Forenta, Inc.

FORENTA, INC. Forenta , Inc. and United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 10-CA-6260. June 19,1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA On April 15, 1966, Trial Examiner Charles W. Schneider issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, granting the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the pleadings, exhibits, and certain documentary evidence submitted by Respondent presented no issue of fact requiring a hearing, 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 Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision and the entire record in this case, including the exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent herewith. As more fully set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision, the Union as part of its organizing campaign sent the employees a union authorization card accompanied by, a letter stating: "No one in your Company will ever see this card or know who has signed it." Thereafter, Respondent responded in a letter cautioning employees not to be "deceived" by the Union's assertion, since "knowledge of who signed union cards is ordinarily as secret as the country telephone party line ... " and noting that "in fact only a very few have signed." The Trial Examiner granted the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that these statements as to the lack of secrecy of union authorization cards conveyed an implicit threat that employees who signed such cards might anticipate employment reprisals or discrimination from Respondent. In finding that this conduct violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, the Trial Examiner relied in part on Hobart Brothers Company i and Sparton Manufacturing Company.2 This case, however, is distinguishable from both the Hobart and Sparton decisions. For in those cases, the communication not only informed the employees that the cards they signed would not necessarily remain a secret from the employer, but in conjunction therewith implied 641 the possibility that harm might flow from disclosure, by adding: "Be careful about what you sign-don't sign ANYTHING unless you KNOW what you are signing and WHAT it might mean to you, your family, or your fellow employees." The communication in the instant case contains no language of similar import. Absent language suggesting reprisal as in Hobart and Sparton, or other accompanying unfair labor practices-not present here-from which an implied threat of reprisal may fairly be inferred, we are not prepared to find that the Respondent exceeded the privileged area of free speech by conveying to employees the information it did. Accordingly, the complaint herein shall be dismissed. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. ' 150 NLRB 956, enforcement denied 372 F.2d 203 (C.A 6) 2 150 NLRB 948, enforcement denied 355 F.2d 523 (C A 7). TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE CHARLES W. SCHNEIDER , Trial Examiner: Upon a charge and amended charge of unfair labor practices filed on September 7, 1965, and on October 25, 1965, respectively , by United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, the Union and Charging Party, against Forenta, Inc., Morristown , Tennessee , the Respondent, and duly served, the Regional Director issued a complaint and notice of hearing on December 8, 1965, and an amendment to complaint on December 20, 1965.1 The complaint, as amended, alleged that the Respondent had committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. 141, et seq. On December 13, 1965, the Respondent duly filed its answer in substance admitting the allegations of the complaint except those of a conclusory nature. The denied matter is set out more specifically infra. Under date of February 15, 1966 , the General Counsel filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, on the ground that the Respondent's answer admitted acts which constituted unfair labor practices. On March 16, 1966, I issued an Order to Show Cause directing the parties to show cause, if any, on or before March 30, 1966, as to whether or not the Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted. On March 30, 1966 , the Respondent filed a Response to the Order to Show Cause, to which the General Counsel filed a reply, entitled Response , on April 7, 1966. The Issue On May 4, 1965, the Respondent issued and distributed to its employees a letter, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." ' The amended complaint deleted one of the two allegations of unfair labor practices alleged in the original complaint. 165 NLRB No. 74 642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL The sole incident of unfair labor practice alleged by the General Counsel is contained in paragraph 8 of the amended complaint, in which it is stated that in the May 4 letter the Respondent, ... interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by ... Threatening its employees that their signing authorization cards for the Union would not be kept confidential. Paragraph 9 of the complaint alleges that this conduct of the Respondent constituted unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Respondent's answer admits all allegations of the complaint except paragraphs 8 and 9. The gist of the alleged unfair labor practice is in the following excerpts from the letter of Mr. North: I have noted a copy of the letter from Everett Dean of the United Textile Union to Forenta employees. Everett Dean goes on to say that the card which he is asking employees to sign will be filed with the National Labor Relations Board, and that "no one in your Company will ever see this card or know who signed it." Don't be deceived. If you have not already town [sic] the card up-as I am sure most of you have-read the language on it. The card doesn't say anything about a National Labor Relations Board election. It is an application for membership in the Union and appoints the Union your exclusive agent. This language would take away from you your individual right to discuss your problems with management , and would place these rights in the hands of outside people. While it is no doubt true that the Union would never show me a copy of your card, Unions frequently show these cards to other employees and to other people all over town. Frequently Unions use these cards in support of a refusal to bargain charge, in which event the cards are put in evidence in the case and sometimes the employees who signed them are required to get the stand and testify. Knowledge of who signed Union cards is ordinarily as secret as the country telephone party line. But Mr. Dean doesn't care. ... Mr. Dean states that "many of your fellow workers have signed these cards." Everett Dean knows that this is absolutely untrue. In fact, only a very few have signed. Additional Evidence In its Response to the Order to Show Cause the Respondent indicates its willingness to have the issue disposed of upon the Motion for Judgment subject to the receipt of certain documentary evidence. Thus the Response states: The Respondent herein, Forenta, Inc., believes the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Counsel for the General Counsel in this cause to be generally well taken. It is, however, imperative that if a hearing on the issues of this matter is to be 2 As the letter of Appeals Director Herman indicates, that charge was dismissed by the Regional Director and the Union's LABOR RELATIONS BOARD circumvented, all of the material facts be before the Board as it considers, and resolves, the matter. Accordingly, and in order to complete the record on which the Board may go forward, Respondent respectfully submits as attachments to the Response the following documents, each of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference: (1) Everett Dean letter of April 19, 1965 (marked Exhibit "A" to this Response) which was mailed to all Forenta employees on the date indicated. (2) Charge filed by Everett Dean, Southern Co- Director of United Textile Workers of America, against Forenta on November 15, 1965, bearing case No. 10-CA-6368, (marked Exhibit "B" to this Response.) (3) Letter of Irving M. Herman, Director, Office of Appeals, dated February 7, 1966, relating to case 10-CA-6368, (marked Exhibit "C" to this Response.) Respondent respectfully Moves that, in the absence of further responsive pleadings from Counsel for the General Counsel, the attached documents be accepted into evidence and considered as a part of the record of this proceeding. Respondent further Moves that, in the absence of further responsive pleadings from the Counsel for the General Counsel, the record reflect the fact that Everett Dean is, and at all times material hereto was, Southern Co-Director of the charging party, United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and that in his capacity as agent of the charging party, he mailed to all Forenta employees then employed a copy of Exhibit "A" hereto, and filed with the National Labor Relations Board, on or about the date shown, the charge in case 10-CA-6368 (Exhibit "B" hereto). In the absence of the Trial Examiner's favorable ruling on the above motions, Respondent requests a hearing in this cause so as to be able to introduce evidence consistent with that here tendered. In the General Counsel's reply, entitled Response, to the Respondent's Response to the Order to Show Cause, the General Counsel admits the factual authenticity of the evidence offered by the Respondent, but objects to the receipt in evidence of such matter on the ground that it is immaterial. Everett Dean is clearly an agent of the Charging Union. His letter of April 19, 1965, is the letter which provoked North's statements of May 4. The charge in Case 10-CA-6368, dated November 15, 1965, and Appeals Director Herman's letter, dated February 7, 1966, establishes that the Union ultimately filed a refusal-to- bargain charge-a possibility suggested in North's letter as one to be reckoned with by the employees.2 These facts are thus relevant to the statements alleged as unfair labor practices and relevant to the Respondent's defense. The documents are therefore admitted into evidence and are attached hereto as Appendixes B and D, respectively [Appendix C omitted from publication]. RULING ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The basis for the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment is that the May 4, 1965, letter of General Manager North to the Respondent's employees is appeal denied on the ground , Inter aha, that there was insufficient evidence of the Union's majority FORENTA, INC. legally indistinguishable from the letters and speeches found by the Board to constitute 8(a)(1) violations in the cases of Sparton Mfg. Co., 150 NLRB 948, enforcement denied 355 F.2d 523, and Hobart Brothers Co., 150 NLRB 956 (Board's petition for enforcement pending in Sixth Circuit Court). Though denied enforcement, the Board's decision in the Sparton case, if applicable, is binding.' In Sparton a speech by the employer's general manager to employees during the course of a union organizing campaign contained the following statement at 951: 2. They [the union organizers] may ask you to sign a union card saying that it is only for a union representative or a representative of the N.L.R.B. This is not necessarily the truth, in some instances the signed card is used by the union in an attempt to prove to the company that the union really has a majority. The union may get these cards from you then show them to the company in order to force recognition without an election. Be careful about what you sign-don't sign anything unless you know what you are signing and what it might mean to you, your family, or your fellow employees. In finding this statement to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act the Trial Examiner in the Sparton case said the following at 952: Etherington's written prepared speech as read reveals in the first numbered paragraph 1 that the employees should know that the signing of union cards could mean the selection of an exclusive bargaining representative without the right of a vote and that the employees should be wary of statements that the union card only asked for a vote so that employees could have a choice. Under such circumstances, the Respondent's statement in the first paragraph number 2 was calculated to convey to the employees that the signing of union cards would not necessarily be only for the NLRB or a union representative, that the employer might learn of their having signed such cards, and that reprisals would occur. Other statements in the speech concerning the employees' jobs and job opportunity convey that the reprisals would relate to the employees' jobs. I, therefore, conclude and find that Etherington's speech on January 8, 1964, constituted a threat to the employees that the signing of union authorization cards would cause their discharge. Such a threat constitutes conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Trial Examiner further found the statement not privileged by Section 8(c) of the Act. The Trial Examiner's findings and conclusions in Sparton were adopted by the Board. In the Hobart Brothers case a letter of the Union to employees during an organizational campaign stated, in part at 961: It is necessary that we have sufficient number of these [signed cards] to assure the board you are interested in a Union. You can rest assured that these cards will be handled with the strictest confidence, 9 The Board has said . it is not for a Trial Examiner to speculate as to what course the Board should follow where a circuit court has expressed disagreement with its views On the contrary, it remains the Trial Examiner's duty to apply established Board precedent which the Board or the Supreme Court has not 643 and your employer or foreman will have no knowledge of it. Shortly thereafter the employer in the Hobart case mailed a letter to his employees in response to the Union's communication. The employer's letter stated, in part at 962: Don't be fooled into signing misleading cards that are mailed in secrecy. It is said that when you sign such a card, no one other than a Union Representative or a representative of the National Labor Relations Board will ever see this card. This is not the truth. In many instances the signed card is disclosed to the Company by the union, the NLRB, or both of them. Be careful about what you sign-don't sign ANYTHING unless you KNOW what you are signing and what it might mean to you, your family, or your fellow employees. The Trial Examiner in the Hobart case found that this portion of the letter constituted threats of reprisal and were not privileged expressions of view, argument, or opinion protected by Section 8(c) of the Act. The Trial Examiner said at 964: The Respondent, in my opinion, could have legitimately pointed out to employees that the signed union cards could result in the establishment of the Union as exclusive bargaining representative without the benefit of an election wherein the employees could vote. The Respondent could have pointed out the seriousness of signing union cards in that respect. In this case, however, the Respondent's message was unqualifiedly to the effect that the card would not be secret or confidential. Under such circumstances the statement of Respondent in the last paragraph of its January 3, 1964, letter set out above, in my opinion, was reasonably calculated to convey to the employees that their signing of union cards would not be kept secret or confidential, that the Respondent probably would acquire knowledge of their signing cards, and that Respondent would engage in reprisals against them if they signed union cards. Such a threat constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In neither the Sparton nor the Hobart case were any other unfair labor practices found by the Trial Examiner or the Board to have been committed. In an earlier case, Armstrong Tire and Rubber Co., 119 NLRB 382, 390, 398, the Trial Examiner, affirmed by the Board, dismissed a contention -inter alma-that the employer there engaged in interference, restraint, and coercion of employees by the following statement in a letter to them: In 1953 a lot of our men made the mistake of signing union cards And don't think the union will keep your card secret. Back in 1953 the organizers told the men that their cards would be kept secret and next thing the signers knew the cards were in evidence in a Labor Board Hearing. reversed Only by such recognition of the legal authority of Board precedent, will a uniform and orderly administration of a national act, such as the National Labor Relations Act, be achieved [Iowa Beef Packers, Inc, Union, AFL-CIO (The Prudential Insurance Company of America), 119 NLRB 768, 773 1 644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD * THINK CAREFULLY-DON'T MAKE A MISTAKE. The Trial Examiner in the Armstrong case found that the employer's letter constituted a privileged expression of view, argument , or opinion protected by Section 8(c) of the Act. In the Sparton case (fn. 3) and in the Hobart case (fn. 11) the Trial Examiner found the Armstrong case to be factually distinguishable on the ground that the total context of the Armstrong letter did not convey a threat of reprisal if the Company learned of the signing of union cards. In all aspects material here, the instant case appears controlled by the Board decisions in the Sparton and Hobart cases. Though there are differences, they do not seem to affect the applicable principle . Thus, in the Hobart case the Trial Examiner discredited testimony by the company official responsible for the statements there involved, that he had not threatened employees with reprisals. And in Sparton the Trial Examiner discredited testimony by the author of the statements that he did not endeavor to give the impression that signing of union cards meant dismissal or discharge or would jeopardize the jobs of those who signed. Where language or conduct are equivocal , reasonable and credible evidence of specific intent may bear on interpretation . However, where, as here, the language or conduct are unambigous , motive is generally immaterial.4 Another item of difference between the instant and the decided cases is that in Sparton and Hobart the employers' statements suggested that the cards might be submitted to the employer by the union or the Board, whereas in the instant case Mr. North's letter states that, .. it is no doubt true that the Union would never show me a copy of your card...." Since the implication of Mr. North's full statement is that the Respondent would nevertheless become aware of the names of the card signers by some means, this distinction between this case and Sparton and Hobart does not appear to be substantial. It is to be noted that the Respondent does not seek to distinguish the Sparton and Hobart cases on the ground that they involved discredited testimony as to conduct or intent, or that Mr. North did not expect the signed cards to be shown directly to him by the Union. Indeed, the Respondent does not seek in any way to distinguish the Sparton and Hobart cases. The basic defense of the Respondent is that the statements of Mr. North are expressions of view, argument, or opinion protected by Section 8(c) of the Act-a contention rejected 'iy the Board in those cases. As we have seen in the Sparton case (fn. 3) and in the Hobart case (at 964) Section 8(c) was found to be inapplicable to this type of statement. Several contentions urged here by the Respondent were not expressly raised in Sparton and Hobart. Thus the Respondent contends that Mr. North's declaration as to what the Union would do with the cards could not be a threat here , since it was not within the Respondent's power to carry out; and at most could be no more than a prediction as to what another person would do. In addition, the Respondent states that the letter truthfully rebuts a 4 "It is well settled that the test of interference , restraint, and coercion under Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act does not turn on the employer's motive or on whether the coercion succeeded or failed The test is whether the employer engaged in conduct false assurance by the Union concerning the secrecy of the cards, and that in view of the uses to which cards can be and have been put, unions should not be allowed to mislead employees in securing designations. It is evident from the filing of the Union 's later charge of refusal to bargain, that the assurance contained in Everett Dean 's letter to employees to the effect that, "No one in your Company will ever see this card or know who has signed," is of little value. For, as the Respondent correctly points out , if complaint has issued on that charge and hearing held, the cards_ must inevitably have been offered in evidence if the Respondent contested the Union's majority. That this is a contingency forseeable by experienced union officials is scarcely debatable . And that an employer has the right to correct in a noncoercive manner a relevant falsity or error in union campaign pledges is also clear . We turn to those issues. What makes the Respondent 's statements coercive here is not the threat of what the Union may do, but the implicit threat as to what the Respondent may do. Thus, Manager North's statement denying the truth of the Union's assurances , begins with the same basic assumption as the Union-that employees will not want the Respondent to know that they have signed cards. The basis for this assumption can be nothing but fear by the employees that the Respondent may engage in reprisals . Instead of allaying this fear, Manager North 's statement capitalized on it by informing the employees that the knowledge that they had signed the card would not be kept confidential. That the Respondent deemed itself well informed as to who signed and who did not is underscored by the later statement in North's letter that "only a very few had signed" union cards-an avowal of knowledge which, in the circumstances , the employees would scarcely find reassuring. Nowhere in North's statement is there any assurance to the employees that no reprisals would be visited on employees if they did sign a card . Thus the very employee concern which Dean's letter sought, with regrettable lack of candor, to allay, the Respondent's reply sought to heighten in order to discourage the signing of cards. In these circumstances, absent the Respondent's assurances that the signing of a card would not affect employment , North's letter could reasonably be viewed by employees as a threat . It was thus an obvious deterrent to union affiliation. Unquestionably untruths in organizing campaign arguments, whether the unions or the employers , should be exposed; but such a desirable end must not provide the occasion or the vehicle for the exercise of coercive rebuttal . Here a simple and genuine assurance by the Respondent that it would not impose reprisals or discriminate against employees for signing union cards would have removed any reasonable doubt in the minds of employees as to the Respondent 's position. In the light of the importance which the Respondent's comment indicates it attached to the matter of confidentiality of the cards, I deem the absence of such assurances the significant and determining factor in evaluating the probable coercive impact on the employees of Mr. North's statement. I therefore find that North' s letter contained an implicit threat that employees who signed union cards which, it may reasonably be said , tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act "American Freightway Co , 124 NLRB 146, 147 See also Illinois Tool Works, 153 F 2d 811 (C A 7), The Red Rock Co , 84 NLRB 521, 525 FORENTA, INC. 645 might anticipate employment reprisals or discrimination from the Respondent. Upon the basis of the entire record I hereby make the following additional: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Forenta, Inc., is, and has been at all times material herein, a Tennessee corporation with an office and place of business at Morristown, Tennessee, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of drycleaning and washing machine equipment. During the past calendar year, which is representative of all times material herein, the Respondent sold and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of Tennessee. Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is, and has been at all times material herein , a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Forenta, Inc., Morristown , Tennessee , is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. By threatening its employees with reprisals or discrimination in employment for signing union authorization cards the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] APPENDIX A May 4,1965 To ALL FORENTA EMPLOYEES: I have noted a copy of the letter from Everett Dean of the United Textile Union to Forenta employees. While I am sure that our employees will not be taken in by the kind of malarky Mr. Dean has in his letter, he makes such interesting statements that I feel obligated to comment on them. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES On or about May 4, 1965, the Respondent, by its general manager and supervisor, William L. North, issued and distributed a letter to its employees, a copy of which is attached hereto, in which the Respondent informed its employees inter alia, that their signing authorization cards for the Union would not be kept confidential. In the circumstances of this statement, and for the reasons previously indicated above, the Respondent's action constituted a threat of reprisals or discrimination in employment against employees for union activity. By such conduct the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it 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: Mr. Dean starts out his letter by asking Forenta employees to sign "the enclosed card and return it in the postage free envelope." (For a five cent postage stamp, Everett Dean believes that he can buy your birthright, and bribe you into becoming a member of his Union ! It's an insult to the intelligence of Forenta employees.) Everett Dean goes on to say that the card which he is asking employees to sign will be filed with the National Labor Relations Board, and that " no one in your Company will ever see this card or know who signed it." Don't be deceived. If you have not already town [sic] the card up-as I am sure most of you have-read the language on it. The card doesn't say anything about a National Labor Relations Board election. It is an application for membership in the Union and appoints the Union your exclusive agent. This language would take away from you your individual right to discuss your problems with management, and would place these rights in the hands of outside people. While it is no doubt true that the Union would never show me a copy of your card, Unions frequently show these cards to other employees and to other people all over town. Frequently Unions use these cards in support of a refusal to bargain charge, in which event the cards are put in evidence in the case and sometimes the employees who signed them are required to get on the stand and testify. Knowledge of who signed Union cards is ordinarily as secret as the country telephone party line. But Mr. Dean doesn't care. In the next paragraph of the letter Mr. Dean states that "Many of your fellow workers have signed these cards." Everett Dean knows that this is absolutely 299-352 0-70-42 646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD untrue. In fact, only a very few have signed . Before you take his word for it , make him show you the cards. It is an old trick to tell employees that the Union "needs a few more" and that many have signed. Frequently they start their organizing campaigns that way. But these Union people are used to falsehoods and misrepresentations and to them it is as natural as breathing. The rest of Mr. Dean's letter relates to your wages and working conditions and job security . You are all aware that Forenta has done everything within its power to improve the position of its employees. And the job security for honest employees who do their work is better here than any other place in town. We have provided constant employement [sic] and considerable overtime . As you know, no Union can require this or any other Company to give higher wages than it is able or willing to give or to continue the employment of employees who do not properly perform their work. (I have just received a copy of the Union hand bill passed out on April 23. The Union statements in this are just as misleading and false as in the letter I have just referred to. In the first place, the Union talks about the conditions that "will exist" under the contract . There is no contract and the Union can not force the Company to agree to anything they are talking about . Who do they think they are fooling? In the second place, they talk about the things the Company "can do" without a contract , such as cutting wages ... at any time . As you know, this Company has never cut wages-it has only increased them. How dishonest can the Union get? If you have read this hand bill , I am sure that you can notice all of the statements made that are not appropriate to our working conditions and this you can expect when they are made by an outsider who really does not understand us or our problems). I have great confidence in Forenta employees. We know that the kind of propaganda Mr. Dean distributes is not going to be accepted here in Forenta. We shall legally fight Mr. Dean's organizing activities-and those of his henchmen and supporters-to the fullest extent. In this, I know that you are with me. Dear Forenta Worker: We take this means of asking you to join with other workers in your plant in the United Textile Workers of America, by signing the enclosed card and returning it in the postage free envelope. This card is filed with the National Labor Relations Board along with our request for them to hold an election. No one in your Company will ever see this card or know who has signed. Many of your fellow workers have signed these cards. We need a few more in order to get a secret ballot election. The election will be held by the U. S. Government. Most of you know that your fellow employees at Enka have a contract with their Company through the United Textile Workers of America, and that their wages and working conditions have improved a lot since they got their Union. More important to them is the fact that they have job security, layoff and recall must be by seniority, and no one can be discharged without justifiable cause. The officers and members of Local No. 815 in the Enka Plant stand ready to assist you in any way they can, both to form your Union and to get a contract. You can help secure your own and your family's future by signing the card, and by voting and working for the Union. Sincerely, /s/ Everett Dean Everett Dean Southern Co-Director APPENDIX D NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL Washington , D.C. 20570 February 7, 1966 Re: Forenta, Inc. Case No. 10-CA-6368 Very truly yours, FORENTA /s/ William L. North William L. North General Manager APPENDIX B UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA 121-1/2 Spring Street JOHNSON CITY, TENNESSEE April 19,1965 Mr. Everett F. Dean Southern Co-Director United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO 121-1/2 Spring Street Johnson City, Tennessee 37602 Dear Mr. Dean: Your appeal from the Regional Director's refusal to issue complaint in the captioned case, charging violations under Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, has been duly considered. The appeal is denied. Under all the circumstances, the evidence was deemed insufficient to sustain the burden of establishing that the Union represented a FORENTA, INC. majority of the Company's employees on October 20 when it demanded recognition . Further, in view of Smith's absenteeism in 1964 and 1965, including a 35- day absence immediately preceding his discharge, after having been warned a month previously concerning his poor attendance record, insufficient basis existed for a finding that Smith 's discharge was attributable to his participation in union or other protected activities . Accordingly , and since it did not appear that the November speech of Plant Manager North exceeded the bounds of Section 8(c) of the Act, further proceedings were unwarranted. Very truly yours, Arnold Ordman General Counsel 647 By/s/Irving M. Herman Irving M. Herman - - Director, Office of Appeals cc: Director, 10th Region Harold Humphrey, Esq., Maclellan Building