Allied/Egry Business Systems Inc.

514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Allied/Egry Business Systems Inc. and Local 13-L, Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 5-RC-6056 January 30,1968 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on August 24 and 25, 1967, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 5 among the employees in the stipulated unit. At the conclusion of the balloting, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that, of approximately 50 eligible voters, 49 cast valid ballots, of which 22 were for, and 27 were against, the Petitioner. There were no challenged ballots. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the Acting Rgional Director conducted an investigation of the objections and, on November 1, 19617, issued the attached Report on Objections with attachments thereto, in which he recommended that the Petitioner's objections be overruled and that the election results be certified. Thereafter, Petitioner filed exceptions to the Acting Regional Director's report, and the Employer filed a brief opposing these exceptions and supporting the report. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the pur- poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of ethe employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All 'production and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's Petersburg, West Virginia, plant, excluding office clerical em- ployees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Board has considered the Petitioner's ob- jections, the Acting Regional Director's Report on Objections, Petitioner's exceptions to that report, and the Employer's brief in support of the report and hereby adopts the Acting Regional Director's findings and recommendations. As the Acting Regional Director pointed out in his report, the campaign here was a vigorous one, and involved the use of especially partisan language in the campaign literature of both parties. We find ourselves in agreement with him, and in disagree- ment with our dissenting colleague, as to the in- terpretation of that literature. Our dissenting colleague points to certain state- ments made by the Employer with regard to unionism and strikes, and concludes that the Em- ployer meant to and did convey the impression that the choice of the Union would lead inevitably to strikes and perhaps even the loss of benefits and/or jobs. Realizing full well that in all cases such as this one, where one must attempt to fathom the meaning of another's words and assess the impress of such words on employees, reasonable men may differ, we differ with our colleague. The Employer did not say that the Union must strike to gain -reasonable demands, but only said it had no intention of yielding to pressure by the Union, such as strikes, where the object of such pressure was unreasonable. The Employer did not say it would not bargain; indeed it stated that it "would be required by law to ... negotiate in good faith" and that "both the Union and the Company have the absolute right to stand firm on their respec- tive positions." The Union explained at length what was required by "good faith." The Employer stated that the New Rochelle plant closed as a result of un- reasonable demands. The Union did not offer any rebuttal. The, Employer charged the Union with having engaged in 58 strikes over a period of 3 years. The Union did not deny this, but offered in rebuttal that it had negotiated "hundreds" of con- tracts without any strikes during the same period. Nowhere did the Employer state or imply that unionism would necessitiate loss of benefits; its evaluation of the cost of dues, fees, and assess- ments cannot be equated to threats. We cannot agree that an employer's expressed views on the possible economic disadvantages flowing from strikes is irrelevant to a reasoned choice. We also do not agree that the Employer injected any ele- ment of fear into its campaign here. It is our opinion that the campaign here waged by the Employer and the Union was within the boun- daries of permissible propaganda. Whether certain statements made by the Employer, if taken out of context, and especially if-assumed not to have been answered by the Union, would have been enough to warrant setting aside the election is unnecessary to 169 NLRB No. 60 ALLIED/EGRY BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. 515 decide. The Union nowhere showed that any of the Employer's statements were untrue, grossly exag- gerated, materially misrepresentative, or indeed anything but permissible puffing and expressive of partisan opinion. The Union had time to answer and answered in an equally vigorous, exaggerated, and partisan manner. This is the give and take of cam- paigning. We are of the opinion that the reasoned choice of the employees was not unlawfully inter- fered with by the Employer, and we shall overrule the Petitioner's objections. As we have overruled the objections, and as the Petitioner has failed to secure a majority of all the valid votes cast, we shall certify the results of the election. CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid ballots has not been cast for Local 13-L, Lithog- raphers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-CIO, and that said organization is not the ex- clusive representative of all the employees in the unit herein involved, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. MEMBER BROWN, dissenting: I am unable to join my colleagues' conclusion that the Employer's preelection letters contained no impermissive threats. I find that a dominant theme of those letters was the futility of selecting union representation and the harmful consequence flow- ing from this selection. In its first letter, July 19, 1967, the Employer injected the "serious con- sequences of strikes ... and the strike record of this Lithographers Union." The letter further stated that . your Company stands very strongly against bringing this Union into our plant. We feel that it would be a great mistake at this time, that it could not benefit you or the Company and that it could quite possibly cause serious problems and harm to all of us." In its July 28 letter the Employer again underscored the futility of choosing union representation. It affirmed the Employer's "ab- solute right" to stand firm in negotiations and as- serted that while "the Union can promise you the `pot of gold at the end of the rainbow' ... it cannot guarantee you one single thing." The letter then declared: Promises of paid professional Union or- ganizers do not buy the groceries and clothing for your families or pay the loans on your homes. Only the wages you earn from Al- lied/Egry do those things. And if this Lithog- raphers International Union were to win the election there would still be only one way that it could try to force us to agree to any of its de- mands we thought unreasonable, or which we otherwise couldn't see our way clear to agree to - that would be by pulling you out on strike. I can assure you that Allied/Egry has no inten- tion of yielding to any such pressure as that- ever. The letter next attributed the 1963 closing of the Employer's New Rochelle plant to another union's strike for "unreasonable demands" and "irresponsi- ble goals." Petitioner was then charged with having engaged in 58 strikes over the last 3 years. After listing the possibility of permanent replacement and denial of unemployment benefits during a strike, the letter concluded with: Why gamble with your money and the security and future of yourself, your loved ones, and your Company by bringing this new militant International Union into our plant and creating a situation that could lead to strikes and lockouts. Such a gamble seems a bad one to me at a time when you and our Petersburg opera- tion stand on the threshold of what I consider a very bright future with our most experienced and able Plant Manager at the helm, and our long awaited plant expansion about to com- mence. In its August 4, 1967, letter, the Employer claimed the employees enjoyed "steady work and better wages and working conditions than anyone in Petersburg" since the plant opened; and countered that with the question, "what would the story have been if you had been out on strike for several months during this time?" And finally on August 11, 1967, the Employer pointed to strike violence and loss of jobs during a sympathy strike par- ticipated in by a Lithographers local. Of course Employers do not lose their rights of free speech during organizational campaigns. But such right does not give them license to intimidate their employees as to deprive the latter of the right under this Act freely to select or reject a bargaining representative in a Board election. Threats are no more permissible because couched in terms of pre- dictions, analysis of other parties' intentions, or ex- pressions of opinions. In cases like the present one, the Board must thus determine whether "the sum total of the Employer's separate communications to its employees constituted a clear message that it was futile for them to select the Petitioner as their bargaining representative ... and that selection of Petitioner could only bring strikes, violence, and loss of jobs" (General Industries Electronics Com- pany, 146 NLRB 1139, 1141). And we accordingly set aside the election in General Industries upon an assessment that "the impact of a series of state- ments ... [was] well calculated to impress upon employees that the selection of Petitioner as their bargaining representative could only change their conditions of employment for worse." (Id.) The Employer's heavy emphasis on the inability of the Union to achieve any advances save through 350-212 0-70-34 516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD strikes, and on the economic losses flowing from strikes, clearly goes beyond providing information relevant to a reasoned choice. Rather it injected the extraneous element of intimidating fear-fear of strikes, fear of job loss, fear of violence, and fear of unnamed "harm." The fact that the Union chose to try to counteract this atmosphere of fear cannot allay the impact of the Employer's statements, weighted as they are by its superior economic power. As the Board did in General Industries, supra, I would set the election aside and direct a new one. REPORT ON OBJECTIONS Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, approved on July 31, 1967, a secret-ballot elec- tion was conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director on August 24 and 25, 1967, with the following results: Approximate number of eligible voters 50 Void ballots 0 Votes cast for Petitioner 22 Votes cast against participating labor organization 27 Valid votes counted 49 Challenged ballots 0 Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots 49 There are no challenged ballots. Timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election were filed by the Petitioner on September 1, 1967.2 THE OBJECTIONS OBJECTION 2 2. The Employer by letters directed to the em- ployees "conveyed to the employees threats of withdrawal of existing benefits , threats of other ad- verse changes in conduct of work and threats of ter- mination of employment through closing or removal of the plant by the Employer as a consequence of col- lective bargaining if Petitioner won the election." OBJECTION 4 4. The Employer by letters directed to the em- ployees "conveyed to the employees threats to make collective bargaining useless , to make no conces- sions in collective bargaining and otherwise to frus- trate the collective bargaining process if the Peti- tioner won the election." Petitioner's Objections 2 and 4 as set forth above will be considered together inasmuch as the substance of the allegations contained therein relate to the same issues. The Petitioner contends that the Employer in para- graph two of its July 19, 1967, letter (Appendix 1) com- mences its campaign of coercion when it states its inten- tion to discuss the serious consequences of strikes. Fol- lowing that is a statement that a union can impose wage and work assignment restrictions on employees and em- ployers. The Petitioner considers these assertions espe- cially intimidating in light of the Employer's statements in paragraph four of its July 28, 1967, letter (Appendix 3) that an employer has an absolute right "to stand firm" and not give in to union demands. The Petitioner argues that the Employer's remarks are only one indication of its ef- forts to derogate the collective-bargaining process and to advise employees that only unfavorable consequences flow from collective bargaining. The July 28, 1967, letter (Appendix 3) also discusses the possibility of a strike and the Employer's insistence that it would not give in to strike pressure. In addition, the Employer mentions the closing of its New Rochelle, New York, plant during a strike, the redistribution of the plant's work to other em- ployer plants, and its legal right to replace economic strikers. The Petitioner's contention is that the Employer has advised its employees that it would not bargain in good faith and that strikes and eventual plant closure would be the result of the Petitioner's winning the elec- tion. The Employer contends that it discussed with its em- ployees, through its letters containing abstract illustra- tions or truthful recitations of past experiences, the possi- ble hazards of union representation. It argues that it clearly recognizes its duty to bargain in good faith in para- graph four of its July 28, 1967, letter (Appendix 3), and that the specific example of a past strike in paragraph six of the same letter shows the strike to be the result of un- reasonable union demands. The Employer further asserts that the Petitioner had the opportunity to, and did, respond, as it saw fit, to the Employer's letter. The Em- ployer states that its letters are well within the bounds of permissable campaign propaganda and that the Petitioner is taking certain statements out of context. The Acting Regional Director has considered not only the portions of the letters relied on by the Petitioner and the Employer but also Appendixes 1 through 9, attached hereto in their entirety. The discussion of strikes and their consequences by an employer in its campaign literature is not invalid as long as it is presented in a noncoercive manner. Trent Tube Company, 147 NLRB 538. Pointing out the strike record of a union is fair comment as long as this would not lead employees to believe that selecting the union would be an act of futility or that good-faith bar- gaining could never result from the selection of the union. Shure Brothers Incorporated, 147 NLRB 43. In the final analysis a distinction must be made between literature that depicts strikes as the inevitable result of union representation and statements that merely point out the I The unit is: "All production and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's Peterburg, West Virginia, plant, excluding office clerical employees , guards, professional employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act." 2 The petition was filed on June 23, 1967. The Acting Regional Director will consider on its merits only that alleged interference which occurred during the critical period which begins on and includes the date of the filing of the petition and extends through the election. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 138 NLRB 453. ALLIED/EGRY BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. 517 possibility of economic loss to employees if they select the union. FormexCompany, 160 NLRB 835. Admittedly, in the Employer's July 28, 1967, letter (Appendix 3), the possibility and consequences of a strike are set forth. Also, there is mention of the strike record of Petitioner's International and a recent plant closure due to a strike. There is also mention of strikes in the Em- ployer's August 11, 1967, letter (Appendix 6). However, these letters do not reasonably convey the impression that a strike is inevitable if the Petitioner were selected. The Employer's letters stressed, as one of the topics discussed, that a possibility of a strike exists when the parties fail to reach agreement during negotiations. The campaign conducted by the Employer was vigorous and involved the use of partisan literature (Ap- pendixes 6, 7, and 8) sent to its employees. However, it did not overstep the bounds of fair comment and deprive the employees of a free choice. The Petitioner had the op- portunity to respond and did so in partisan letters sent to employees on July 26 and August 11 and 18, 1967 (Ap- pendixes 2, 5, and 9). The Acting Regional Director is of the opinion that Employer's letters, considered as a whole and viewed in the context of the whole campaign, do not support a find- ing that the Employer threatened the employees with ad- verse consequences in the event of the selection of the Petitioner as their bargaining representative. Ac- cordingly, he recommends that Objections 2 and 4 be overruled. 25, 1967. Thus, there was ample time for Petitioner to respond to the Employer's letters. The Petitioner, in fact, did reply in its August 11, 1967, letter (Appendix 5) to the Employer's charges that its only objective was to ob- tain money from the employees. In the same letter the Petitioner, in reference to alleged misrepresentations by the Employer, stated: The Company is desperate. It knows that the em- ployees who will vote in the election to be held by the National Labor Relations Board will vote for the Union. The Company, knowing this, feels it has nothing to lose by making rash statements and downright lies. The Employer's statements accusing the Petitioner of improper motivation in its attempt to organize the em- ployees might not have been accurate nor above reproach .but could have been, and in some cases were, answered. Under the circumstances, these statements were privileged as free speech and legitimate argument. Accordingly, the Acting Regional Director recom- mends that Objection 1 be overruled. OBJECTION 3 3. The Employer by letters to the employees "conveyed to the employees promises of favorable conditions of work if the Petitioner was defeated in the election." OBJECTION I 1. The Employer by letter to the employees "vilified and slandered the Petitioner, and conveyed false and misleading innuendoes and implications concerning the financial practices of the Petitioner and its representatives." The Petitioner contends that the Employer engaged in improper conduct when in paragraph four of its July 19, 1967, letter (Appendix 1) it suggested possible union retaliation against employees and by the Employer's as- sertions in its July 28 and August 4, 1967, letter (Appen- dixes 3 and 4) that the Petitioner was out to get its hands on the employees' money. Also, the Petitioner asserts that the Employer in paragraph two of its July 28, 1967, letter (Appendix 3) conveys a distorted picture of the Board's determination of the proper voting unit. The Employer contends that the Board has refused to set aside elections on the basis of alleged innuendos and misrepresentations similar to the type in point here, espe- cially in the context of the partisan electioneering by both parties. Also, the Petitioner had an opportunity and did reply to the alleged misrepresentations. The Board has held that it will only set aside an election on the basis of misrepresentations if the misrepresenta- tions represent a substantial departure from the truth, may reasonably be expected to have a substantial impact on the election, and the other party had insufficient time and/or knowledge to reply. Hollywood Ceramics Com- pany, Inc., 140 NLRB 221. In the instant case the Em- ployer's letters in issue were sent on July 19 and 28 and August 4, 1967. The election was held on August 24 and The Petitioner states that the Employer in its July 28 and August 8, 1967, letters (Appendixes 3 and 8) made promises of benefits to the employees in the event Peti- tioner was rejected. The Petitioner contends the promises are contained in the last paragraph of the July 28, 1967, letter (Appendix 3) which states that the Employer and the employees have a bright future. Furthermore, Peti- tioner asserts that the penultimate sentence of the August 18, 1967, letter (Appendix 8) implies that terms and con- ditions of employment would be better without the Peti- tioner. The Employer contends that the passages which the Petitioner objects to are well within the limitations of al- lowable campaign comment. The Employer asserts that it merely asked the employees to give the plant manager a chance to prove that they did not need an outsider to speak for them. However, no promise of benefit was made. It is interference with the free-choice of employees in a forthcoming representation election for an employer to grant or promise special benefits in the event that the union is rejected. N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Company, 375 U.S. 405. However, vague suggestions by an em- ployer to its employees that they have a good future together is not the type of promise contemplated as un- lawful. The Acting Regional Director is of the opinion that the letters do not support a finding that the Employer made unlawful promises to the employees, contingent upon re- jection of the Petitioner, and thereby prevented them from making a free choice. Accordingly, he recommends that Objection 3 be overruled. In summary, the Acting Regional Director recom- mends that Objection 1, 2, 3, and 4 be overruled and that an appropriate certification of results of election issue. 518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX I ALLIED/EGRY BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC. July 19,1967 Dear Mr. Dice As you probably know by now, the Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union has peti- tioned the National Labor Relations Board for an election at our Petersburg plant to determine whether a majority of you want to be represented by this Union. A hearing before an official from the Na- tional Labor Relations Board will be held on July 25 to determine voter eligibility and a secret ballot elec- tion will later be conducted by the Federal Govern- ment. We welcome this election because we feel that all of our employees should have the opportunity to express themselves in the democratic tradition of the secret ballot. I am writing to you because I feel very strongly about the extreme importance of this election to you, your family and our Company. Because many of you haven't had experience with large International Unions, I am most anxious to make sure that you are exposed to all aspects of Unionism before the elec- tion. Therefore, during the next few weeks, I - along with several others-will be discussing some of the issues in this election with you. For instance, I am sure you will be interested in a frank and honest discussion of the serious consequences of strikes, and particularly in the strike record of this Lithog- raphers Union. Also, you might be interested in knowing about the restrictions on wages and work assignments a Union can impose on both the em- ployee and the employer. And certainly you will be very interested in the true cost of Unionism. Some of you may wonder about the Company's posi- tion in this Union election and you and your families have a right to know what it is. There's no sense in pulling any punches with you-your Company stands very strongly against bringing this Union into our plant. We feel that it would be a great mistake at this time, that it could not benefit you or the Com- pany and that it could quite possibly cause serious problems and harm to all of us. For this reason, we intend to use every proper and legal means to prevent the Union from coming in here. We ask you to listen to our side of the story and think hard about it before the election and then decide if this Union will serve your best interests. I appreciate your taking the time to read this letter and urge you not to make any hasty decisions or to be mislead. If you have any questions concerning any aspect of this situation please don't hesitate to speak with Jim Emerson, the recently appointed Manager of the Petersburg plant, or any of the super- visory group at the plant. Incidently, Jim is particu- larly well qualified to discuss this Union situation because at one time in his long history in the Busi- ness Forms industry he was President of a Union Local. Like you, he and the other supervisors and their families have a direct interest in the outcome of this election and welcome the opportunity to discuss it with you. I give you my personal guarantee that your confidences will be kept, that your private con- versations will not be exposed, or in any way revealed, and most important, that your job will be protected from any and all types of Union retaliation. The Union thrives on secrecy, and if you fail to discuss the advantages and disadvantages with all interested parties, including the Company, only the Union will benefit-at your expense. Finally, in closing, there is one point I want to make very clear. EVEN IF YOU HAVE ALREADY SIGNED A UNION CARD YOU CAN STILL VOTE AGAINST THE UNION IN THE ELEC- TION. Regardless of rumors you may hear or false information you may receive, your vote will be secret and there is absolutely no obligation on you to vote for the Union even if you have signed a card, at- tended meetings or paid Union dues. You see, the Government recognizes that employees often sign cards simply to get Union sympathizers and or- ganizers off their backs. The Government also recog- nizes that many employees sign cards thinking that they want a Union but that during the pre-election campaign period, which the Government oversees, when the employee hears both sides of the story he frequently changes his mind. I urge you now and will continue to urge you to examine all of the facts in- volved here. I believe that when you have you will vote NO UNION. Sincerely yours, Glen W. Underwood, President APPENDIX 2 LITHOGRAPHERS AND PHOTOENGRAVERS INTERNATIONAL UNION July 26, 1967 TO: Employees of Allied Egry Petersburg, W. Virginia Dear Friends: The hearing by the N.L.R.B. was held in the high school at Petersburg, W. Va. on Tuesday July 25th, 1967 and a consent election was worked out. The election will be held on August 24th, between 2:30 P.M. and 3:30 P.M. and on August 25th, between 6:30 A.M. and 7:30 A.M. to allow all shifts to vote. The Company has done everything to delay and confuse the employees. They wanted to hold the election on September 14th as they frankly admitted to give them time to make you change your minds and vote no union. The Union in effort to get an early election and to relieve the tension on the employees agreed to allow four office workers to vote. We think this is a mistake ALLIED/EGRY BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. on the part of the Company. However when we win, we will represent these employees fairly and do everything in our power to get them commensurate pay and working conditions. The Company will now send you a barrage of let- ters and hold meetings within the plant. These letters and meetings will subject you to half truths and devi- ous twistings of the truth. The Company will likely admit to mistakes and ask for a second chance. As an example in a letter written to you by the Company dated July 19th they say that Mr. Emerson was a union president. A search of our files revealed no James Emerson. In fact at the N.L.R.B. hearing Mr. Slusher and the Company's lawyer Mr. Shulman admitted that Mr. Emerson was a local president in some other union not the L.P.I.U. Upon direct question they could not tell us what union. Let not your hearts or minds by swayed by people whose interests are not truly in your interest. Sincerely, John M. Greer President , Local 13-La LPIU Raymond H. Dunn Int'l Rep. LPIU APPENDIX 3 ALLIED/EGRY BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC. July 28, 1967 Dear Mr. Bergdoll The Union keeps accusing the Company of trying to delay the election. You are probably wondering why the Union seems to be in such a frantic rush. The answer is simple. Now that they have painted for you their picture of Union Utopia, they are afraid of your hearing the Company's side of the story, and they can't wait to get their hands in your pockets and your pay checks. One thing they seemed to overlook in their July 26th letter is that Mr. Dunn, the Union or- ganizer from Massachusetts, kept insisting at the Conference before the NLRB that he didn't want the election in September because he was going to be oc- cupied almost the entire month of September with a Union convention in Los Angeles, California. I am sure he'd like your money to pad his expense account with when he goes. With reference to our clerical employees, one of the reasons that the Company insisted on meeting with the NLRB, was to make sure that all of our em- ployees who contribute to our product in Petersburg be allowed to vote in this election which we feel is so very important to the future of all of us. We feel it was unfair of the Union to demand that these em- ployees not be allowed to vote and that it demon- strates the unwillingness of this Union to give everybody a voice and to be fair and square with everyone involved. 519 Now, lets get down to the real issues ... I have received reports about certain promises and as- surances made to you by the Lithographers Union's paid professional organizers regarding changes in wages, fringe benefits and other working conditions if the Union is voted into our Petersburg Plant. It is not unusual for clever Union organizers to try to give employees the mistaken impression, during an or- ganizing campaign, that all they have to do is vote the Union in and then, automatically, higher pay and benefits of various kinds will be gained. This simply is not the case and I hope you won't be taken in. If the Lithographers International Union were to win the election, the Company would be required by law to recognize the Union as the collective bargaining representative of its Petersburg employees and to negotiate in good faith with it. However, the law does not require the employer to concede to a Union's proposals or requests, regardless of what its profes- sional organizers have promised. Furthermore, after a Union is voted into a plant, the Company would have the same right as the Union to make proposals and to demand operational and economic changes, and both the Union and the Company have the ab- solute right to stand firm on their respective posi- tions. Now, the point I am making is that the Union can promise you the "pot of gold at the end of the rain- bow", but it cannot guarantee you one single thing. Promises of paid professional Union organizers do not buy the groceries and clothing for your families or pay the loans on your homes. Only the wages you earn from AlliedlEgry do those things. And if this Lithographers International Union were to win the election there would still be only one way that it could try to force us to agree to any of its demands we thought unreasonable, or which we otherwise couldn't see our way clear to agree to - that would be by pulling you out on strike. I can assure you that Allied/Egry has no intention of yielding to any such pressure as that- ever. The Company had an unfortunate experience recently with a strike resulting from unreasonable Union demands in the plant which Allied/Egry operated in New Rochelle, New York, where we regularly employed about 200 people. In mid-1962, there were contract negotiations with the Interna- tional Typographical Union. The Company offered what it felt was a fair proposal and decided to stand firm. The Union persisted in its unreasonable de- mands which far exceeded what the Company could afford, and to achieve its irresponsible goals, took the employees out on strike. The Company refused to compromise, and the strike continued for several months until management finally concluded that the plant was not worth the aggravation and announced that it was terminating its New Rochelle operations and redistributing the work among its several remain- ing plants located throughout the country. The relo- cation decision shocked the Union and many com- munity leaders, and an intensive effort was made to persuade management to reconsider. But the attempt was futile, and in 1963, the plant was officially and completely closed. The Company broke no law in pulling out of New Rochelle, and yet the big militant 520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Union whose irresponsible leadership was the cause of the relocation could do nothing to preserve the employees' jobs or protect them from the hardships of unemployment. need the Lithographers Union or any outsider to speak for you in Petersburg. Sincerely yours, Jim Emerson was an employee of the Company in New Rochelle, incidentally, not long before the strike, and although he was not around at the time of the strike he is very familiar with what happened. And the New Rochelle situation is just one example of unnecessary problems and suffering caused in- nocent people by irresponsible unionism and one reason I feel we would be better off without the intru- sion of these outside troublemakers at our Peters- burg plant. This International Lithographers Union has an alarming strike record, regardless of what their or- ganizers may have told you. Since the formation of this new Union (which was created by a merger in September of 1964 of the Amalgamated Lithog- raphers of America (ALA) and the International Photoengravers Union), strikes by the Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union at 58 dif- ferent plants have been reported in the three sources that I have had time to have checked (The Wall Street Journal, the State of New York Collective Bargaining Service and The Union's own newspaper). Most employees, incidentally, do not realize that an employer has a perfect right to hire permanent replacements for employees who are on strike, and the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that a striking employee who is permanently replaced during a strike does not have a right to return to his job after the strike is over. And the Supreme Court has also ruled that an employer in a negotiating stale- mate can lock out its employees-just close its doors-to put pressure on the Union to accept its terms. Also, you should know that in West Virginia an em- ployee on an economic strike is not eligible for unem- ployment compensation, which means that a striking employee has no income unless the Union decides to give some sort of strike benefit. And regardless of what the professional Union organizers may have told you, I can assure you that Union strike benefits, if they come at all, are usually meager when com- pared to the employee 's regular wages. Why gamble with your money and the security and future of yourself, your loved ones, and your Com- pany by bringing this new militant International Union into our plant and creating a situation that could lead to strikes and lockouts . Such a gamble seems a bad one to me at a time when you and our Petersburg operation stand on the threshold of what I consider a very bright future with our most ex- perienced and able Plant Manager at the helm, and our long awaited plant expansion about to com- mence. I urge you to give Jim Emerson and your Company a chance to prove to you that you do not G. W. Underwood President APPENDIX 4 ALLIED/EGRY BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC. August 4, 1967 Dear Mr. Bergdoll One of the things I think you should think about very carefully before the election is the fact that if the Union were to win the election you would be a mere satelite of a large Union local (according to its newspaper, the membership in Local 13-L is over 600) in Washington, D.C. over 125 miles away. The paid professional Union organizers have told you that you would elect representatives to go to Washington and express your feelings in the Washington monthly meetings where important deci- sions about your welfare and your money would be made. Just how concerned would the Union bosses in Washington be about your problems and opinions, and just what control would you have over your own destiny? Have you asked yourself this question-why is this Union after you? Why are these outsiders now so in- terested in you? Your common sense tells you the answer. What the paid professional Union organizers want first and foremost is money-your money!! In Washington, Local 13-L's dues and special assess- ments at this moment are as follows: For employees making $2.00 per hour or more ... $6.00 per month ... per year per em- ployee ... $72.00. For every 25 cents per hour above $2.00.. . 50 cents per month. Current special assesments ... $2.00 per month ... per year per employee ... $48.00. Total minimum dues and assessments ... $120.00. Multiply this by the number of employees who will be working in our Petersburg plant as soon as our ex- pansion is completed and you can easily see why these outsiders consider this a big financial plum to pluck for the Union coffers. Do you really think that you would have gotten any more since we started in Petersburg in wage in- creases, increased insurance benefits, paid holidays, vacations and other fringe benefits if you had been represented by a Union? Look at what the em- ployees at the Loewengart Tannery (who are, in- cidentally, a satelite of a Pittsburgh local) have got- ten with a Union-9.1 cents per hour in wage in- creases and fringe benefits as a result of their recently negotiated contract-far below what your Company gave you voluntarily, without the intrusion of a Union or any outsider. Your wages and benefits have steadily improved at Petersburg because you ALLIED/EGRY BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. have earned it, and you didn't have to pay dues, fees, fines or assessments to get it. Since our plant opened you have had steady work and better wages and working conditions than anyone in Petersburg. On the other hand, what would the story have been if you had been out on strike for several months during this time? Section 23 of Local 13-L's Washington area agree- ment which the Union passed out to you provides for a 35 hour work week. Did you ever stop to think what 5 less hours of wages per week-260 less hours of wages per year-would mean to your family in- come. It is worth getting out your pencil and figuring. And, of course, there is no obligation on the em- ployers under the Local 13-L's agreement, or other- wise, to give overtime. But the Union isn't bothered by this-less hours worked by you simply means that we would need more employees, which means more Union members, and more in dues, fees and assess- ments. And did you notice the Union Shop provision in the Local 13-L's Washington area agreement, Section 16, whereby the employer must require all em- ployees to become and remain members of the Union and pay initiation fees and dues to them, or discharge the employee after 10 days notice to the Company from the Union. Then Section 100 provides for the Dues check-off by which the Union takes a slice of every members pay check before he ever gets it or even sees it. I can assure you that as far as Al- lied/Egry is concerned, we do not feel it is necessary for anybody to join a Union to work here, and have never distinguished between our employees on the basis of church, union or other affiliation. You should be considering whether you would like these type conditions imposed on us here. Don't be misled into thinking that the Union wouldn't insist upon these provisions with our plant expansion about to commence and their interest in the additional dues, fees and assessments that this expansion represents to them. Add up the cost of unionism-then ask yourself these questions: Do the paid professional Union organizers really have your best interests at heart and will bringing in this new outside Union be in your best interests? Would the Union benefit or harm you -be good or bad for you? Is it really worth the cost? You see, regardless of what anyone may tell you, I am urging you to vote NO UNION because I sin- cerely believe that bringing this Lithographers Union into your plant at this time, to represent you, would not be in your best interest. I feel and my strong be- lief in your good sense leads me to conclude that after you have carefully weighed all of the issues, you 521 will agree with me and vote NO UNION. I ask you and urge you to do so! Sincerely yours, G. W. Underwood, President APPENDIX 5 LITHOGRAPHERS AND PHOTOENGRAVERS INTERNATIONAL UNION August It, 1967 TO THE EMPLOYEES OF ALLIED EGRY Dear Friends: The Company is desperate. It knows that the em- ployees who will vote in the election to be held by the National Labor Relations Board will vote for the Union. The Company, knowing this, feels it has nothing to lose by making rash statements and downright lies. In our opinion, the Company has and is engaging in unfair labor practices and in addition has resorted to untrue libelous statements. In its form letter dated July 28, 1967, the Company falsely seeks to picture the Union's interest as inspired only to get money for itself from you. The Company charges that Ray Dunn would like to get "your money" to pad his expense account. This is a libel and appropriate action will be taken against the Com- pany for making this reckless and untruthful accusa- tion. The Company then says that it will get down to the real issues in the case but it does not. The entire in- tent of the letter is to convince you that the Union cannot obtain any benefits through a decent contract unless it resorts to a strike. This is entirely false. The Company tells you of 58 strikes in three years. It hides the fact that the Union has successfully negotiated collective bargaining agreements covering hundreds of companies in those three years without any strike. And, please note this, one of those con- tracts, negotiated without a strike, is with Allied Egry at its Dayton, Ohio plant. Attached to this letter you will find a copy of the current collective bargaining contract in force between Allied-Egry and a Local of the Lithog- raphers & Photoengravers International Union covering the employees of the Dayton plant of the Company. This is absolute proof that not only a firm relationship can be established with your Company but that the Union not only promises but delivers. The Company recognizes the fact that the law will require that it bargain in good faith. Good faith means that it cannot take an unreasonable position with respect to proposals and counter proposals and stand firm. Good faith means that the Company can- not be adamant or arbitrary and cannot simply say "no". The Company by implication seeks to create the impression that a strike is inevitable when the Union becomes the collective bargaining agent, and then draws a distorted picture of the consequences of strike action. 522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A strike is not inevitable and if the Company acts in accordance with the law and bargains in good faith, a fair and equitable contract can be quickly concluded. The LPIU has been the representative of Allied- Egry in Dayton, Ohio for many years and has a long history of a peaceful relationship. There is no reason to believe that the Union will have to strike at this plant if the Company complies with it obligation to bargain in good faith. In the July 28, 1967 letter the Company says that promises of paid professional, Union organizers do not buy the groceries and clothing for your families or pay the loans on your homes. Ask yourself whether the wages you now receive adequately buy the groceries and clothing for your families or pay the loan on your homes. Do you have enough money to provide your family with a decent standard of living? Is there enough money in your pay envelop to meet the ever increasing costs of living and the new taxes which appear to be inevitable? Are you working regular shifts or are you working under a "Chinese workweek" arrangement? Do you have the security that Union pension funds and other benefits bring? The Lithographers & Photoengravers Union and the two Unions in the graphic arts industry which merged to form it have a history of almost one hun- dred years. The Union is growing. It is no Johnny- come-lately and has grown steadily because more and more employees recognize that they can only achieve decent wages and working conditions through representation by the LPIU. You have nothing to fear but fear itself. Do not fall for the "line" of threats and misstatements handed you by the Company. Vote Union and be master of your own future. Fraternally, John M. Greer President, Local 13-L Raymond H. Dunn International Representative APPENDIX 6 ALLIED/EGRY BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC. August 11, 1967 Dear Mr. Dice I understand that at a recent meeting the Union dis- tributed some of the letters I wrote to our Leipsic employees last year when this same Lithographers International Union was attempting to organize our Leipsic plant. Make certain they show you all the let- ters sent to the Leipsic employees during that elec- tion campaign. I don't claim to be much of a writer and if they want to criticize or ridicule my style, that's alright with me-however, I hope they don't obscure or withhold the facts that were presented in those letters because they contained a large amount of information about this Union and unionism in general. Those letters were written for the purpose of providing our people in Leipsic with facts so that they would have as much information as possible be- fore making their own decision as to whether this Union was in their best interests. The really signifi- cant thing is that when they had the facts and made their decision, the people in Leipsic voted against this Union by the overwhelming margin of 112 to 43 - and with good reason! I hope the Union lets you see my letters pertaining to their illegal strike at the A. L. Garber Company in Ashland, Ohio. This Company had about 400 em- ployees, 96 of whom were members of Local 55L of the LPIU. There were three other unions at the plant-the Bookbinders, the Teamsters and the Printing Pressmen. The Bookbinders struck the Company and put up a picket line because they were unable to reach an agreement while negotiating a new contract. The other three Unions, including the Lithographers, refused to work in sympathy with the Bookbinders, although each had a contract in force with the Company specifically prohibiting this. When the Company ordered them back, two of the Unions complied with their contracts and returned to work, but the Lithographers, under the leadership of their International representative, refused. All 96 mem- bers of Local 55L were discharged for violating their contract and the N.L.R.B. ruled the discharges completely lawful. I consider this to be irresponsible Union leadership at its worst because of the tragic consequences to the 96 workers and their families. And this is the same Union that is seeking your vote. I also think you are entitled to know about the treat- ment given an employee of the Akron Engraving Company recently by this same Lithographers Union. I am enclosing a copy of the official reported decision of the N.L.R.B. which explains much better than I can the type of tactics used by Union officers during a Lithographers Union strike, which began on November 11, 1965, and is still going on this very moment. The Company has advised me that it has permanently replaced most of the striking em- ployees. I hope you will take the time to read this N.L.R.B. decision and then ask yourself if this is the type of Union you would want to be associated with. Yes, we know this Lithographers Union-we know a lot of facts about their history and their methods of operation-facts which we intend to lay before you so that you too, like the people in our Leipsic plant, can make up your mind based on all the information it is possible for you to have in your possession. There are some other facts I would like you to con- sider-the evidence of the bright future of our Peters- burg plant. Surely there can be no doubt that we are making a real and sincere effort to build a plant in Petersburg that will provide steady employment with an opportunity to build for the future. I know we have had problems and still have problems-we are not perfect but by the same token I don't believe a Union, especially this Lithographers Union, has any magic formula for solving our problems or yours. In Jim Emerson you have a sincere and well qualified plant manager who cares very much, about you and our common objectives and who has been given the ALLIED/EGRY BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. freedom and authority to build Petersburg into something we can all be proud of. To introduce this Union can only make Jim's and all of our jobs more difficult. I ask you to give Jim, yourself and all of us a chance to build together, without dubious outside interference, by voting NO UNION. Sincerely yours, G. W. Underwood, President CLEVELAND LOCAL NO. 24-P. LITHOGRAPHERS [AKRON ENGRAVING CO.] DECISION OF NLRB CLEVELAND LOCAL NO. 24-P, LITHOG- RAPHERS AND PHOTOENGRAVERS IN- TERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, Akron, Ohio and AKRON ENGRAVING COMPANY, INC., Case No: 8-CB-1000, September 7, 1966, 160 NLRB No. 77 Richard A. DuRose, Cleveland, Ohio, for General Counsel; Ernest C. T. Santora and John E. Purdy, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio, for union; Eugene S. Rohrich for company; Trial Examiner Melvin Pollack. Before McCulloch, Chairman; Jenkins and Zagoria, Members. RESTRAINT OR COERCION SEC. 8(B)(I)(A) Union violated LMRA by its agents' following and threatening employee with physical harm if he crossed union's picket lines. The Union called a strike against the employer on November 11, 1965. The company shares a building with two other firms, both of which have the same corporate officers as the employer. On December 4, 1965, an employee was hired to begin work at one of the nonstruck firms. After his hiring, he was approached by union of- ficers who told him that he would have to "face the consequences" and "could get hurt" if he went to work across the picket line. Two days after he started to work, the employee was followed after work by two or three union men. They approached him after he had walked for a few blocks and engaged him in conversation. They repeated that he "could get hurt" if he continued to cross the picket line. The employee received his first paycheck on December 20. When he left the plant at noon, a union picket followed him to the bank and to the restaurant. A week or so later, he was approached by union officials as he left the plant and was told, "What are you looking for, trouble? You keep on insisting on getting your back broken." One of the men took a snapshot of the employee as they waited for a traffic light. When the employee indicated no fear of renewed threats of getting his back broken, the union official said that "If you can't heed a warning, what about your wife and family ... you know, you got to think about them too." On December 20, the employee's wife and mother picked him up at work. As they drove away, the em- 523 ployee noticed that two union officers were driving behind him. He made several turns and shifted lanes, but the union officer's car continued to follow him. He finally returned to the plant, and, with the aid of company official, managed to block in the union of- ficer's car so that they couldn't follow him. Later, one of the union officers followed the em- ployee home and parked his car across the street from the employee's house. When the employee went out to write down the license number of the car, the union officer said, "You better get that number right. That will be one of the last numbers you will get. You are not going to be around that much longer." Order: Cease and desist from restraint and coer- cion found: in any like or related manner, coercing employees in the exercise of their LMRA rights. Post notice. APPENDIX 7 ALLIED/EGRY BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC. August 17, 1967 Dear Mr. Dice I told you earlier that we know the LPIU and some of their problems. I could write long letters on this subject, but I think the attached letter of James H. O'Neill says more than I could in many letters. Mr. O'Neill is a man who has devoted almost his entire adult life to serving workers in the unionization of the lithographic field-as a fellow worker, and organizer and the Vice President of the old A.L.A. Because of his disillusionment with the leadership of the new LPIU, he resigned and now serves as an Interna- tional Respresentative of the International Typo- graphical Union (ITU). In describing his reasons for breaking all ties with the new LPIU, Mr. O'Neill refers to "the destructive ac- tions of Kenneth Brown" (who is still the LPIU In- ternational President) and his lack of leadership which was responsible for the division in the Union and the loss of its oldest and strongest local. He talks about the A. L. Garber lockout, where the Company still refuses to talk with the LPIU, as evidence of LPIU weakness. Mr. O'Neill sums up his position very well in the following sentence: "It was not easy for me to resign office and go back to the bench, but I could not in good con- science remain an officer of the Union once I was convinced that International leadership was more interested in protecting their positions by getting rid of opposition (such as Swayduck and Local 1) than in serving the membership." Incidentally, the Ed Swayduck O'Neill refers to is one of the most highly respected Union leaders in the United States who also refused to accept the kind of leadership that today directs the LPIU. Mr. O'Neill's letter points out what I have been try- ing to explain to you throughout this campaign -that this new LPIU is very unstable, with many internal problems-problems which might one day explode and hurt everyone who is connected with it. If Jim 524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Emerson or I had written the O'Neill letter it could easily be called "company propaganda." Here, you have it from a dedicated Union man, who has lived with this situation, who is not involved in this elec- tion and who knows what he is talking about. I urge you to read his letter before the election. Please study the facts and think more than twice before vot- ing. If you will, I am confident you will vote NO UNION. Sincerely yours, G. W. Underwood, President January 21, 1966 To the Members of LPIU: I want to express my thanks to all of you who voted for me in the recent LPIU election in which I was a candidate for President. The confidence you expressed in me is most gratifying. However, the total vote for me included many which were cast by members who were not voting on personality, but against the destructive actions of Kenneth Brown, as a protest against his lack of leadership which was responsible for the division in the Union and the loss of its oldest and strongest Local. It has been necessary for me to meet extremely difficult personal problems. For almost my entire adult life I have devoted myself to working to build a Union of lithographers, as a worker, an organizer and vice-president of the old ALA. The fact that I opposed the wrecking of the ALA won for me the wrath of the present LPIU leader- ship. This led to a blacklisting of me, so I found it dif- ficult to obtain employment in litho shops under in- fluence of the LPIU. These circumstances caused me to search out the best course to follow with the view of service to the rank-and-file workers in the lithographic field. The only conclusion that can be reached is that the old ALA has been destroyed and the new LPIU set up as a poor substitute. It is obvious the Interna- tional leadership of LPIU has forfeited its right to claim representation of working lithographers. In plain language, the LPIU has deserted the member- ship of the old ALA. The LPIU has deserted the principles for which I fought all my life. I shall never forget the wonderful years I spent as an International Representative and ALA Vice-Pres- ident, and the feeling of reward I had that I was doing a job important and basic for the protection of the standards of living of my brother lithographers and their families. It was not easy for me to resign of- fice and go back to the bench, but I could not in good conscience remain an officer of the Union once I was convinced that the International leadership was more interested in protecting their positions by getting rid of opposition (such as Swayduck and Local 1) than in serving the membership. Rushing forward with the merger with eagerness at the expense of, and loss of, Local 1 was ill con- ceived. Nor does it make any sense now to talk merger with the Printing Pressmen's Union which has always been an outspoken enemy of the Lithog- raphers Union and which not long ago boasted that it broke the ALA city-wide strike in Miami by bring- ing in strikebreakers from all over the country, and which at this very time is scabbing against our mem- bers locked out by the A. L. Garber Company in Ashland, Ohio, where the ALA was the bargaining representative for many years. Incidentally, why is it that the Unionist has not shown a single picture of our pickets, nor made any mention of the lock-out since it occurred in October? Perhaps Kenneth Brown and his associates are em- barrassed that so soon after IPP&AU President De- Andrade's appearance at the Convention, his union ratted on us. Or maybe there is no room left after space is allotted for pictures of Kenneth Brown. And another thing. The merger was supposed to give us added strength. Where is it? Garber not only locked us out, they won't even speak to us. Here is what the president of the Ashland local says: "The company has refused and continues to refuse to meet with the representatives of the LPIU. Many, many attempts have been made by local officers, Interna- tional officers, the Federal Mediation and Concilia- tion Service, public officials, other unions and legal representatives of the union, to secure a meeting with the company to effect a return to work with the rights of the lithographers restored. Approaches have been made to the company management, ownership, mem- bers of the board of directors, and legal representa- tives, all to no avail." Instead of strength the LPIU is showing more weakness and management is becoming aware of it. Isn't it something new to be kicked around like that? But should it be surprising? How else can we in- terpret the agreement recently made by the LPIU and management,' the so-called Declaration of Inter- Dependence. I was at the meeting where LPIU In- ternational leaders socialized with management for the best part of a week and came up with a so-called Declaration of Inter-Dependence. This is the path to company unionism which, given time, will sap the vitality of local negotiations and end as always: with company unionism, and the lowering of wages and working conditions. Ken Brown's ill advised merger programs and subservient approach to management is more than I could take and more than Local 1 was willing to take, which is one reason why it affiliated with the ITU. I believe that the International leadership of the LPIU has not the least desire or interest to do the vigorous all-out organizing of unorganized lithog- raphers necessary to protect the standards of work- ing lithographers everywhere. Fortunately, there is the ITU, which is vitally interested in doing that job, and I believe that if the standards of working lithog- raphers are going to be protected it will be only because the International Typographical Union un- derstands the importance of organizing the unor- ganized lithographers and has seriously turned atten- tion to that task. The ITU wasted no time in recognizing Kenneth Brown's blunder in regard to Local 1 and promptly modified its by-laws so as to enable Local 1 to become an ITU affiliate while retaining its full au- tonomy. At the last ITU Convention Ed Swayduck was one of the keynote speakers. His call for the or- ALLIED/EGRY BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. ganizing of unorganized lithographers received a standing ovation from the delegates of the ITU. In- cidentally, it must be obvious to all that Local 1 has really been prospering with its affiliation with the ITU, contrary to the phony propaganda handed out at the last LPIU convention and meted out regularly in LPIU bulletins and in the Unionist. Now, I am proud to say, the ITU has made it possible for me to become one of its field representa- tives in the organizing Mhographers. Brothers, I know of no better way in which I can help preserve the standards of living you have achieved, and no better way in which I can continue to help raise those standards than by accepting this opportunity to or- ganize the unorganized lithographers with the mili- tant support of the powerful ITU. I have given this very serious thought and I am convinced this is a sound and constructive step, both for you and me. The more lithographers are organized, the better off we all are. I do not intend to lose my contact with the LPIU; indeed, you can expect me to comment periodically on the activities of the LPIU's so-called leadership. This letter is not a goodby but a reaffirming of real unionism for lithographers. Under proper auspices such as the ITU ultimately there will be a coming together of all the craftsmen in the graphic arts. I be- lieve vigorous organizing of the unorganized will hasten that day. I am anxious to make my contribu- tion toward it. Those of you who would like to keep in touch with me may do so with the knowledge that I shall always be glad to hear from you. I am appending my mailing address for that reason. My very best wishes and fraternal greetings to you all. Sincerely and fraternally, James H. O'Neill APPENDIX 8 ALLIED/EGRY BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC. August 18,1967 Dear Mr. Dice, I previously wrote to you about the dues and current special assessments of Washington Local 13L. Local 13L is affiliated with and under its International, which has its main offices in New York. So that you are fully aware of all the possible costs of unionism, I am enclosing the following taken from the official Constitution and Laws of the Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union: 1. Chapter X, Sections 1-3 dealing with Local fees, dues, assessments and fines. 2. Chapter XIX, Sections 1-7 dealing with In- ternational fees, dues, taxes and assessments. You will notice that the Local must collect at least enough money from each member to cover the per capita and special benefit taxes due the Interna- tional-but the amount charged above the Interna- tionals' requirement is completely up to the whim of the Local. Also, Section 3 of Article X provides that 525 "each Local may provide for such assessments and fines as shall be deemed by it to be necessary." And notice particularly in Section 6 of Article XIX, the Emergency Fund and Lithographers Mortuary Fund assessments and "such other assessments as may from time to time be approved by referendum vote." In addition, Article XX, Section 2 of the Union Con- stitution, which is mentioned in Article XIX, states that whenever the balance in the Emergency Fund falls below $2,000,000 there will be an automatic as- sessment in what ever amount the International Council fixes. This automatic assessment will con- tinue until the treasurer certifies that the Fund has at- tained a balance of $3,000,000. Section 5 of Article XX, which is also mentioned in Article XIX, pro- vides for another automatic assessment when the Mortuary Fund balance falls below $1,000,000. This automatic assessment will continue until thFund has reached a balance of $1,000,000 and appears enabled to pay future claims without reduction of the Fund below $1,000,000. In other words, the sky is the limit. For the year ended May 31, 1966 alone the Lithographers Inter- national Union reported receipts of $851,526 from assessments -and this doesn't include Local assess- ments under Chapter X. It is up to you to decide whether this Union is really worth it -it won't cost you a penny to stick with Jim Emerson and the Com- pany by voting NO UNION. I urge you to do so. Sincerely yours, G. W. Underwood, President CHAPTER X REVENUES AND ASSETS Ch. 10.1 Local Initiation Fees. Each Local shall establish an initiation fee which shall not be less than Ten Dollars ($10.00) but such fee may be waived by the Local in special circumstances in respect to per- sons in newly organized establishments. Ch. 10.2 Dues. Each Local shall fix the dues of its members which shall not be less than the sum neces- sary to cover the per capita taxes due to the Interna- tional in respect to all members and the special benefit per capita taxes due to the International in respect to all or separate divisions of the membership for the payment of special benefits covering them under various Funds established by the Interna- tional. Local dues may be of more than one class when required in respect to separate divisions of the membership for the payment of special benefits or for other reasons. Ch. 10.3 Local Assessments- and Fines. Each Local may provide for such assessments and fines as shall be deemed by it to be necessary and ap- propriate. Ch. 10.4 Local Liability. Each Local shall be liable to the International for and shall collect and remit each month to the Recording and Financial Secre- tary of the International all sums established by the 526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International as its dues including initiation fees, per capita taxes, special benefit. ARTICLE XIX REVENUES 19.1 Sources. The revenues of the International, in addition to revenues from investments and other income, shall be derived from charter fees and from membershp dues which shall consist of initiation fees, per capita taxes, special benefit per capita taxes, assessments, and other charges established under this Constitution. 10.2 Charter Fees. There shall be a charter fee for the issuance of a charter to a Local upon its organiza- tion in the amount of Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00) which shall be deposited in the General Fund. This fee shall not apply to existing Locals of either of the merging Internationals or to Locals established as the result of the merger of such existing Locals. 19.3 Initiation and Inaugural Fees. There shall be an International initiation fee when a person is ad- mitted to membership through a Local in the amount of Ten Dollars ($10.00) applicable to journeymen and apprentices and Five Dollars ($5.00) applicable to members in general production occupations, which shall be deposited in the General Fund. At the request of the Local, the International President may in special circumstances waive the initiation fee, in whole or in part, for members in newly organized establishments. The initiation fee for admission to International membership fixed by the International Council, shall be deposited in the General Fund. The President may, in special circumstances, waive such initiation fee in whole or in part. There shall be an in- augural fee of Eight Dollars ($8.00) in respect to such members as are covered by the Lithographers Mortuary Fund. 19.4 Per Capita Taxes. There shall be a per capita tax in respect to each member who is a journeyman or apprentice in the monthly amount of three dollars and twenty-five cents ($3.25), and in respect to mem- bers in general production occupations in the monthly amount of two dollars and seventy-five cents ($2.75), which shall be deposited in the General Fund. 19.5 Special Benefit Per Capita Taxes. There shall be special benefit per capita taxes, as follows: A. PHOTOENGRAVERS DEATH BENEFIT FUND. In respect to all members covered by the Plan of the Photoengravers Death Benefit Fund, the sum of Two Dollars and Fifty Cents ($2.50) per month for so long as required under such Plan, which shall be deposited in the Photoengravers Death Benefit Fund. B. PHOTOENGRAVERS PENSION WELFARE FUND. In respect to all members covered by the Plan of the Photoengravers Pen- sion Welfare Fund, such monthly sums as are now required under the Plan or which, subject to approval by referedum vote, may hereafter be required to finance the Plan. C. LITHOGRAPHERS MORTUARY FUND. In respect to all members covered by the Mortuary Plan of the Lithographers Mortua- ry Fund, the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) per month for so long as required under such Plan which shall be deposited in the Lithographers Mortuary Fund. 19.6 Assessments. There shall be such assess- ments as are required in respect to the maintenance of the minimum balances established for the Emer- gency Defense Fund (Article 20.2) and the Lithog- raphers Mortuary Fund (Article 20.5), which shall be deposited in the separate funds for which they are levied. There shall be such other assessments as may from time to time be approved by referendum vote which shall be deposited in such Funds for which they are levied. 19.7 International Membership Dues. The dues of International members shall be fixed by the Interna- tional Council and shall be deposited in the General Fund. APPENDIX 9 LITHOGRAPHERS AND PHOTOENGRAVERS INTERNATIONAL UNION August 18, 1967 TO: ALL EMPLOYEES OF ALLIED EGRY Dear Friends: The next few days are going to be very rough. The company will likely hold round the clock meetings in the shop and follow up with another letter in which they admit mistakes of the past and plead for a second chance. This will be our last letter. An overwhelming majority of you supported us when we petitioned the National Labor Board to hold an election. To this date not one of you who signed cards have asked for their card to be returned or revoked. We believe the signers understood what they signed and that it was something that they didn't do lightly. You have all received a copy of a contract in force in another plant of this same company and can see what union representation means. Even so, we have investigated several other plants of this company which have no union contract and find that rates paid there are substanticly higher than yours to as much as $1.00 per hour. As proof all you have to do is read the company's letter to the employee's of their Leipsic, Ohio plant dated March 2nd 1966 (there are four copies of these letters circulating in Petersburg). In this letter the company talks about the com- pany's pension plan of $4.00 per week completely paid by the company. Yet the company on many oc- casions has told you that there is no company pen- sion plan anywhere. ALLIED/EGRY BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. 527 Naturally we were not surprised to learn that your conditions were less than those which union people receive, but we were shocked to learn that they treated you worse than other company plants which have no union contracts. All the smiles; glad handing and vague promises can never wipe out this insult to your intelligence and pride. Vote union and hold your head up as a believer in human rights and pride. Fraternally, John M. Greer President, Local 13-L, LPIU Raymond H. Dunn Intl. Repr. LPIU