Imperial Eastman Corp.

IMPERIAL EASTMAN CORPORATION 1255 that the Petitioner's unit request was based upon its extent of or- ganization because it had, on two previous occasions, sought single units of both the O'Hare and Midway employees. Here, the appro- priateness of the unit sought is supported by factors unrelated to the Petitioner's extent of organization and there is no evidence to show that its present unit request is based upon its extent of organization. The Board has frequently held in cases involving centralized per- sonnel policies and labor relations,' as here, that, absent a history of collective bargaining on a broader basis, separate units of an em- ployer's operations may be appropriate by reason of the existence of day-to-day operating autonomy in each unit, geographical separation of the operations, and the lack of substantial employee interchange. The record establishes that the Employer's Friendship and National Airport operations are entirely separate; as already found, they are about 35 miles apart and are each in charge of managers who oversee the day-to-day operations. The identity in working conditions at the two airports is shared by other units of the Employer's operations throughout the country. The ratio of transfers between the two air- ports does not appear to be higher than that of transfers to other airports outside of the Washington metropolitan area. Under these circumstances, and as a plant unit is presumptively appropriate, we find that the requested unit, limited to the Employer's employees at Friendship Airport, is appropriate. Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All food equipment handlers, dish room attendants, station attendants, cooks, utility people, me- chanics, and dispatchers employed at the Employer's airlines cater- ing operation at Friendship Airport, Baltimore, Maryland, exclud- ing office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 9 National Caterers of New York, Inc., 129 NLRB 699. Imperial Eastman Corporation and United Steelworkers of America, District #32, Charging Party. Case No. 13-CA-4510. November 26, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On August 21, 1962, Trial Examiner George L. Powell issued his Intermediate Report, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommend- 139 NLRB No. 115. 1256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report together with a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown]. 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 Intermedi- ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings of the Trial Examiner only to the extent they are consistent with our conclusions and Order herein. The complaint alleges that management and supervisory personnel of the Respondent visited the homes of various employees within a period of 7 to 10 days before a pending election and made promises of benefits conditioned upon rejection of the Union, and threatened losses of benefits and other reprisals if the Union won, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. As already noted, the Trial Examiner recom- mended dismissal of the complaint in its entirety. We reject this recommendation. As found by the Trial Examiner, the Eastman Manufacturing Com- pany and the Imperial Brass Company merged on September 30. 1960, becoming Imperial Eastman, the Respondent herein. At that time, and at various times thereafter, through June 20, 1961, the Re- spondent informed its employees, orally and by letter, of benefits it had already given I or would effectuate for them.' The Respondent's letter of June 20, 1961, which is fully set forth in the Intermediate Report, is typical of the type of information conveyed by the Respond- ent to its employees. The Respondent there lists seven "accomplish- ments," i.e., increased life insurance coverage, liberalized vacation policy, a floating holiday, overtime for Saturday work, completion of a job evaluation study, and institution of an incentive program in one department and promises to complete a shift differential survey, stat- ing that Respondent's differentials are "considerably above average," and noting that an insurance committee appointed 5 months before to study "our current coverage," predicting that their report would be forthcoming "very shortly." Then follows these paragraphs : 1 The claimed benefits include increased holidays, a liberalized vacation plan, overtime for Saturday work, and additional life insurance 2 Such as the promise of job postings, job evaluation and reclassification, incentive pro- grams, and further improvements in life insurance coverage IMPERIAL EASTMAN CORPORATION 1257 We have been told that some of you have recently received a letter from the International Association of Machinists, AFL- CIO, enclosing a card which they have requested you to fill out and return. I think it is highly important that you should consider very carefully whether it is to your best advantage to hire an outside party to represent you. Never in the history of our Company- in either Division-has anyone had to pay one cent in order to get constantly increasing improvements in wages and other ben- efits, and there is no reason for you to do so in the future. Following this letter, the employees received no further benefits, nor were they given further progress reports until shortly before the October 27, 1961, election when, between October 17 and 24, 1961, teams of Respondent's representatives visited the homes of 11 em- ployees.' This was the first and only time Respondent's representa- tives had ever visited employees, and all the visits, except one, were made at the request of these representatives. Each visit followed a general pattern wherein the representatives explained the Respondent's present insurance program and promised further improvements. Several of the employees were told the Re- spondent had called for bids in this area. The employees were asked if they had any complaints or questions about their work. In re- sponse to employee remarks, the representatives made various state- ments and promises, including promises of new benefits, and revived old promises of future benefits, as discussed below. Prior to the home visits, the Respondent had never made any promises concerning either reinstatement of bonuses or institution of a sick leave program. During the visits, however, Assistant Director of Customer Services Willard Forte, in response to employee Groelle's question, indicated that bonuses might be reinstituted,4 and Assistant Superintendent Charles Erickson made the unsolicited announcement to employee Hauser that the Company intended to bring back the bonus. In response to the represent atives' solicitation of complaints, employees Loritz, Osieczanek, and Czekali. were told that a sick leave plan would be inaugurated.-' Shortly after the merger, employees were told there would be job posting. This promise was repeated at an employee meeting in Janu- ary 1961, but was not mentioned again until the time of the visits when several of those visited were assured there would be job posting in the future. The practice of job posting was instituted after the election. Job evaluation was also promised after the merger; it was mentioned 8 Each team consisted of two individuals, and included such Respondent representatives as the vice president of Respondent, the sales manager of the Eastman division, and the plant superintendent and assistant plant superintendent of Eastman division 4 The granting of bonuses had ceased 2 years earlier. 6 A sick leave plan was effectuated 3 or 4 months after the election. 1258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in January and again in the June letter. There was no further men- tion of the matter until the time of the visits, when employee Robinson was promised by the plant superintendent and a foreman that there would be job reclassification in the near future. Further, at the time of the merger, and in January, employees were told that the Company would institute an incentive program ; in the June letter, employees were told an incentive program had been started a few days before in the light machinery and parts assembly department, and that "we plan to continue this program in other departments as soon as time will permit." Nothing further was done about this matter until the time of the visits, when employee Kostechka was told by the sales manager that there was "an incentive plan coming in and we would be making more money." At the time of the merger, the Respondent explained to its employ- ees that there would be a new and liberalized life insurance and a health and hospitalization program. They were again told this in January and also that a committee would be appointed to study the matter. In the June letter, the Respondent stated that the life in- surance program had been liberalized with increased coverage and that an insurance committee, appointed "about 5 months ago," was making a thorough study of "our various types of current coverage" and will make a report "very shortly" with "recommendations .. . to further improve our insurance program." Nothing further was said on this subject until the visits when employees were told that the bids had been let to 14 companies and "better" and "wonderful" policies were mentioned. During the visit to employee Loritz, it was stated that a sickness and health policy was ready to be presented but was being held up pending the election, and that, if the Union won, it would probably have to be bargained for before it could be put into effect. It also appears that at the time of the visits the employees had not received their regular merit raises. When employee Osieczanek asked about this he was told the Respondent could not give a raise at that time because of the Union, but would do so after the election. As found by the Trial Examiner, company representatives also promised several of the employees that they would either look into or try to remedy various complaints having to do with such matters as wage increases and vacation benefits. The Trial Examiner has considered the home visits as a continuation of "a pattern of company communications to the employees already in existence" during which "no new benefits were put in as a `promise of benefit' for the employees to vote against the unions in the forth- coming election." We do not take this view of the evidence. As already indicated, these home visits were the first and only ones ever made by company representatives. Those who made them were top IMPERIAL EASTMAN CORPORATION 1259 management officials. The visits took place just before the election and all were made for the obvious purpose of influencing the employ- ees to vote against the Union in the forthcoming election. Respond- ent's efforts on these occasions to win the support of the employees consisted of promising certain benefits and advantages which it had not theretofore held out to them. Respondent also solicited com- plaints and grievances from employees and promised to look into the matter of their correction. In addition, it renewed promises long ago made but never fulfilled. Respondent's last mention of certain of the benefits promised was in its letter of June 20, a letter which was itself plainly designed to woo the employees away from the labor organization then seeking to organize them. The record offers no satisfactory explanation for Respondent's conduct on the eve of the election except the one we find herein. We view Respondent's conduct herein as promises of benefits which were calculated to in- fluence the employees in their choice of a bargaining representative in the upcoming election. We find that the Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.' THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent, as set forth above, which have been found to constitute unfair labor practices occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in the Intermediate Report, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. However, nothing herein shall be construed as requiring the Respondent to vary or abandon any economic benefit or any term or condition of employment which the Respondent has heretofore established. 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, Imperial East- man Corporation, Manitowoc, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : Owe find it unnecessary to decide whether, as the General Counsel contends, the home visits, apart from what was said in the course thereof, were per se violative of the Act. 1260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Offering or promising any of its employees beneficial changes in their hours, wages, or working conditions for the purpose of in- fluencing them in their choice of a bargaining representative or other- wise interfering with its employees in their selection of a bargaimlg representative. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self- organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Steelworkers of America, District #32, or any other labor organiza- tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor or- ganization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as amended. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its plant at Manitowoc, Wisconsin, copies of the at- tached notice marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. ' In 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." 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, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT offer or promise any of our employees beneficial changes in their hours, wages, or working conditions for the pur- pose of influencing them in their choice of a bargaining repre- sentative or otherwise interfere with their selection of a bargain- ing representative. IMPERIAL EASTMAN CORPORATION 1261 EVE WILL I NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Steelworkers of America, District #32, or any other labor organization, to bargain colleci,ively 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 such activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended. All our employees are free to become, to remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named Union, or any other labor organization. IMPERIAL EASTMAN CORPORATION, Employer. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Ofice, 176 West .iclalns Street, Chicago 3, Illinois, Telephone Num- ber, Central 6-0660, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding began with the filing of the charge on October 30, 1961,' by United Steelworkers of America, District #32, herein called the Charging Party, Union, or Steelworkers, alleging that since the date of the Direction of Election in a representation case, Imperial Eastman Corporation, herein called Respondent or employer, has: (1) coerced employees through home visits by supervisors and others, (2) influenced employees on company time by employing bargaining unit personnel; and (3) promised certain increased benefits to employees if they rejected the Union and threatened a less liberal employment and tenure policy if the Union prevailed in the election, all in violation of the rights of its employees guaranteed under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, and hence Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act The General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, issued his complaint and notice of hearing on Decem- ber 15, 1961, alleging that certain supervisors and agents of Respondent visited the homes of various employees and made promises of benefit conditioned upon em- ployees rejecting the Union; and certain supervisors and agents of Respondent visited the homes of various employees and threatened its employees with losses of benefits or other reprisals if the Union won the election The hearing in the case was held before Trial Examiner George L Powell on February 8, 1962, in Manitowoc, Wis- 'All dates are in the year 1961 unless otherwise noted. 1262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cousin , after answer denying the essential allegations of the complaint had been filed by Respondent. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues. Briefs have been filed by the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Respondent and have been considered. Upon the entire record in the case and my observation of the witnesses, and for the reasons set out in detail below, I find that the General Counsel has not sus- tained the burden of proving the violations of the Act alleged in the complaint and I will recommend that the complaint be dismissed. Accordingly, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Imperial Eastman Corporation is an Illinois corporation , with its main office and plant in Chicago, Illinois, having operations in States other than Illinois, and main- taining a plant and facilities in Manitowoc , Wisconsin. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing hose assemblies and couplings and other related products. Dur- ing the calendar year 1960, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, shipped completed goods valued in excess of $50,000 from its plant in Manitowoc directly to points located outside the State of Wisconsin. During the same period, Respondent purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000 from points outside of the State of Wisconsin, which goods were shipped directly to its plant in Manitowoc, Wisconsin. At all times material to the issues herein, Respondent is and has been an em- ployer as defined in Section 2(2) of the Act, and is and has been engaged in com- merce and in operations affecting commerce as defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, respectively. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is, and has been at all material times, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Background The parties stipulated that the Charging Union made a demand for recognition from Respondent on August 4, 1961, and filed a petition for an election on August 7, for a unit of production and maintenance employees , including experimental and engineering, but excluding office clerical and supervisors. Pursuant to a Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Election dated Octo- ber 12 (not published in NLRB volumes), an election by secret ballot was con- ducted at Respondent's Manitowoc plant on October 27, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director of the Thirteenth Region of the Board. Of the 167 eligible voters, 164 voted; 56 cast their votes for United Steelworkers of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO, the Petitioner, none voted for the Intervenor, Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and 104 cast their votes against either labor or- ganization. Timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election were filed by United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, on November 2. On Decem- ber 8, the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region issued his Supplemental De- cision (Case No. 13-RC-8000, not published in NLRB volumes), in which he overruled all of the objections except objection No. 3 which he sustained. He therefore set aside the election with the statement that a new election would be con- ducted at such time as the charge in the instant case is either waived or disposed of. The Regional Director reported that the investigation of objection No. 3 revealed that 12 employer representatives, operating in pairs, visited a majority of the em- ployees at their homes during the period October 12 to 25. Included among these employer representatives were the vice president of the Eastman division, the plant superintendent, the assistant superintendent, the personnel director, the traffic man- ager, and several foremen. The Regional Director thought it unnecessary to resolve the credibility issue or factual dispute concerning the conversations between the employer representatives and the employees in the meetings held at employees' homes in order to determine whether promises or threats were made to employees at these meetings. He held that these interviews, ". . conducted at the homes of em- ployees by top management representatives and when viewed against the background of Employer letters and speeches which clearly demonstrate disapproval of Petitioner, constitute interference with the free choice of a bargaining representative." The IMPERIAL EASTMAN CORPORATION 1263 Employer letters and speeches just referred to were involved in the other objections filed but these objections were overruled as being lacking in merit. The issues involved are : ( 1) whether statements made to employees during home visits by managerial representatives constitute promises of benefits conditioned upon the employees rejecting the Union in an election held October 27, or threats of losses of benefit or other reprisals if the Union won the election of October 27; and (2) whether such home visits during a union organizational campaign are coercive or otherwise violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.2 Two provisions of the Act are involved in this case. SEc. 8(a ) It shall be a unfair labor practice for an employer- (1) to interfere with, restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7, (c) The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not con- stitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this Act, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. The General Counsel, in support of his theory of the case , called 11 employees to the witness stand . Each testified that he was visited at his home by a team of two persons representing management of the Respondent , and each testified that he gave permission for the visit when such permission was asked . One, Archie Brouchoud, testified he invited them to his home without being asked . Respondent relied upon the testimony of these witnesses as brought out in the direct and cross- examination because it did not call to the stand any member of any of the above teams for his testimony. Hence, each witness is generally credited , but inasmuch as there were some variances in the testimony , a few credibility determinations will be made. A. The visits of Korte and Erickson Willard Korte, assistant director of customer services, and Charles Erickson, assistant plant superintendent of Eastman division, visited the homes of Raymond Hauser, Robert Loritz, and Rienhardt Groelle. Raymond Hauser, an employee of 9 years, testified that they visited him at his home for about 2 hours starting about 7 o'clock in the evening of October 20. He said they first talked about sinus trouble and then Mr. Erickson said, "Friday is the election, and we just came out here to explain things to you about the insurance and so forth . . . We want to make sure that you thoroughly understand it." The life insurance and hospitalization program was then explained and then Mr. Korte said, "We're going to improve it, too .... We have bids out with about 14 com- panies right now . . I just don't know exactly what we are going to come up with, but anyways it's going to be better than what we have." He further testified that Erickson said that if the Union would get in the plant any gripes he would have would have to be taken to the steward and they could not be brought to him. He admitted that Erickson said, "We aren't going to take anything away from you. If anything, we are going to give you more." Mr. Hauser then said, "Well, if you had a union in there you would have it on contract and then you would know that you couldn't take it away." To this Erickson replied, "Well, contracts are often broke. They don't mean much." He further testified that Mr. Erickson said, "We also intend to bring back the bonus . They have it down at Imperial." He testified that in the past there had been a bonus at the Eastman division, but some 2 years earlier it had been canceled and that this was the first time he heard they were thinking of bringing the bonus back. The following took place on direct examination: Q. Is there anything further to the conversation at your house that you recall at this time, Mr. Hauser? A. I recall Willard Korte, he said, "Now that you brought that out about the Union," he said, "just what do you think the Union would do for you?" Q. And what did you say to that, if anything? 2The Respondent's brief urged dismissal of this second issue on the ground, inter alia, that it was not pleaded in the complaint. Dismissal on this ground is too technical as the visits were thoroughly litigated. The addition of a third part to the complaint that the visits themselves were coercive under the circumstances is unnecessary when the complaint alleged they ". . . visited . . . and made promises ... ," and ". . . visited . . . and threatened . . . . 1264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A. I said that $5 a month fee would amount to 30 an hour on a 40-hour week, and I said if I got a nickel raise and was putting in a little overtime we would be double our money. So, I said, "Any more questions9" On cross-examination, Hauser admitted that in the summer of 1960 he heard of the coming merger of Eastman Manufacturing Company and the imperial Brass Company and thereafter knew they merged as of September 30, 1960, and that the corporate name became imperial Eastman Corporation. He was asked if follow- ing the merger the employees were not advised about changes in the pension plans and were called in to meetings. He could not "recall very clearly " Then he was asked if he remembered being called in to a meeting with other employees. He could not recall this. He also could not recall whether there were meetings with representatives at which time the employees were told that an insurance committee had been appointed to investigate the Company's insurance, nor could he recall any meetings in the plant with employees. He admitted receiving letters from Musham, president of Respondent, and from Merlin Brose, vice president and general man- ager of the Eastman division, but whether or not he read the letters he testified, "Some I did and some I didn't." His explanation as to why he did not read some of the letters was that they came when he was busy and he put them away and forgot to open them. He admitted the letters started to come in January 1961, and they would be letters from both Musham and Brose He admitted the letters generally kept the employees informed of what was going on in the Company, including changes in incentive plans and so forth. He admitted receiving a letter from Respondent dated June 20, 1961. He referred to this letter as being "just about the life insurance." Due to its importance in the case, the letter is reproduced in full: IMPERIAL EASTMAN CORPORATION MANITOWOC, WISCONSTN 1440 NORTH 24th STREET TELEPHONE MT'rra^• 4-4495 JUNE 20, 1961. DEAR FELLOW EMPLOYEES : The month of June officially marks the begin- ning of the vacation period. Some of you have already taken a vacation- however, most of you are formulating plans for the anxiously awaited time for relaxation, trips, fishing, swimming, etc. I am happy to tell you that sales in the Eastman Division for the first five months of 1961 show an increase of 11.8 % over the corresponding period for 1960 With business conditions gradually improving , it is of paramount im- portance that we keep our delivery promises to our customers . With this increased volume, this problem becomes more and more acute. We have built up a reputation for excellent service over a period of years, and we must exert every effort to preserve this reputation. With the month of June fast coming to a close, we will have completed the first half of the calendar year, and we thought that you perhaps might be interested in a review of our accomplishments thus far: 1. We have liberalized our life insurance program which has resulted in increased coverage , particularly for those of us with three or more years of continuous employment. 2. Many of you will be taking a longer vacation this year due to the liberalization of our vacation policy. 3. The floating holiday is another innovation , and this seventh paid holiday, as a result of your vote, will be observed on July 3 4. Recently you were informed that ail Saturday work would be paid for on an overtime basis. 5. A scientific job evaluation study was made which placed jobs in proper relation to each other and resulted in increases for many of you. 6 On Monday of this week we started an incentive program in the hgh, machinery and parts assembly departments which we expect will result in increased earnings . We plan to continue this program in other departments as soon as time will permit. 7 Shift differential rates were surveyed, and our policy of an additional 10¢ per hour for the second shift and 15 0 per hour for the third shift is considerably above average. You will be interested , we are sure , to know that an Insurance Committee was appointed about five months ago A thorough study has been made of IMPERIAL EASTMAN CORPORATION 1265 our various types of current coverage . This Committee will make its report very saortly, and recommendations will be made to further improve our insur- ance program. For some time it has been planned that a Directors' Meeting of the Imperial- Eastman Corporation be held here in the Eastman Division plant. We are pleased to report that arrangements have been made to hold the next Directors' Meeting here in Manitowoc on Friday afternoon , June 23. We have been told that some of you have recently received a letter from the Internationrl Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, enclosing a card which they have requested you to fill out and return I think it is highly important that you should consider very carefully whether it is to your best advantage to hire an outside party to represent you. Never in the history of our Company-in either Division-has anyone had to pay one cent in order to get constantly increasing improvements in wages and other benefits, and there is no reason for you to do so in the future. No doubt the question has sometimes been asked whether or not the Eastman Division has lost any of its identity or "family spirit " since the merger. 1 can personally assure you that it has not We have said many times that the Imperial-Eastman Corporation is an organization which is intensely interested in the welfare of its employees You will agree, I am sure, that all of the increased benefits which have and will become a reality in such a short time prove this beyond a doubt Imperial-Eastman will always be a GOOD PLACE TO WORK. Sincerely yours, (S) MERLIN BROSE, Vice President and General Manager. P.S. Within several weeks we will all be enjoying two successive paid holi- days-July 3 and 4. We sincerely hope that you will have a most pleasant holiday weekend, and please be careful-observe all the safety rules! MWB/mbf Hauser admitted receiving three letters written by Brose and Musham Prior to the visit of October 20, he admitted being present at the plant on October 17 when Musham talked to the employees, but could not remember what Musham said. He also could not remember anything that Brose said in a talk to the employees on the same lay. All he could remember of the talk given by Brose on October 25, 2 days before the election, was: All I could remember about it was he said "Friday is a very important day," election day, and he wanted everyone to vote, and regardless of how they voted he said there would be no discrimination, if you wanted to vote, but he said, "Before you vote, I want you to think deeply." 3 He admitted Brose's talk lasted about 15 minutes, but this was all that he could recall that was said. On the same day Musham talked to the employees for about 10 minutes and although he could hear him and understand what he said, he could not remember anything that he said. He admitted that he understood that the em- ployees could vote any way they wanted, and that if the Union won, the employees would not suffer nor would any be disciplined in any way because of the way they had voted. He was specifically asked what Korte and Erickson told him or discussed with him about the election and the Company's policy. He replied, "Well, they just explained about the life insurance and hospitalization and they said that nothing would be taken away. Many things would be improved, but nothing would be taken away." Robert Loritz, an employee of some 101/2 years, testified that he and his wife were visited at his home approximately a week prior to the election of October 27, at 9 p.m. by Erickson and Korte. The company representatives said they were there to review the Company's policies and to ask if he had any questions or any gripes 3In this same answer , Hauser testified that Rrose said , "You remember a few years back ," he says, "in a plant south of here where there was a riot in the plant and people hit over the heads and some even had to go to a hospital , and good friends became bitter enemies and some people even lost their homes " Ile said, "Surely, you don 't want that to happen here " So, he said, "The only way you can guarantee the same harmony we still have is to vote neither on the ballot " The witness who followed Hauser to the witness stand, Robert Loritz , was specifically asked by the Char ping Party on direct examination if he recalled any reference being made about the plant to the south His reply was, "No , sir" [The plant to the south had reference to the Kohler Company wherein a violent strike raged for years j 1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD He and his wife both suggested sick leave for factory personnel as well as for office personnel. The visitors said it was possible and then spoke of a sickness and health policy being held up because of the coming election. They stated that if the Union won, the sickness and health policy probably would have to be bargained for before it could be put into effect. This is the first time that Loritz had heard of this new policy, although the June 20 letter, reproduced above, which he received tells of future liberalizations. When he asked about the pension policy, he was told that he would be called in in the near future and it would be explained to him. He believed there was a pension plan, but he had not been called in as yet for an ex- planation. He asked if he would have to work for 16 years to get a 3-week vaca- tion because he was hired after the June 1 deadline for the 15-year requirement. He was told that they would find out and tell him. The visit lasted about one-half hour. On cross-examination he testified that he knew of the merger of Eastman and Imperial before it happened and he knew that Eastman had both a pension plan and a retirement plan before the merger, and he was interested in what would happen to the plans by reason of the merger. He attended meetings of employees on the several occasions between October 1, 1960, and June 1, 1961, at which time the Company explained liberalized insurance plans and the employees were told that a new insurance committee was studying all forms of insurance. He believed he was present when Brose addressed the employees on October 17 and he received the various letters written by Brose and Musham. He received about five such letters between January 1, 1961, and July 1, 1961. As to the meeting of October 17 when Musham talked, he could not recall whether or not any reference was made about the election. As to Brose's talk on the same day, he recalled that Brose said that he was always friendly to the employees and he would continue to be so regardless of how the vote goes. He recalled that Musham in his talk said that there would be no discriminations or benefits taken away from the employees regardless of how the vote went. As related above, on direct examination by the Charging Party, he could not recall anything being said about the plant to the south nor whether there was any reference to the Kohler Company. Rienhardt Groelle, an employee of 10 years, testified that Korte and Erickson visited him and his wife at his home in the evening of October 24. They talked about benefits and some improvements and about bids out to insurance companies. The witness asked about a profit-sharing plant. Korte answered that they had been investigating it but the "Federal Government didn't think it wise to pay it [sic]." The witness then asked about recovering the bonus plan to which Korte replied there was a possibility they might get it back because Imperial had it. The General Counsel prodded him as to whether there was any further conversation about any other mat- ters at that time to which he replied, "Well, there wasn't no promises made, I mean, but-." He had been reminded by the visitors that he had been employed for 10 years, had never been laid off, and that he should not have to worry too much about seniority rights. It was also mentioned that they had pleasant relations while at work. He said the only time the Union was mentioned was on their way out. He told the visitors that he was not against either union to which Korte said, "They should probably give the Company more of a chance." On cross-examination, Groelle admitted attending some company meetings held during the period from September 1960 through June 1961. He recalled the meet- ings just before the election at which Musham and Brose each spoke. He also admitted receiving a number of letters from the Company signed either by Brose or Musham and read all of them. He specifically recalled reading the letter of June 20 reproduced above. Analysis of the Visits of Korte and Erickson It can be seen from the excerpts from the above testimony that Hauser was an extremely biased witness; he apparently could remember nothing that he did not think was favorable to his case, yet that was not true of witnesses Loritz and Groelle. However, it is apparent from cross-examination of the above witnesses that the Respondent Employer had endeavored to keep its employees posted on developments having to do with their work at least starting at the time of the merger of Eastman and Imperial near the close of 1960. Also it is apparent that several meetings of employees were held and many letters sent employees from that period through June 1961, telling them what the Company was doing with respect to wages and benefits. The letter of June 20 reviewed seven past accomplishments and antici- pated improved insurance benefits to flow from the awaited report from the insurance committee, which had been appointed some 5 months previous thereto. Hence when benefits were explained to the employees by the visits, they followed a pattern IMPERIAL EASTMAN CORPORATION 1267 of company communications to the employees already in existence . It cannot be said that any new benefits were put in as a "promise of benefit" for the employees to vote against the unions in the forthcoming election. The General Counsel or the Charging Party specifically asked many of the witnesses (both the above and witnesses later to be discussed) whether or not this was the first time they had been visited at their homes by any of the company management people. It turned out that this was the first time and the only time that they had been visited at their homes. As these visits were but another way of communication and as they followed a grant of permission to visit, I can see no importance to the fact that it was the first and only time that the employees were visited. Nor do I see anything coercive in the fact that two management people visited at a time. Permission to so visit was granted. The presence of two assured the proper coverage of the Company's story and provided an extra witness as to what took place if production of such witness were necessary. Specifically on points raised by the General Counsel's brief, there is no violation of the Act when Erickson told Hauser that if the Union got in, Hauser would no longer be able to bring gripes to him but instead would have to take them to a steward. Section 9(a) of the Act sets out the narrow range within which individual grievances can be adjusted directly with an employee without the intervention of the bargaining representative . Even then the bargaining repre- sentative must have been given opportunity to be present at such adjustment. At most this is only a mistake of law and does not amount to a threat of reprisal or the removal of a benefit. Hauser told Erickson he would prefer having benefits, which had been discussed, incorporated in the body of a contract. Erickson, he testified, responded that "con- tracts are often broke. They don't mean much." There is no basis in fact for any conclusion that this is tantamount to saying the Company would not honour any contract made with the Union. I believe all that can be made out of this statement, assuming without deciding that it was made, is the simple thought that the important thing in any contract is the trust of the two contracting parties. Having an agreement written down does not insure its nonviolation. As noted in the footnote above, Hauser related a statement allegedly made by Brose having to do with the Kohler plant south of Respondent . Assuming without deciding that this statement was made, it is not a violation of the Act. It is a statement of fact and not a threat of reprisal or force. In the same 15 -minute talk, the company vice president made the statement that the employees were being urged to vote and it did not make any difference which way they voted as there would be no discrimination. Witness Loritz testified that he was told by the team visiting him that there was a sickness and health policy being held up because of the election and that if the Union won, such a policy would probably have to be bargained for first. This is likewise merely a statement of fact holding out no promise of benefit or threat of reprisal or force and does not violate the Act. Indeed it appears that witness Loritz tried to secure a promise of benefit by asking if he could get special treat- ment with respect to the 2-week vacation clause but he was told they would find out and let him know later. They did not promise him anything. It is noted that witness Loritz when specifically asked for corroboration of witness Hauser in a question propounded by counsel for the Charging Party, refused to corroborate witness Hauser as to whether Brose referred to the Kohler plant or anything about a plant to the south. As Loritz attended the same meeting and as he impressed me with his truthfulness and straightforward answers, I am sure he would have re- membered such a statement if it had been made and would have been able to have corroborated Hauser. However, I will make no finding as to whether such a state- ment was in fact made, as I have earlier concluded that even if the statement were made there would be no violation of the Act. Witness Groelle volunteered that "there wasn't no promises made." And the only thing he could think of wherein the company visitors said something about the Union was that the employees "should probably give the Company more of a chance." Truly, if companies are permitted to communicate with their employees, as they are guaranteed in Section 8(c) of the Act, such a statement does not amount to a threat of reprisal or force or a promise of benefit , and does not violate the Act. B. The visits of Anholt and Scheer Joe Anholt, sales manager of Eastman division, and Bud Scheer, foreman at Eastman division, visited but one of the witnesses called by the General Counsel for his case. They visited Bernard Kostechka, an employee since July 1950, in order to explain the Eastman side of the story. The visit took place about 7 p.m. and 672010-63-vol 139-81 1268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD lasted for about an hour. They talked about the pension and profit-sharing plan which Kostechka admitted he did not fully understand and this was cleared up fairly well by Anholt. He was asked about his gripes and he complained about the fact that he was running two machines but was getting paid for only one. He was told by Anholt of an incentive plan, outlined in the above letter of June 20, under which he would make more money. The witness complained about the seniority and of the way that certain men got an extra 2 hours of work. Scheer explained this on the ground that the work was voluntary. They talked about posting of jobs and Anholt said he would post better-paying jobs on the board, thereby following the practice at Imperial. He had previously heard of this in the summer of 1961 but they had not been posting up to that time. He said Anholt asked him if the Union had offered him anything better than the fringe benefits. His reply was no but it had promised to help him get better job classification if they won. On cross-examination he admitted that he knew of the merger of Eastman and Imperial and recalled that all employees were called into group meetings during which the pension and retirement plans were explained by O'Hagen. Imperial's benefits were explained and they were told that they would be put into effect in the Eastman division. The insurance plans of Respondent were explained, they were told that a committee was studying a complete revision of the insurance package; and they were told about certain benefits the Company was trying to put into effect. Posting was one of the benefits similar to that of the Imperial division, and an incentive job evaluation plan was going to be set up. The employees were told in these meeetings of the floating holiday, which the employees had voted to take on July 3, and the fact that they were going to get paid for Saturday work like the employees at Imperial. The shift differential was explained and the premium differ- ential was outlined. All of these benefits were involved in the above letter of June 20 sent to all the employees. This witness received about 8 or 10 letters from Musham and Brose from January to July 1, included among which was the letter of June 20. This party admitted that the Charging Union started organizing the employees in the latter part of June or the first of July and then later admitted "about third week in June." Analysis of Visit by Anholt and Scheer This witness remembered more of the meetings of all the employees than did the previous witnesses and remembered receiving more letters. What the employees were told at the meetings and in the letters and even in the visits was strikingly similar to what was brought out on cross-examination by the witnesses above. Accordingly, there is nothing in this testimony to support the contention of the General Counsel that Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act was violated inasmuch as nothing contained herein was a threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit to any of the individual employees. It is also noticed that this witness provided an opportunity for management representatives to be able to offer him a benefit for his vote when he complained about his wages and about the men who got the extra 2 hours of work, but no offers were made him. C. The visits of Homer and Nuhs A. C. Homer, general manager of Eastman division, and William Nuhs, foreman at Eastman division , visited five employee witnesses in their homes. Allan Osieczanek, an employee of 6 years, testified that Homer said the visit was to find out if employees had any gripes and to explain "some of the policies of the Company." Osieczanek asked about sick benefits and testified that Homer said he could not say "whether we were or not because the Union was trying to get in at the time . . ." but they were trying to get in the same plan that they have at Imperial in Chicago. This, he said, was the first time he had heard of this plan. The witness asked if when he got his vacation he would get his 15-cent premium that he was presently getting on his third shift. Mr. Homer replied that he did not know but would find out for him. The witness asked if employees would get merit raises and testified on direct examination by the Charging Party as follows: Well, I asked if we would get the merit raise and he said that they couldn't give us any raise or anything until the Union was done. Q. Until the Union was- A. Until the Union was-until after the election. Q. Was anything said as to what would happen to the merit raises if the Union won the election? A. No. IMPERIAL EASTMAN CORPORATION 1269 He also testified, on the same direct examination, that he had received a merit raise earlier in May 1961. Additionally, the witness asked if the employees could have their own sets of tools when they went on an incentive basis in order to cut down time looking for tools. Mr. Homer's reply was that he knew nothing about it but would look into it. Albert Czekala, an employee of 5 months, testified that the visit took place one afternoon about a week before the election. They discussed the present insurance plan of the Company and the witness was told that the Company was trying to get a better plan, one equal to the plan Imperial had. He was told the requirements for qualifying under the pension plan and the requirements to secure a week's vaca- tion. The witness asked the visitors how long he would have to work before he could get a raise, but Holmes 4 replied that offhand he did not know. The witness testified that he asked Holmes if there was a chance of getting a different job and he was told to come and see Holmes after the election. On cross-examaination the witness admitted that the visitors told him that inasmuch as he was a new employee they wanted to help him understand the various fringe benefits and these benefits were explained. Holmes asked him if he had questions and he asked some which were answered the "best they could." He admitted that Brose in talking to the employees at meetings told them all to vote in the election and that no matter how the election came out the relationship between the Company and the employees would remain the same. He further testified that there had been no change in his job since the election but that about 3 or 4 months after the election, a new sick leave policy was inaugurated. He also admitted that Respondent had explained the new insurance plan and that this was the program which had been under considera- tion by the Company for a year or more. James Zinkel, an employee of 3 years, testified the visit took place one afternoon about a week before the election and the reason given for the visit was to promote the employer-employee relationship. Homer told him of some of the benefits the Company had and asked him for questions or complaints. As complaints he talked about his wages to which Homer replied that they were according to other plants in the area. He asked about posting of jobs to which Homer replied that they would post them in the future. This followed what he had been told at a meeting shortly after the merger of Imperial and Eastman. However, there was no posting that he knew of until after the election. He was told by Homer that the Company was working on a wonderful insurance policy that Imperial had. Nothing was said at this meeting about the election and the visit took about 20 minutes. On cross- examination he admitted reading the Company's letters from Musham and Brose, including the letter reproduced above dated June 20. He attended the meetings and he heard all the speeches. Warren Frasch, an employee of a little less than 3 years, testified the visit took place one morning about a week before the election. Frasch had a question con- cerning wages. He was not satisfied with the amount. They told him that they were keeping wages up to the wage levels in the area. This visit lasted from 5 to 10 minutes. On direct examination by the Charging Party he was asked the leading question of whether there was any discussion about a credit union to which he answered that there was no talk about any kind of a union. They were told to be sure and vote. He was told by the visitors "Be sure and vote. Vote your way, but be sure to vote." He attended meetings in the shop and did not recall a discus- sion of a union at these times. And he could not recall anything about a discussion of the election in the meeting held a few days before the election. The Charging Party kept pressing him for evidence concerning a discussion of the election at any meeting before the election but his testimony was that he could not remember. Eugene Schwantz, an employee of 11 years, testified the visit took place around 7:30 in the evening around October 17. He was not told why they wished to visit him nor did he ask. One of his youngsters was with him at the time of the visit. Insurance was discussed. Homer said they were working on a policy to increase the benefits and to make them better but he was not told nor did they say when it would go into effect. He asked about wages as he did not think the toolroom was getting the proper wage. Homer replied that an evaluation program was going to be put into effect that might remedy the situation depending upon the merit of the evaluated person. Further he testified that mention was made about several insur- ance companies bidding on an insurance program. He questioned the Company's policy of bringing in new men from outside the group for good jobs and was told that there would be posting in the future. He did remember a later discussion on * It is clear from the record of other testimony that Homer and Nuhs were a team that visited the employees . This witness, however, insisted that it was Holmes when specifically asked by the Trial Examiner if it was Homer or Holmes. 1270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD posting but did not know who led it or where it was held. On direct examination by the Charging Party, he had difficulty in determining the month in which the Charging Party started organizing. Finally he said, "I would say it was in June [19611." This was when he first noticed the organizing activities and the wearing of buttons. He at first thought it was a joke. On cross-examination, he testified he was present and recalled the meetings in January or February conducted by O'Hagen of Imperial and he admitted that he could have heard of job postings at that time. He received the various letters from the Respondent, including the letter of June 20 reproduced above. Discussion of the Visits of Homer and Nuhs It is clear that no threats or coercive statements were made to any of the witnesses nor were any promises of benefits made to them . Ample opportunity was given the visiting team to make promises but none were made. For example, Osieczanek testified that he asked if he would get his 15-cent premium while on vacation. Homer replied that he did not know but he would find out. When he asked about merit raises he was told that no raises could be granted at the present time because of the Union but that after the election if there was merit to a raise they would get them. He also asked for his own set of tools but these likewise were not promised . Instead he was told that this would be looked into. Likewise Czekala asked about a raise and how long he would have to be there before he could get one and asked if there was a chance of getting a different job but no promises were made. Czekala also testified that Brose had told him that no matter how the election came out the relationship between the Company and the employees would remain the same. With these statements lying unchallenged as they do in the record with no evidence that they were not meant seriously , and with no evidence of any specific promises , threats, or coercion , I can see no violation of the Act. It is clear that the insurance plan was explained and that employees were alerted to even better coverage upon completion of the insurance committee 's work. Noth- ing was conditioned upon rejecting the Union-nor could anything be considered a veiled threat under all the circumstances including the reiteration that the em- ployees should vote as they pleased . Likewise Zinkel had complaints relating to wages and posting but he was neither promised better wages nor anything other than what had previously been discussed by the Company. Likewise Frasch was not satisfied with the amount of his wages but he was not promised additional wages. Rather, he was told that the Respondent was keeping up to the wage levels in the area. Likewise he admitted at his visit that no conversation took place with respect to any kind of a union. Schwantz had a question concerning wages and posting and he was answered substantially the same. With respect to his identification of when the Steelworkers started organizing in the plant , it is not clear from his testi- mony whether or not they started prior to the letter of June 20 identified above. The letter itself refers to activity of the Machinists which had taken place prior to the activity of the Steelworkers . In view of this and the lack of precise evidence that the Steelworkers' organizing took place prior to the letter , I can see no evidence that the letter was sparked by the organizing drive put on by the Charging Party.5 In any event the letter would be a privileged communication. D. The visit of Ansorge and Nuhs Louis Ansorge, plant superintendent of Eastman division , and William Nuhs, foreman at Eastman division , visited only one of the witnesses called by the Gen- eral Counsel. Alex Robinson, a 7-year employee , was so visited at home on October 24. The visit took place one morning as he was taking care of his children. He testified that he was told when they came that they did not come to promise him anything. They talked about insurance and how they were looking for better insurance for the future but did not describe it nor tell him when it would be put into effect. They discussed an extra paid holiday and mentioned the fact that the em- ployees were getting time and a half pay on Saturday even if they did not work 40 hours. And they discussed different job classifications for the future. They did not mention raises and when he asked why he did not get more money he was s William Lee, International staff representative of the Charging Party, testified that the first contact with employees of Respondent was in the latter part of May when he met a few individuals with Staff Representative Kicker. This vague statement as to the time when it was something peculiarly within his knowledge or responsibility is insuffi- cient to establish company knowledge of the organizing campaign of the Charging Party prior to the letter of June 20. IMPERIAL EASTMAN CORPORATION 1271 told that it would be looked into, but nothing was promised. He testified Nuhs asked him how much the union dues would be. When he replied that they would be $5 a month, he said that Nuhs added that up to be $60 a year and asked why he should pay that when he could get along without a union. He replied that he had nothing against the Company nor against the Union. He wanted to know why his insurance check on one of his children had not come in but admitted, on cross- examination, that it was because his wife's doctor had not handed in his final report on the matter and that he received his check the same date the report went in to the Company. He remembered the group meetings of employees following the merger of Imperial and Eastman and the explanations of the insurance and the pension plans. He admitted that new vacation benefits, the floating holiday, the time and one-half pay for Saturday, the job evaluation study, and the new incentive program in the light machinery and parts assembly department with plans to continue this study and eventually to put the whole plant under the plan were discussed and ex- plained. And he told of his knowledge of the increase of shift differential, all of which was put into effect before the Union ever started organizing in the plant. He admitted receiving the letters from Brose and Musham which his wife and he read. He admitted hearing Musham tell the employees to vote and that regard- less of the outcome "there would be no hard feelings of anybody." He never heard Brose say anything against the Union but heard him urge the employees to vote in the election, telling them there would be no hard feelings among anyone. This evidence is insufficient to prove the allegation of the complaint that Ansorge and Nuhs "threatened . . . employees with losses of benefit or other reprisals, if the Union won the election of October 27, 1961." E. The visit of Brose and Schuh Merlin Brose, vice president of Imperial Eastman, and Schuh, foreman,6 visited Archie Brouchoud, an employee of 21 years, about a week before the election. He had invited them to come out to his home, without ever having been approached for permission, and just the three of them had a visit. He asked the visitors about seniority and Brose explained how promotions were made. He asked about job posting, to which Brose replied that they might try it in the future and that was all that was said about things having to do with the shop. Upon prodding by the General Counsel about insurance, he stated he asked the visitors if there was a pension plan to which Brose replied that there was. And he admitted that the pension plan had been mentioned earlier at the time of the merger. On direct examination he was asked if there were any questions about retirement or the Union in any manner but his answer was "no." There was no cross-examination. This evidence is insufficient to prove the allegation of the complaint that promises of benefit were made "conditioned upon the employees rejecting the Union in an election to be held on October 27, 1961." Nor is it sufficient to prove the other allegation of the complaint that employees were threatened with losses of benefits or other reprisals if the Union won the same election. The General Counsel's Second Issue The second issue raised by the brief of the General Counsel was: Whether the visits of Respondent's supervisors and management officials to the homes of employees during a union organizational campaign, for the pur- pose of influencing the vote of the employees in a pending election, is coercive or otherwise violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. This is a novel point and the General Counsel is but doing his job well when he thrusts and probes at the frontiers of this law that is of such vital importance to the very lives of employees. Broadly speaking, there is no question but that employees are "interfered" with when unions attempt to persuade them to join up and when employers attempt to persuade them not to do so. But the type of interference that is banned by the Act is only that which interferes with the free exercise of employee rights to join or not join labor organizations. Of necessity then he must be permitted to receive views, arguments, and opinions on both sides of this question. Hence Section 8(c) of the Act permits both the labor organization and the employer to express their views, 8 Other witnesses refer to a Bud Scheer, foreman at the Eastman division This may be the same man but it is unimportant in view of the ultimate decision and the presence of Brose. 1272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD arguments, and opinions providing the expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. The law is clear that an employer may assemble his employees on his own time and tell them his opinion of the labor organization, and, short of threatening them with reprisal or force or promising them a benefit, he does not commit an unfair labor practice. If he can do this to a "captive audience" surely he can do it as an invitee to the home of an employee. He can express his views, arguments, and opinions, subject to the above proviso, in a church, a club, a tavern, or on a street corner. The right of free speech under Section 8(c) of the Act is not limited as to place, but only as to content. Care must be exercised in not confusing conduct which is sufficient, under Board and court law, to cause an election to be held again and conduct which amounts to an unfair labor practice. For example, the same conduct might cause an election to be rerun but might not be a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Section 8(c) specifically applies only to unfair labor practices, as it says the expressing of any views, etc., ". . . shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor prac- tice . . ., if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit." [Emphasis added.] Accordingly, home visits to employees with their permission by managerial supervisors and agents during a union organizational cam- paign, for the purpose of influencing the vote of the employees in a pending elec- tion, is not a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. The Respondent had not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, as alleged. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. A. J. Sackett and Sons Co. and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 5-CA-2150. November 26, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On August 1, 1962, Trial Examiner Joseph I. Nachman 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 attached Intermedi- ate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report together with a supporting brief. 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 [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this 139 NLRB No. 113.