the fine people who lived all around Tupelo in those hills. They told me that there were 3000 men out on the farms who would lose their living in the next few years because farming just didn't pay anymore. They told me that plants like ours were needed and wanted. After they told me about this they described you men and here is what they told me about you: They told me you were honest-honest with yourselves as well as with others-that you were straightforward and sincere. They told me you were steady men-dependable in your work. They told me you didn't take to strangers quickly, but once you made friends you were steadfast friends. They told me you were hardworking, industrious men who genuinely be- lieved in an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. That you were cooperative and as interested in your neighbor's welfare as much as your own. That you were intelligent and would learn jobs quickly. And most im- portant of all, they said your attitude toward life was the Christian attitude- you lived by the Golden Rule-that you believed in straight talk and square shooting. I was assured that if I treated each man who worked for me with decency, honesty and respect, that I would end up with a group of men who would do their share 100% to make our new plant a real success-who would pitch in and work hard to build their own future and the company's future. Then I was taken on a tour of your local plants by some of your business leaders. We visited Rockwell, Rich, Daybrite, BlueBell, Milam and others. I talked to the workers in those plants-they encouraged me to build a plant here-they had friends and relatives who needed good jobs. The barber, cleaner, school teachers, merchants, bankers, ministers, doctors-all told me the same thing. They said, Mr. Katz, these are good folks-treat them properly and they will move the world for you-put your faith in them and they will put their trust in you-they will work with you to do a good job for the betterment of them- selves, the community and the company. So we decided to build a plant here. First we moved into the little old Quonset but on Carnation street in September of 1955. We grew slowly here in Tupelo but we have kept right on growing. Last year, in April, we moved from Carnation street over to the new building. We had about 10 people on Carnation Street before the move. A year ago we had about 40 people here. 1224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Now we have about 75 people and before long we should be up to 100 or 125 people. During all this time I have made a very special effort to treat you as gentle- men and friends. I have done everything I could afford to make this a good place to work. I have tried my best to make this relationship the fairest and friendliest possible. And I have felt that you men lived up to the description of you given me before we came to Tupelo. Because of these things I was truly disappointed to hear of the union petition-even though I know it only takes less than a third to support a petition, I am still disappointed because I had sincerely hoped that we could, by doing the right thing here, build the kind of relationship in which EVERY SINGLE MAN would feel a part of the team working together to solve our own problems and working to progress together. I know that few of you men have had any substantial experience with unions. Those of you who may have signed cards I think have made ,a serious mistake. It is always a mistake to put your confidence in strangers before you have had any opportunity to hear all sides of a story. I feel sure the majority of you will not make such a mistake and that you will carefully consider all facts before you make a serious decision. I have seen plenty of unions-I've had contracts with them . I have seen some pretty good unions and I've seen plenty of bad ones. I've seen some full of the kind of rats and scum you good men down here don't even know exist. You had better watch that such rats don't get in among you. I've seen those kind move in-all they care about is their own selfish interests- they've got their own personal axes to grind. They will tell you anything and everything to hook you-the more men they can get to pay dues to the union, the more they get and the further they get in the union . Watch out for that kind of strangers. If you made the mistake of being misled by these outsiders, I do not hold it against you. We all make mistakes in judgment . We will see to it that you get all the facts about this union matter and all I ask is that you keep and [sic] open mind and think over all the facts carefully before you make a final decision. Now let's get down to some of the facts about unions , You should know these facts: No matter what the union promises , no union can make us pay more than our business can afford. No matter how many fancy contracts the union may have up North, the union cannot force me to sign its contract demands when I know those demands cannot be met and our young company still stand. No union is going to provide a job for you or pay your wages. No union can guarantee your job here-if we don't produce we'll all be out of jobs, union or no union. If the union makes demands which will hurt , we are not going to agree to those demands and the only thing the union can do about it is call you out on strike. And you had better understand this clearly-if you go out of this plant on an economic strike, the company is completely free to permanently replace you. If that happens you will just have lost your job. And I think you know that jobs aren't easy to find now-there are plenty of folks waiting for jobs in every plant in N.E . Mississippi. There are a great many people out on farms and near this plant who wouldn 't hesitate for one moment to take your job if you went out on strike. You should carefully consider all these things. I will see to it that you get plenty more information about the unions . In the meantime, just go to your newspaper and read all the dirt that the Senate Investigating committee is digging up on unions . You read those investigations reports and you will see why I used the words scum and rats a while ago. They are uncovering them in many of the big unions so you should be sure you know what you're doing before you put your future in the hands of some strangers you never saw before. Now let's go on to another subject: I was here a month ago and I talked with you about the results of the first year of business of our company in Tupelo. I told you about the sales figures, the amount of money we owed and who we owed it to, the profit we, had made for the year. SUPER SAGLESS SPRING CORPORATION 1225 At the same time I told you what our plans are for you as far as the holidays and vacations are concerned and as far as your pay is concerned. I told you what your pay would be this year, what your pay would be next year and what your pay would be the year after that. Unions usually try to take credit for everything, but you all know that we did not make those plans because of any threats from the union. I told you these things before there was any word of union. We do not have to [be] forced to improve your benefits and conditions. It is something we have done and will do as soon as we can afford to because we want to and you don't need any union for that. I promised you in the last talk that I would confirm those plans for our future by letter to you. I will get those letters out to you as soon as I can. We feel we are going ahead to a better future with steady improvements. But you should realize that if this union causes any trouble by strikes or other turmoil it could completely upset our plans. Strikes are costly and we have no money to spare for that kind of trouble. We want to go forward with our program and intend to, but we sincerely hope that this union doesn't get a chance to cause the serious trouble which would throw us backwards and make it impossible to do what we plan and hope to do. Now I want to mention something else-not particularly related to what I've been talking about, but something on which a lot of misunderstanding can be created. You know that we have always had a great reluctance about discharging people. We have tried to give everyone chance after chance to improve and get right. We don't like to fire anyone. But this morning we had to let a man go. I'm going to tell you about it because I know at a time like this there may be attempts to create a scare campaign whenever the company fires someone. So I want you to know all the facts. In any group of seventy-five men there are bound to be a few smart alecks or wise guys. We, of course, have had to let a few folks go because they just couldn't do the kind of work we have here, but they were nevertheless good, cooperative people who were trying to do their best. Today a man had to be let go not because we knew he couldn't do a job, but because he wouldn't do a job. He spent all his time ridiculing his super- visor-trying to undermine him and stab him in the back. We are not going to tolerate back stabbers in this plant. This man came to us from one of our contractors. The contractor said his pay was $1.25 per hour and that he gave him 40 hours when he could, but most of the time he couldn't give him 40 hours. So the man asked for a job here and Bob McIntyre gave him one. The man had much steadier work here-in recent weeks and many weeks previous to that, this man was earning over $60.00 and usually around $80.00. That is far better that he had done before he came here, but he didn't appreciate it enough to do a good days' work for his money. For many month's this man's supervisor has asked Wilson and me, 3 or 4 different times, to get rid of him. He told us he didn't want him in his crew because he was always interfering with the work and always trying to take advantage of his fellow workers. He was the kind of fellow that because he was on the maintenance crew and wasn't standing in front of a machine would quit early, go into the wash- room so he could beat the rest of the people out to lunch. His own fellow workers disliked him and didn't want to work with him because he wouldn't carry his load when he worked on a team with others. He was the kind of fellow that Gus had a hard time with because he wouldn't do the job the way he was told to do it. The funny thing is that I kept telling Gus to try to work with him, try to help him, teach him and make a good man out of him. Many other men in the plant have been criticized about their work but in almost every case Wilson and I have told the supervisor to do everything he could to teach and train the man before they let him out. But some people can't be helped, they try to take advantage of every break you try to give them. So I finally told Gus to fire this man and the truth is I was unfair to the supervisor and the other men in the crew for making them work with him against their will so long. I've gone into detail to tell you this story because I wanted you to know the facts-we are not starting any cut in our force and we are not changing our policy on discharges-we are continuing our policy of always giving a man another chance and I think all of you will agree that this man was given more chances than he deserved. Now, to get back to the union problem. 1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Let me tell you just a couple of economic facts of life. We used to have over 100 men in the New Jersey plant and now we are down to about 30. We had unions up there, but the union couldn't guarantee the men's jobs-the men were good union members but they are out of work. The union can't change the economic facts of life-if a business can't make money nobody is going to have a job. A union can be like an incurable cancer-it can go along for quite awhile and you don't know you're sick-then suddenly you wake up and the thing has gone so far there is nothing to do but cut it out. So we had to cut the life out of our New Jersey operation . In my old plants I just couldn't compete anymore . My costs had been pushed all out of line. We were fighting a losing economic battle, so we had to move 1200 miles to build this plant. The union didn't help those men, in fact, the union contributed plenty to the economic sickness that finally forced us out up there. Now let me tell you another economic reason I was so disappointed and disturbed to hear of the union here. You know we make all the hardware for the Okolona plant. You also know from the quantities we make that most of our total production goes to the Okolona plant . Now the owner of that business, Mr. Futorian , has told us in words of one syllable that he can't risk having his supply of hardware cut off by a union strike. He has told me he is going to look for a second source of supply. He says that he cannot take the risk of having his chair plant in Okolona closed because we are having labor difficulties here. So we are already in danger of losing substantial business. The unions will tell you the union label will get more business , but they don't tell you about the business you lose because of their reputation for trouble. These are the serious facts you have got to weigh before you make your decision on how to vote in the union election-these are matters that directly affect you. You can be sure that I am going to do everything I can to convince Mr. Fu- torian that he can rely on us supplying him and if the union is defeated I think we have a good chance of keeping our big volume with his plants. What has happened cannot be helped and I promise that you will not be criticized or penalized for signing cards. But this union decision is a serious one and one that you each must make in the end. I hope that you will promise not to be rushed into your decision and that you will carefully consider both sides before deciding. I hope you will decide that a union has no place in our young plant. If you do, I urge you to come forward and say so . The union does a lot of loud talk and we need the people for us to talk too . Don't make the mistake of trying to stay neutral in a thing like this. This union matter affects every one of you, so you should stand up for what you think is best for you. If you decide you dont want this union, tell your fellow workers, tell the organizers, about it; let the people in town know about it. If you do these things the union may soon realize that it is not wanted here and will leave us alone. The union claims that a majority of you have already signed cards actually authorizing the union to represent you. I do not believe this-it is a typical union bluff-there are too many discrepancies in the union letter. But I can promise you I won't bluff or run. As president of this corporation it is my responsibility to protect it from anything that will hurt it-whether it is a production problem or financial difficulty or union trouble. And as long as I am president I will do everything legal I can to protect our business from union trouble or any other kind of trouble. We want to answer all your questions on this union matter so be sure to ask them. If you want to discuss this, or any other matter with . me-I certainly want you to. I will just be here today this trip , but I'll be back soon and I'll be glad to spend any time with you today . Jim and I and all the supervisors want to be sure you know all the facts-be sure to come to us anytime you want in- formation or even if you just want to talk these matters over. With respect to the preparation and delivery of the foregoing speech , President Alex J . Katz testified in substance that he arrived in Tupelo, Mississippi, by an airline carrier on Friday, September 27, 1957, and personally wrote the speech in. longhand on the following Saturday and Sunday in collaborative discussion with Plant Manager James S. Wilson; that the final draft was typed for him on Sunday night, September 29, 1957 , by his sister-in-law, Mrs. Allen Banks ; that, pursuant to advice of counsel , he delivered the original typed copy to Plant Manager Wilson with instructions to have an additional copy made for the purpose of following the speaker in making delivery to his audience ; that on Monday, September 30, 1957, he appeared before assembled employees in the lunchroom at the plant and first apologized to them that under present circumstances he would have to read this SUPER SAGLESS SPRING CORPORATION 1227 speech to them rather than talk ad libitum as he usually did; that he then read the foregoing speech verbatim in its entirety to the assembled employees; and that while reading the speech, he stood on a concrete block (illustrated by photographs introduced as Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 9 and 10) facing towards the audience from the narrowest dimension of the block. Plant Manager James S. Wilson 4 testified in substance that: He was present on September 30, 1957, in the lunchroom at the Tupelo plant, and clearly heard the speech delivered by President Alex J. Katz to assembled employees; he stood in a doorway approximately 15 feet from the speaker and followed the speech with a copy thereof in hand; Katz read the entire speech and deviated from the written text only when introducing himself to the audience and making a preliminary apology for reading the speech instead of speaking without a written document as he had done on former occasions; President Katz was a resident of New Jersey, but visited the Tupelo plant at intervals of 4 to 6 weeks and made talks to the employees without reference to written notes, but on this occasion had arrived in Tupelo on Friday evening, prepared a written document on Saturday and Sunday, which was exhibited and discussed with him prior to delivery, and read it verbatim to the employees on Monday, September 30, 1957; in the speech President Katz told the employees that he would remain in the plant office until that afternoon, invited them to come in to discuss the problem with him, and that they could also thereafter discuss the matter with the plant manager if they failed to see him; and that President Katz returned to Hoboken, New Jersey, that same afternoon by air- plane leaving Tupelo about 3:20 p.m. Several witnesses for the General Counsel testified from their personal recol- lection and interpretation as to what was said by President Katz in his speech on September 30, 1957, as follows: Clyde Davis (ex-employee) testified in substance that: President Katz would read awhile and talk awhile, saying that he was disappointed but not discouraged about the Union; he came down here to get away from the Union; all dealings with them had been very unpleasant ; he was not going to have a union as long as he was president; he did not want any dealings with them; dealing with the Union was just like having a cancer, and the only way to get rid of a cancer was to cut it out; he had some good people working for him, and he had some rats; he was going to get rid of the rats and keep the good people; he could not have an election because, if he did, Mr. Futorian would not buy his hardware; he had to get the election stopped, and there would be "a petition coming around for us to sign and send to the newspaper for publication and try to stop the election"; the "doors would be open for us to decide one way or the other whether we were going to be for him or for the Union"; "he and Mr. Wilson would be in the office for us to come in and talk to'them and make a decision"; "we could not play both ends against the middle"; "he would give us until the following Monday to decide on it"; and he would get the election stopped by sending one copy of the signed petition to the Labor Board in Memphis and one to the newspaper. William Wiggington (ex-employee) testified in substance that: President Katz read his speech, but would read awhile and then look up and discuss it, saying that he was disappointed; when he came down here to build this plant the business people in Tupelo told him there were good working boys here; if "he would treat us right, we would treat him right"; he had moved 1,200 miles to get out from under the Union, and was not going to have a union as long as he was president of the plant; they could not make him sign a contract or pay any more; there were some "rats" in the plant; it was just like a cancer on a man's hand that had to be cut out to get rid of it; he would be in his office, and "if anybody wanted to they could come in to see him or Manager Jim Wilson and tell him which side of the fence we were on"; "we could not play both ends against the middle and had to be on one side of the fence or the other"; "Mr. Futorian had told him that he would not buy any more products from him, if we went as far as having an election"; and "we could get up a petition, have it signed, put it in the newspaper, and send it in to get our cards back and we would not have an election." Clinton Davidson (ex-employee) testified in substance that: President Katz would read his speech awhile, and then stand there on the platform and talk awhile, saying, "I am disappointed but not discouraged. When I moved from Hoboken down here I was told by the people in Tupelo that you have good people here, that Tupelo didn't want a union and I wouldn't be bothered with unions. Now, I find we are having trouble with the Union here. I am not going to have a union in this plant s crow employed by Industrial Development Commission of the State of Arkansas at Little Rock, Arkansas, since July 1, 1958. 1228 DECISIONS OF NN.CIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD as long as I am president of the plant. The Union can't make me bargain with them, can't make me pay union wages as long as I am president of the Company. We have a few rats in this plant. I am going to cull the rats out of the plant. The Union is more or less like a growth on a man's hand. The only way you could get rid of a union was to cut it out-the only way you could get rid of a cancer was to cut it off and that's what he was going to do with the Union"; "Mr. Futorian and several other customers (Okolona was one of them) had said that they would not buy our merchandise if we went far enough to have an election"; "our time would be cut 2 or 3 days a week, and that we would go on part-time work, would not have full work"; "You know what that would mean. That would be taking money from your families. Some of you may have other support than this, but I am sure most of you don't have. If you want to stop this, get together and get a petition and go to the newspaper office and let the people in Tupelo know that you don't want an election"; "we would have to get on one side of the fence or the other, and could not play both sides, and he would give us to the following Monday to make up our minds which side we were on"; and he and Mr. Jim Wilson would be in the office if "we wanted to come in and talk with them." Thomas Hale (ex-employee) testified in substance that: President Katz presented his speech by reading from a paper lying on an improvised table built out of hard- ware boxes; he would read awhile and then look around over the crowd and talk, saying that he came to Tupelo and talked with the "good men" around there about building a plant; the people around Tupelo were "good Christian people" that believed in the things that were right, and told him that if he would go halfway they would go the other half; he came 900 miles to get away from the Union, and was not going to have it back in the plant; he came to get away from the "rats" and was not going to have them in the plant; they would be cut out as an incurable sore "like a cancer on your hand"; there was no law to make him sign a contract, and he would not sign one; he would not sign a union contract; "we could not go as far as to have an election in the plant," that it would have to be stopped; the employees could get up a petition to "stop this union"; "we could go into the office and tell Mr. Wilson what side of the fence we were on, whether we were for the Union or against it"; and if "we were against the Union, he would be 100 percent for us, but if we were for the Union, we would be cut out." C. Interviewing employees Immediately after delivery of his speech to employees on September 30, 1957, both President Katz and Plant Manager Wilson returned to the plant office and :made themselves available for conferences with individual employees. President Katz and Plant Manager Wilson jointly conducted such interviews until approxi- mately 3 p.m. when Katz left for the airport to board a plane for Hoboken, New Jersey. Thereafter, Plant Manager Wilson continued to conduct such interviews during the remainder of that day. One by one the employees went into the office to talk about their respective situations in connection with the organizational cam- paign. According to President Katz these employees consisted of three categories, viz: (1) Those inquiring whether they would be fired or get in any trouble because they had signed union authorization cards, (2) those who denied having signed a union card, and (3) those inquiring whether their names appeared among those listed in the union letter of September 17, 1957, to the Company. Various situa- tions were presented, most of the employees apologized for getting the Union started, and expressed a change in their feelings about getting a union since hearing Mr. Katz' speech. According to Plant Manager Wilson, employees were asked whether they understood the speech and the whole situation. Many asserted that they did not understand what they were doing when they signed the union cards and did not want a union to represent them. Some inquired whether their names appeared in the letter from the Union, which at that time was lying on top of his desk. Some denied having signed any union card, and at least two said they signed the cards as a joke and assured us that they did not want a union. Some said they had signed cards because friends had urged them to do so, and decided that it would not hurt to have an election. Mr. Katz listed in a notebook the names of those interviewed and said he would write them a letter thanking them for their interest in coming in to talk with him. Clyde E. Davis (ex-employee) testified in substance that: Following the speech in the lunchroom he went into the office and shook hands with President Katz; Katz inquired who had given him a union card to sign, and when told that it was Luther Whitten said "You know he is no longer with us"; Whitten was making $75 a week -working for Super Sagless and was still not satisfied, although he had started out as SUPER SAGLESS SPRING CORPORATION 1229 a plumber's helper at $35 a week; "I should remember that if I should be discharged it would be impossible for me to get another job in Tupelo if they called back for references and found that I was laid off on account of the Union' ; the Union was just like a cancer and "you know the only way to get rid of a cancer is to cut it out"; he could fire and hire and keep anybody he wanted as long as he was president; "we would have to make up our minds whether we were going to be for him or for the Union"; and "if we would be for him, he would promise not to lay me off or fire me on account of that." Thereupon, "I told Mr. Katz that I would not have any more dealings with the Union." Archie Milon Carter (ex-employee) testified in substance that Foreman Herman Ray Bishop inquired whether he had been in to talk to Plant Manager Wilson, so he went into the office and told Wilson that he regretted having anything to do with the Union. Archie Wimbs (ex-employee) testified in substance that: The next day after the speech he went into the office and told Plant Manager Wilson that he regretted sign- ing the union card, and inquired whether a man could be fired for going to a meeting and signing a card Wilson said, "If you are through with the Union and want to come back to the plant, we are with you 100 percent. You will not be bothered about your job by signing the union card. We won't hold it against you. I can tell whether you are through with the Union or not by [your] coming in here. You can tell that the foremen are tightening down. I promise you they are going to get tighter"; and he never had any personal interview with President Katz, but received a letter dated October 3, 1957, and postmarked at Jersey City, New Jersey, at 10 p.m. on October 4, 1957, as follows: OCTOBER 3, 1957. Mr. ARCHIE WIMBES, Route #1, Saltillo, Mississippi DEAR ARCHIE: You know I believe in one thing. I believe a man should live his life in a Christian way. From the Lord's Prayer I quote "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." I want you to know that no man at Super Sagless will lose his job because he signed a union card. You can't get your card back from the Union, but you can forget you ever signed it. You made me a promise and I made one to you. I am depending on you to be with me. I'm depending on your help. I assure you that you won't be sorry you are with me and against the Union. Sincerely, SUPER SAGLESS SPRING CORPORATION, (S) ALEX J. KATZ, ALEX J. KATZ, President. Bill Huckaby (ex-employee) testified in substance that: After the speech on September 30, 1957, Foreman George T. Greenwood told him to go into the plant office and talk to President Katz; he did not go in to see Katz, but 1 or 2 days later went into the office and told Plant Manager Wilson that he had signed a union card, but did not want to have anything else to do with it, and inquired whether he would lose his job by reason of it; and Plant Manager Wilson said "No, the plant is with you 100 percent if you won't have anything else to do with it." Clinton Davidson (ex-employee) testified in substance that: During the after- noon following the speech Foreman Herman Ray Bishop came to his machine and inquired: "Dave, aren't you going to the office and talk to Mr. Katz and get out of this union mess? Don't you need a job?"; he then went to see Katz and Wilson in the office. In the course of their conversation be admitted signing a union card, but wanted to get out and have nothing to do with it because he needed his job and had a family to take care of; Mr. Katz said "Well, Dave, you won't have to be worried about the Union as long as you came in and let me know which side of the fence you are on." President Katz then requested him to talk to other men in the plant and persuade them to vote against the Union on election day, and said, "If you do that for me, I promise you one thing-you will have a lifetime job." 5 This witness testified further that: Approximately 10 days later Plant Manager Wilson called him into his office and said: "Dave, 1 am very disappointed in you. I 5 Davidson also testified that he later received a letter from Mr. Katz similar to that identified above as General Counsel's Exhibit No. 12, dated October 3, 1957. 1230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hear you are still going to the union meetings. I thought you gave -Mr. Katz your word that you wouldn't have anything else to do with it"; he denied having attended any more meetings, and assured Wilson that he had talked to the men and done what Mr. Katz asked him to do. When asked if the foremen thought he was working for the Union because he had not signed that petition, Plant Manager Wilson said, ",Oh, not exactly. It's just rumored around that you are still for the Union out there." Thereupon, he told Wilson that he would go back out there and say nothing for or against the Union. Thomas Hale (ex-employee) testified in substance that: During the afternoon following the Katz speech he went into the office and told Plant Manager Wilson that he had made a mistake, but was willing to forget about the whole thing and make a new start; Mr. Wilson said, "You have, but if you will change and not be for the Union, I am 100 percent for you"; "if we went back to the union hall it would cost us our jobs"; and the employees could get up a petition and send it to the National Labor Board to stop the election. Joe L. Sudduth (present employee) testified in substance that: He was a member of the original organizing committee in the plant; he was present in the lunchroom during the speech on September 30, 1957, and heard Mr. Katz say something about "rats"; there were a few in there, and some would have to be cut out. Following the speech he went into the office, and Katz inquired whether he had signed a union card. He asked Mr. Katz whether he would be fired if he got his card back and voted against the Union. Katz said that the Union could not keep him from firing anyone he wanted to; "I didn't have anything to worry about"; "if we could get enough men together we could beat the Union"; that is what he wanted to do; "we could go on strike, but they could not make him pay the wages they asked for"; if the Union won he would not sign a contract; it could not force him to sit down and bargain with them; and "All you can do is walk out on strike and you will be fired." D. Disaffiliation petitions Counsel for Respondent Company introduced in evidence as Official Exhibit No. R-12 an undated written document (herein called the first petition), which was circulated and subscribed by 43 employees, as follows: We the undersigned do not want a union election in our plant. Counsel for the General Counsel introduced in evidence as Official Exhibit No. GC-10 a written document (herein called the second petition), dated October 3, 1957, which was circulated and signed by 44 employees and thereafter received through the mails at the Regional Office of the Board in Memphis, Tennessee, as follows : TUPELO, Miss., Oct. 3, 1957. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Memphis, Tenn: GENTLEMEN: A number of employes of the Super-Sagless Springs company here recently asked a hearing here on a union election, but now all but one or two of that group are opposed to a union and do not want a hearing. We include practically all the group signing the original petition but do not want the union to represent us or act for us. We are taking this action on our own and hope that this letter will enable you to call off the hearing you have set. The 44 names on this petition includes all but 15 of the 59 production workers at Super-Sagless. With minor variations the signatures on both petitions are those of employees whose names had been reported to Respondent Company by the Union in its letter of September 17, 1957, as having signed authorization cards in favor of the Union. It is clear from all testimony that the objective of both petitions was the same- to withdraw their support from the Union and forestall the forthcoming election. The date of circulation and signing of the first petition is unclear, but the following testimony with respect thereto appears in the record, as follows: Christo Hubbard (present employee) testified in substance that he never signed a union car, but went to Plant Manager Wilson in the office, and inquired whether his name had been submitted as an adherent of the Union. Wilson showed him the union letter of -September 17, with his name incorrectly spelled out therein as "Crisco Hubbard"; thereupon he, in company with James Dill and Jack Willis, went to International Representative George Evans at the union hall and asked for their cards back. Evans told them all cards had been set in with the representation SUPER SAGLESS SPRING CORPORATION 1231 petition to the Labor Board at Memphis , but the card purporting to be that of Christo Hubbard had been deleted and destroyed because it was illegibly signed. Thereafter he and James Dill went to the plant office and induced James Easterling (clerk ) to type the aforesaid written statement . Thereafter, they circulated this document among employees in the plant and solicited them to sign it for the purpose of getting their cards back and stopping the election. After obtaining signatures thereon, he and James Dill drove down to the printing office and requested that the signed statement be published in the local newspaper, but their request was refused. He then tucked the statement in his pocket , and returned it to James Easterling at the plant for safekeeping. Plant Manager James S. Wilson testified that 2 or 3 days prior to the Katz speech on September 30, 1957, either Eddie Tigner or Christo Hubbard came to him and wanted to know if he could circulate a petition . He told this employee that he had nothing to do with it; that none of the management could have anything to do with it; and that anything he wanted to do that he could do on his own but not during working hours. Wilson testified further that "a few days after this speech a second petition was started and these people were instructed that none of the foremen had anything to do with it, and they should not circulate any petition during working hours. The only two I remember coming in were possibly Eddie Tigner and Christo Hubbard, and I was the one that talked to them about it. They brought the subject to me. I had never talked about petitions or anything . I merely clarified to them that management or supervision could have nothing to do with any petition to the Labor Board. They asked me ,if I thought it would do any good, and I told them I did not." President Alex J . Katz testified that he did not mention any petition in his speech to employees, but that he was told that a petition had been circulated. Plant Manager Wilson took it out of the office files and showed it to him along with the telegram and letter received from the Union , but he had nothing to say and took no action about it. E. M. Tigner (present employee ) testified in substance that, because some of the men had tried and failed to get their cards back from the Union , he personally conceived the idea of sending a second petition to the Board at Memphis, Tennessee, to get them back. Mr. George McLain of the Tupelo Journal assisted him in preparing and typing the document in his office, and he solicited employees to sign it by telling them it might help get their cards back . Christo Hubbard helped him get signatures thereon. He did not discuss the petitions with any foremen, but told Plant Manager Wilson what he had done. Wilson said not to be telling him anything, that it was none of his business , that whatever we done was on our own. When the signing was completed , he sealed the petition in an envelope addressed to the Labor Board in Memphis, and delivered it to Charles Ray Young (employee) to put in the mails. James W. Easterling (office clerk ) testified in substance that Saturday morning, October 5 , 1957, Charles Ray Young brought to him a sealed envelope addressed to the National Labor Relations Board, Falls Building, Memphis , Tennessee, without any return address thereon , and told him what it was. He readdressed an envelope using an address previously given by the plant manager to office personnel for corre- spondence with the Memphis office of the National Labor Relations Board, typed a return address to Super Sagless Employees at the P. O. Box 197 of Respondent Company, removed and resealed the document, and gave it back to Young for mailing. Tigner was not informed of such action, but he later told Plant Manager Wilson what had been done.6 Counsel for the General Counsel introduced several witnesses with respect to the circulation and signing of both of the foregoing petitions , as follows: Clyde E. Davis ( ex-employee ) testified in substance that he signed both petitions. His foreman (Harvey Franks ) said, "There is going to be a petition passed around, and you better sign it if you expect to keep your job here." The first petition was passed around during working hours by Christo Hubbard a day or two after the speech by Mr. Katz; the second petition was circulated 2 or 3 days later and he signed it in the lunchroom in the presence of Foreman Herman Ray Bishop, who told him that it was going to be sent to the Labor Board in Memphis to stop the elec- tion, and that he better sign it. Thomas Hale (ex-employee) testified in substance that both petitions were cir- culated during working hours in the plant. Christo Hubbard brought the first one to him at his machine on October 1, 1957, the next day after Mr. Katz made his 0 Neither Charles R. Young nor James W. Easterling had signed a union authorization card, and Easterling's name does not appear on the petition. 1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD speech; and E. M. Tigner circulated the second one 2 or 3 days later during the, same week. He overheard Foreman Harvey Franks say to Tigner, "You are on your own, now do as you please." He refused to sign both petitions.? Foreman Harvey Franks, as a witness for Respondent Company, testified in sub- stance that he never discussed the foregoing petitions with any employee, and did not suggest or permit their circulation in the plant. He did not make any statements to Clyde Davis or E. M. Tigner, and did not see Tigner with any petition in his pos- session or have any discussion with him about its circulation. Foreman Herman Ray Bishop, as a witness for Respondent Company, testified in substance that he heard a rumor about petitions in the plant, but never discussed the subject with any employee and that he made no statement to Clyde Davis about it. He did not see any petitions, and had no knowledge that they were being circulated. Concluding Findings as to Interference, Restraint, and Coercion I have no reason to discredit the testimony of President Alex J. Katz and Plant Manager James S. Wilson that the foregoing speech was read verbatim to employees involuntarily assembled in the plant lunchroom on September 30, 1957; but I like- wise credit the testimony of Clyde Davis, William Wiggington, Clinton Davidson, and Thomas Hale as the logical and reasonable interpretation of the message sought to be conveyed by President Katz to all employees participating in the organizational campaign on behalf of the unions. It is apparent that President Katz, with the ad- vice of counsel, made a studied endeavor to interfere with and restrain his employees in their organizational efforts, and at the same time tried to hold his remarks within the limits of free speech, as defined in Section 8(c) of the Act. In the first objec- tivle he was eminently successful, as evidenced by the forthright and complete capitulation of a substantial majority of those who had enthusiastically allied them- selves with the union cause by seeking forgiveness for having engaged in a program so forcefully described as a menace to their employment with Respondent Company. To say the least, this speech was a forceful solicitation of employees to withdraw their membership in the Union by arousing their anxiety and fear of losing employ- ment with Respondent Company. In my opinion it was so saturated with veiled threats of reprisal or force or promise of benefits that any protection as free speech under Section 8(c) is precluded. The ensuing interviewing of individual employees in the plant office at the forceful invitation.of President Katz figuratively separated the sheep from the goats, and ef- fectively consolidated the antiunion attack of Respondent by forcing employees listed by name in the union letter of September 17, 1957, to either openly align themselves with the Company in denouncing the unions or risk the loss of employment by failing to withdraw or repudiate their union affiliations. Consequently, the most convenient method available to comply with Respondent's demands was to circulate and publish a repudiation petition declaring that employees signing the document did not want a union election in the plant. When the plan of publication in a newspaper failed, the plan of requesting the National Labor Relations Board was adopted in the form of a letter seeking to forestall a hearing on the question of representation raised by joint- petition of the unions involved herein. It is apparent that Plant Manager Wilson and other supervisors were fully aware that such disaffiliation petitions were being circulated in the plant and that employees were being solicited to sign these docu- ments. In view of its prior conduct demanding disaffiliation with the Unions, the Respondent cannot now be heard to say that it did not encourage, condone, and ratify this procedure by its employees on company premises and in the presence of supervisors. I find, therefore, from a preponderance of the evidence and the entire record in the case, that Respondent Company interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by the speech of President Katz on September 30, 1957, the subsequent interviewing of individual employees concerning their union activities, and by encouraging, condoning, and ratifying the circulation of petitions in its plant to solicit disaffiliation with the unions. E. Discrimination in employment It is alleged in the complaint that on or about September 28 and 30, 1957, respec- tively, Respondent discharged Kenneth B. Goggans and Luther Whitten by reason of their membership in and activities on behalf of the unions, and to discourage the con- certed organizational activities of its employees. It is admitted that by telegram of 4 Several other witnesses for the General Counsel testified that both of these petitions were circulated In the plant during working hours. SUPER SAGLESS SPRING CORPORATION 1233 September 5, 1957, and letter of September 17, 1957, the unions formally notified the Respondent that these employees, along with others named therein, had signed union authorization cards and were engaging in concerted activities to form a labor organi- zation in its plant. Kenneth B. Goggans was first employed by the Respondent Company in January 1957, and worked as a press operator until May 1957, when he was selected and trained to operate a coil spring machine. When not engaged in the fabrication of coil springs he worked part time under the supervision of Foreman George Thomas Greenwood at the job of inspecting and boxing zig-zag springs for shipment. Melvin Carlock (employee) was engaged in similar duties on a full-time basis. Zig-zag springs are processed in basket lots of 200 or more. These baskets are dipped in a paint vat, set aside for dripping, and then dried and baked in an oven. Following this painting and drying process, the boxers perform a combination in- specting-boxing operation. With apparatus and instruments provided by Respondent Company, they are required to perform a series of measurements and tests by meas- uring the length of three selected springs, and testing each of them for gauge, tension, pressure, etc. The descriptive information to show contents is then inscribed on the outside of the box at time of sealing. Each inspector-boxer also inscribes his identifi- cation number thereon. Respondent introduced in evidence as Official Exhibit No. R-7 an open end zig-zag spring (26-inch, 8 gauge), and Foreman Greenwood demon- strated the prescribed method of measuring and testing such springs prior to boxing for shipment to customers. Throughout the summer of 1957, Respondent Company received numerous com- plaints from customers with respect to the quality of its products and the mislabeling of boxes in which shipments were received. As typical of such complaints, Respond- ent introduced in evidence two letters received from one of its most substantial cus- tomers, as follows: NEW ALBANY, Mississippi, August 8, 1957. SUPER SAGLESS SPRING CORPORATION, 220 Adams Street, Hoboken, New Jersey. Attention: Mr. Alex Katz DEAR MR. KATZ: I have talked to you and your people in management numer- ous time about the quality of your super arch springs and it seems to have reached a point to where talking has not helped your quality in the least. This goes for the lengths of your super arch springs, the temperament of the springs, and the painting not being uniform. Many of these errors appear just plain careless. For example, we will need 221/2 inch springs and we order and we order and get boxes of 221/2 inch springs, we think, but when we open up the box it's full of 22 inch springs. In fact we've had boxes off as much an an inch. We also are getting different seating on various pieces the same size which leads me to believe the temper is bad and is not being checked. I suggest that you personally get into this problem and if you cannot find a solution, then it will be necessary for us to place our business elsewhere. Very truly yours, FUTORIAN-STRATFORD FURNITURE COMPANY, (S) Wm. A. Buskirk, WM. A. BUSKIRK. Mr. ALEX J. KATZ, Super Sag!ess Spring Corporation, 220 Adams Street, Hoboken, New Jersey. SEPTEMBER 17, 1957. DEAR ALEX: It has been brought to my attention by numerous people in our organization, including Eddie Bell and Al Buskirk, that they have constantly been complaining about the quality of your super arch springs and they tell me that thus far all of the crying that they have done has proven to no avail. They have asked me what position they should take as of now and, of course, my first reaction was to tell them to purchase this type product elsewhere and let you peddle your wares to other customers but due to our long business relationship, as well as our personal relationship, I feel that you should be given a little more time to straighten out your plant. Alex, believe me, when I tell you that we cannot tolerate the .type of quality that has been received from your Tupelo plant very much longer. I do not care to go into the details of exactly what is wrong with your products 1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD because I believe it has been outlined on numerous occasions by other members of our organization. The only thing that I wish to hear from our people is that the merchandise furnished by you is correct and up to our quality 'standards. , Please do me a favor and do not cause me to take further action on this subject, Kindest personal regards. Yours very truly, FUTORIAN-STRATFORD FURNITURE CO., (S) William Taymon, WILLIAM TAYMON, General Manager. On or about September 18, 1957, Georgetown Furniture Manufacturing Company, Georgetown, Mississippi, also complained to Factory Representative Gerald W. Shumpert that Respondent had shipped them three boxes of defective zig-zag springs. Upon investigation it was found that these springs were made out of coil spring wire greatly inferior in quality to wire customarily used in the fabrication of zig-zag springs, and that the shipping boxes bore the identification number of Kenneth B. Goggans. Consequently, both Goggans and Carlock were called in on September 24, 1957, and given a written warning by Foreman Greenwood and General Foreman J. C. Buskirk. Thereupon, both Plant Manager Wilson and General Foreman Buskirk authorized Foreman Greenwood to discharge either or both of these employees in the event more mistakes in boxing springs were dis- covered. On a previous occasion Carlock and Goggans had already been given a written warning for smoking on the plant premises during working hours. Re- spondent Company had a rule prohibiting smoking anywhere on plant premises, except in or around the lunchroom during break periods. On or about September 24, 1957, Respondent Company received a purchase order for zig-zag springs to be shipped to Super Sagless Spring Corporation of Florida (not affiliated with Respondent in this case). One item of the purchase order called for "100 pcs. 26," 8 gauge, open end springs (50 boxes), and on Saturday, September 28, 1957, the plant was operating on an overtime basis to complete the fabrication and boxing of this particular order. Kenneth B. Goggans and Melvin Carlock reported for work on that day, and engaged in their customary duties of inspecting and boxing the springs for shipment. No other 26-inch zig-zag open end springs were being run at that time. While supervising the work, Foreman Greenwood discovered that Goggans had marked one box to show that it con- tained 261/2-inch springs. He immediately broken open the carton and measured one of the springs therein. Finding that this spring measured only 26 inches in length, he called it to the attention of Goggans and measured it again in his presence. Goggans insisted that his own measurement was correct and declined to correct the marking on the box. Thereupon, Foreman Greenwood admittedly lost his temper, and discharged Kenneth B. Goggans, and told him to get out and punch his time- card. I do not credit testimony of Goggans and Carlock to the effect that the foreman deliberately falsified the measurement as an excuse to discharge Goggans. In my opinion a preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that Foreman Greenwood deliberately framed a situation here to discharge Kenneth B. Goggans because of his union activities. I shall recommend, therefore, that the complaint be dismissed with respect to this alleged discriminatory discharge. Luther Whitten was first employed by Respondent Company in January 1957, and worked in the maintenance department under the supervision of Foreman Charles Gusmus. It is contended by Respondent that Whitten was a boisterous playboy in the plant, and would not stay on the job; that other employees com- plained about having to work with him, and on one occasion he came near to causing a serious accident by pushing too fast a rolling scaffold on which two other men were working; and that he was a smart aleck and was not inclined to listen to instructions from his foreman. On one occasion he had been given a written warning for smoking on the job contrary to plant rules, and on other occasions had been verbally reprimanded for smoking in the plant. General Fore- man J. C. Buskirk testified that Foreman Gusmus had frequently complained about the smart alecky attitude of Whitten, and that other foremen complained about his distracting employees from their work by talking to them-but no action was taken to discharge him at those times, because President Katz told them that good main- tenance men were hard to get and that they should try to work along with Whitten and make a good man out of him. Plant Manager Wilson testified to the same effect. President Katz testified that Foreman Gusmus had reported to him and Plant Manager Wilson that Whitten was high spirited, fooled around, and would not stay on the job, but he (Katz) took the position that it was the responsi- SUPER SAGLESS SPRING CORPORATION 1235 bility of the foreman to put some sense in the man's head and straighten him out rather than discharge him. In the maintenance department Luther Whitten, Leland Kesler, and William Wiggington worked regularly together under the supervision of Foreman Gusmus. This group including the foreman often drank beer together after work hours. On Saturday afternoon, September 28, 1957, Foreman Gusmus and Leland Kesler were out together and drank a few beers. About 6:30 p.m., Kesler suggested that they go to the home of Luther Whitten. Upon arrival they invited Whitten to go out to have a beer with them, but he declined and invited them to come into his house and have some coffee. They went inside and found Wiggington already there. In the course of conversation, Foreman Gusmus reproached Whitten concerning his conduct at the plant. Foreman Gusmus testified that he said to Whitten: "Luther,. you haven't got the right attitude down at the plant. I have been after you about this thing and it doesn't look like you are going to straighten up. You are going to have to get the lead out." Leland Kesler testified that the foreman told Whitten that he would have to get the lead out of himself down in the plant, he was not doing good. William Wiggington testified that Foreman Gusmus said "Let's drink this. coffee off of the Union," and told Whitten that he did not like the way we were sticking our necks out about this union, and wanted to know which side we were on, for the Union or for the Company-that the Company did not like for us to stick our necks out like that, and we knew what would happen to us if we did. Luther Whitten testified that Foreman Gusmus said that he was sticking his neck out down there at the plant-that they do not like anyone to stick their necks out too far. At any rate it is clear from all testimony that Whitten refused to discuss the subject, and Foreman Gusmus left his house and went down to the plant. At the plant he discussed the subject with President Katz in the plant office, and insisted that Whitten be discharged. As a result of this conversation President Katz agreed to clear the matter with Plant Manager Wilson and General Foreman Buskirk to have Whitten discharged. After conferring with Plant Manager Wilson, President Katz personally called General Foreman J. C. Buskirk by telephone early Monday morning, September 30, 1957, notified him that they had decided to discharge Whit- ten, and told Buskirk to remove his timecard from the rack to prevent his reporting to work. Buskirk in turn notified Foreman Gusmus to go ahead and discharge Luther Whitten. Thereupon, Foreman Gusmus went immediately to the plant lunchroom and found Whitten sitting at a table, and said: "Luther, I reckon we don't need you anymore." According to Whitten, Foreman Gusmus said: "You are fired. The reason I am firing you is because you think you can't be fired." William Wiggington testified that he was present in the lunchroom about 7 a.m. and heard Foreman Gusmus say to Luther Whitten: "We are firing you because you think you can't be fired." Thereafter, at approximately 9:30 a.m., all employees were assembled in the lunchroom by Plant Manager Wilson over the loudspeaker set to hear the speech of President Katz, supra, in which he discussed. at considerable length the discharge of an unnamed employee that day. It may be true that Foreman Gusmus had for a long time nursed a desire to dis- charge Whitten, but the evidence in this case fails to disclose any additional cause for his discharge on September 30, 1957, other than his current activities on behalf of the Union. It is clear, therefore, that such activities were the determining factor that brought about the consent of President Katz on the eve of his antiunion speech to discharge an employee previously desired by him for retention in the maintenance department. I find, therefore, that Respondent discharged Luther Whitten because of his concerted activities with other employees in their organizational efforts, to dis- courage membership in a labor organization. F. The alleged refusal to bargain The second amended charge in this case filed on November 25, 1957, alleged inter alia that on or about September 10, 1957, and thereafter, Respondent Com- pany refused to bargain collectively with Upholsterers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, as the chosen majority representative of its employees in an appropriate unit. Based thereon and upon his own investigation thereof, the Gen- eral Counsel on September 10, 1958, filed a complaint alleging that on or about October 2, 1957, and thereafter, Respondent refused to meet and bargain collectively with the Upholsterers' Union and Teamsters Local 591 (and after on or about May 1, 1958, with the Upholsterers' Union and Teamsters Local 984) as the joint bar- gaining representative of all employees in the appropriate unit. The facts are that on September 10, 1957, the Upholsterers' International Union and International 1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Brotherhood of Teamsters , Local 591, jointly filed a representation petition with the National Labor Relations Board, and on November 18, 1957, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election . By reason of pending charges in the instant case no election was held, and the aforesaid jointly filed petition was withdrawn. Other than filing the joint-petition in Case No. 32-RC-1073, the only demand made upon Respondent Company for recognition and bargaining is contained in the jointly signed registered letter of October 1, 1957, supra, in which it was asserted that a large majority of Respondent 's employees had signed authorization cards designating Upholsterers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 591, AFL-CIO, as their bargaining agent with respect to wages, hours, and working conditions . By reason of the later merger and transfer of all its rights and privileges by Teamsters Local 591 to Teamsters Local 984, the latter organization claims succession to any authorization jointly held by the Upholsterers' International Union and Teamsters Local 591. In support of the proposed joint representation , aforesaid, the General Counsel introduced in evidence union authorization cards purportedly signed by 47 employ- ees in the appropriate unit, which read, as follows: Upholsterers' International Union of North America A.F. of L. I do hereby designate and authorize the Upholsterers ' International Union of North America, A.F. of L., and its representatives to act as my repre- sentative for the purpose of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of employment. I hereby voluntarily authorize and direct my Employer ------------------- (Company name) to deduct from the wages due me on the first pay day of each month com- mencing with the month of ------------------------------ and continuing thereafter for the period as herein provided the full amount of any initiation fees, dues and assessments , established by the Upholsterers ' International Union and its Agent, Local Union No. ______________________________ and to pay the same to the officer of the said Local Union No. __________________ designated to receive such deductions on my half. The certificate of the said designated officer of the Local Union as to the amount of initiation fees and dues properly deductible shall be binding upon me, and his receipt shall relieve my employer of all further liability to me for the amounts deducted. I agree and direct that this assignment , authorization and direction shall be automatically renewed, and shall be irrevocable for successive periods of one (1) year each or for the periods of each succeeding applicable collective agree- ment between the Employer and the Union , whichever shall be shorter, unless written notice is given by me to the Employer and the Union not more than twenty (20) days and not less than ten (10 ) days prior to the expiration of each period of one ( 1) year or of each applicable collective agreement between the Employer and the Union, whichever occurs sooner. U.I.U. Copy Signed------------------------------ (Name) (Date) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (Address ) (City) ( State) Counsel for the General Counsel also introduced in evidence one union authoriza- tion card purportedly signed by a truckdriver named Jimmy McMullen , as follows: 8 APPLICATION for MEMBERSHIP INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA ----------------Local Union No. ---------- Date -------------------- I, the undersigned hereby apply for admission to membership in the above Union of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America and voluntarily choose and designate it as my representative for purposes of collective bargaining , hereby revoking any con- 8 In the opinion of the Trial Examiner the signature of this employee thereon is not authentic , and must be rejected as evidence of authorization. SUPER SAGLESS SPRING CORPORATION 1237 trary designation. If admitted to membership, I agree to abide by the Consti- tution of the International as well as the local Constitution and By-Laws which are not in conflict with the International laws. Name------------------------------Occupation----------------------- (Print full Name) Home Address-----------------------Phone--------------------------- Business Address --------------------- Phone ___________________________ Employer and Place Employed ------------------------------------------------------ Initiation Fee________________________ Paid to____-____-_-______________. Date of birth ------------ Health ------------ Social Security No.__________ ------------------------------ Signature of Applicant In offering the aforesaid authorization cards counsel for the General Counsel strenuously objected to the admission of any oral testimony by Respondent Com- pany to vary or contradict the terms of the written documents involved, and the Trial Examiner sustained that objection except as to testimony tending to show that the signatures of employees thereon were obtained by means of fraud, mis- representation, restraint, or coercion. With respect to the 47 cards signed in favor of Upholsterers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, it is clear from a preponderance of the evidence that more than a majority of Respondent's em- ployees in the appropriate unit authorized that labor organization to represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining. With respect to the one authorization card purportedly signed by Jimmy McMullen, I am constrained to find from a prepon- derance of the evidence that the General Counsel has failed to authenticate or prove his signature thereon. By reason of my conclusions hereinafter stated pertaining to the legal effect of these authorization cards with respect to joint representation by the Upholsterers' Union and Teamsters Local 984, 1 find it unnecessary to make credibility findings at this time with respect to the signing of each individual card, and assuming majority authorization in favor of Upholsterers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, but not in favor of Teamsters Local 984, I shall proceed upon the principle advocated and insisted upon by the General Counsel that the written authorization cards speak for themselves, and that the terms of authoriza- tion contained therein cannot be supplemented or changed by oral testimony to conform with outside verbal agreements or varied interpretations of the meaning of the authorization granted in writing. It is clear, however, that the written union authorization cards signed by employees of the Respondent did not authorize the two labor organizations herein involved to the act for them as a joint representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. Since that is the sole issue before me with respect to violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, I am constrained to recommend dismissal of the complaint as to that issue. The fact that Respondent Company has engaged in other unfair labor practices herein found to be violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act does not constitute a conclusive basis for finding a refusal to bargain with a joint representative in the absence of Board certification or other clearly defined authorization by a majority of the employees in writing. Verbal understandings or proposals acquiesced in during the heat and vicissitudes of an organizational campaign short of an election by secret ballot or signed au- thorization cards cannot in my opinion be relied upon to designate or select the ex- clusive representative of all employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. In the absence of more conclusive evidence that the pro- posed joint representation, as alleged in the complaint, was authorized by a majority of employees in the appropriate unit, I cannot find that Respondent Company has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act by failing to recognize and negotiate with such joint bargaining representative. It is recommended, therefore, that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that Respondent Company violated Section 8(a) (5) of the Act by refusing to bargain with a joint representative of its employees. N. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent Company set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. 53582,8-60-vol. 12 5-7 9 1238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. THE REMEDY Notwithstanding my recommendation that certain allegations of the complaint be dismissed, I have found that Respondent Super Sagless Spring Corporation has (1) interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and (2) discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Luther Whitten (employee) to discourage membership in a labor organization. I shall recommend, therefore, that Respondent Company cease ,and desist from such conduct and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Upholsterers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, and General Drivers, Salesmen and Warehousemen's Local Union No. 984, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, as found above, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Luther Whitten (employee) to discourage membership in a labor organization, and thereby derivatively interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent Company engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Mercast Manufacturing Corporation and International Molders and Foundry Workers Union, Local No. 374, AFL-CIO. Case No. 21-CA-3301. December 29, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On July 21, 1959, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett 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 certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Respondent also filed a brief in support of those portions of the Intermediate Report to which the General Counsel excepted. The Board 1 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 'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins]. 125 NLRB No. 123.