Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc.

HENRY I. SIEGAL CO., INC. Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc. and W. C. Keaton, Former Mayor of Hohenwald, Tennessee,' and Amalga- mated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 26-CA-2081 July 1, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND ZAGORIA On December 29, 1967, Trial Examiner Stanley N. Ohlbaum issued his Decision in the above-enti- tled proceeding, finding that Respondents had en- gaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- firmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, both Respondents filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs. The Charging Party filed cross-exceptions to The Remedy portion of the Trial Examiner's Deci- sion and a supporting brief. Respondent Siegel filed a motion to strike the cross-exceptions of Charging Party and Charging Party filed an opposition to Respondent Siegel's motion to strike. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Decision, the exceptions, the briefs,' and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Ex- aminer, except as modified herein: We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respon- dent Siegel, both through its own executives and through Mayor Keaton,' violated Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act. We also agree with the Trial Examiner that Mayor Keaton himself violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by his activities. We wish to make it quite clear, however, that the violation is attributed to him solely on the basis of his agency relationship with Respondent Siegel. ORDER4 Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby orders that the Respondent, 825 Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc., and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and Respondent, W. C. Keaton, former Mayor of Hohenwald, Tennessee, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order, as so modified: Section 1(b) of the Trial Examiner's Recom- mended Order is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following substituted: "b. Take the following affirmative action neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: "(1) Respondent Siegel shall post in its factory in Hohenwald, Tennessee, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 26, after being duly signed by said Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by said Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by said Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. "(2) Respondents, jointly and severally, shall notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith." ' The record discloses that Respondent Keaton is no longer Mayor of Hohenwald , Tennessee , his term of office having expired on or about May 8, 1967 Thus we grant Respondent Keaton 's motion to amend the caption of this case by inserting after his name and before the phrase "Mayor of Hohenwald , Tennessee ," the word " Former " We also amend the Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order to include Respondent Keaton only as former Mayor of Hohenwald and delete any reference to his agents and successors ' Assuming arguendo that the Charging Party's cross-exceptions were timely filed, we find them to he without merit Cf N L R B v La/a' Butler Apparel C'onipaiii, 392 F 2d 76 (C A 5) It is our opinion that this case does not warrant the unusual remedy recommended by the Trial Examiner Accordingly , we will adopt the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order only to the extent it is consistent with the following modifications Furthermore, we will delete the Trial Examiner's proposed notice, marked " Appendix B," and substitute a notice which we believe to constitute a more appropriate remedy for the unfair labor prac- tices involved In so doing we do not intend to imply that the unfair labor practices involved are not aggravated , but only that the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner is not appropriate In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall he substituted for the words ".i Decision and Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforc- ing an Order " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: 172 NLRB No. 88 826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT directly or indirectly threaten any employee with plant shutdown, strikes, violence, job loss, discharge, reduction of over- time or of other work opportunities, loss or jeopardization of existing job benefits, loss of future employment opportunities through failure of other industries to locate or remain in this area, community disruption or disin- tegration, hazard or danger to family well-be- ing, or any other economic harm, loss, detri- ment, disadvantage, reprisal or retaliation, in the event of unionization or because of other lawful organizational membership, affiliation, sympathy, support, assistance or activity, or for engaging or attempting to engage in the right to bargain collectively or exercise or attempt to exercise any other right under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL NOT directly or indirectly threaten any employee that union membership is futile since no advantage or benefit would be derived therefrom which would not be derived in the absence thereof. WE WILL NOT directly or indirectly threaten, inform, or advise any employee that in the event of unionization he will no longer be able to exercise the right to present individual grievances or complaints to or discuss mutual problems affecting his employment directly with his employer WE WILL NOT directly or indirectly make any threat or any inducement involving threat or the withholding of threat of economic harm to any employee or employee's family, so as to procure or attempt to procure any employee to deal with his employer individually instead of bargaining collectively. WE WILL NOT directly or indirectly interfere with, restrain, coerce, or threaten any em- ployee in the exercise of his right to select, elect, designate , be represented by, or bargain collectively through any labor organization of the employees' choice. WE WILL NOT directly or indirectly threaten any employee that he will be better off and have more to gain by dealing with his employer individually instead of through a union. WE WILL NOT directly or indirectly in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the exercise of his right to self-organization; to form, join, or assist any labor organization; to bargain collectively through representatives of his own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. All employees are free to join or not to join Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other union , as employees see fit, without any threats, interference , restraint , or coer- cion from us or either of us in any way, shape, or form. HENRY I. SIEGEL CO., INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) W. C KEATON, FORMER MAYOR OF HOHENWALD, TENNESSEE Dated By This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be defaced or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 746 Federal Office Building , 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38103, Telephone 534-3171. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION 1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT STANLEY N. OHLBAUM, Trial Examiner: This case was heard before me in the Lewis County, Tennes- see, Courthouse at Hohenwald, Tennessee, on June 29 and September 11-13, 1967, upon pleadings consisting of a complaint of General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, issued through the Board's Regional Director for Region 26 on April 14 and answer of Respondent Siegel (Em- ployer)dated April 18 and of Respondent Keaton dated April 20, 1967, arising out of a charge filed by the above Union on April 14, 1965. Although the charge lists violations of Section 8(a)(I) and (5), the complaint is limited to allegations of viola- tions of Section 8(a)( I) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq. (Act), as will be detailed. All parties appeared and were represented throughout by counsel' who have fully availed themselves of opportunities afforded to present evidence and contentions, propose findings and conclusions, and file briefs. Briefs were received from the parties around November 28, 1967. 'Respondent Ke.iton, an attorney . appeared on his own behalf HENRY I. SIEGAL CO., INC. 827 The evidence and the parties' contentions having been carefully considered, upon the entire record2 and my observation of the witnesses I make the fol- lowing: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IL JURISDICTION At all material times, Respondent Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc. (Siegel or Employer), has been and is a New York corporation qualified to do business in the State of Tennessee and having a place of busi- ness consisting of a factory in Hohenwald, Tennes- see, where it has been engaged in manufacture of men's clothing. During the 12-month representative period immediately preceding issuance of the com- plaint, said Respondent in the course and conduct of its said operations received at its Hohenwald plant, directly from outside of Tennessee, goods valued at over $50,000, and during the same period shipped from its said plant, directly to places out- side of Tennessee, finished products of like value. I find that at all material times said Respondent has been and is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. At all material times, Respondent Keaton has been mayor of Hohenwald, Tennessee, until on or about May 8, 1967, when his term of office ex- pired. At all material times, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO (Charging Party or Union), has been and is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. I find that assertion of jurisdiction in this proceeding is proper. III. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Issues The issues presented are whether Respond- ent Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act through warning its employees in various ways of dire consequences (including loss of exist- ing economic benefits and work, strikes, violence, plant closure, and community deterioration) as well as futility of selection of the Union as the em- ployees' bargaining representative; and whether Respondent Keaton (mayor of Hohenwald) participated in and assisted such actions by circu- lating among employees printed material to that ef- fect. B. Background Hohenwald is a small Tennessee community whose population is said by its former mayor to have risen from about 1,700 in 1951 to over 3,100 in 1965, with an increase during that period of in- dustrially employed from 225 (excluding lumber- ing) to 1,300 In 1954, a 20-year lease-purchase agreement had been entered into between Respon- dent Siegel, the city of Hohenwald, and Lewis County, Tennessee, involving construction of a fac- tory building to be occupied by Siegel in Hohen- wald. Financing for the construction was through issuance by the city of Hohenwald (40 percent) and Lewis County (60 percent) of general obligation bonds ($200,000) and industrial revenue bonds ($100,000) pursuant to 1951 enabling legislation of the State of Tennessee. The 1954 agreement was executed by Respondent Keaton on behalf of the city of Hohenwald and by Respondent Em- ployer Vice President Sam Siegel (as well as by a Lewis County official). Undoubtedly the mu- nicipally subsidized construction of this factory building for Respondent Siegel had much to do with the subsequent development of the communi- ty. At the times here primarily material, since the beginning of 1965, Respondent Siegel has em- ployed a sewing machine operator force of approxi- mately 400, predominatly women, at its Hohenwald men's clothing factory, which has always been operated as a nonunion enterprise. It was the ef- forts to unionize the plant and bargain collectively with Siegel in early 1965 which culminated in the present proceedings. Specifically, the campaign to unionize Siegel's Hohenwald operators finally resulted in a union recognitional-bargaining request and an employer refusal to recognize or bargain, in January 1965. In view of a Union offer of proof (described below), not objected to by Re- spondents but rejected by the Trial Examiner for reasons to be detailed, it is assumed for purposes of this proceeding that the Union's January 1965 recognitional-bargaining request was a continuing one and that with respect thereto the Union did in fact hold unequivocal, unambiguous, and otherwise valid collective-bargaining representative designa- tion cards duly signed by precisely 50 percent of Respondent's Hohenwald plant employees in a con- ventional production and maintenance unit ap- propriate' for bargaining purposes. The election conducted under Board auspices on April 9, 1965' was lost by the Union by vote of 223 Transcript as corrected by Trial Examiner's November 17, 1967, order on notice In his March 9, 1965, Decision and Direction of Election , Regional Director for Region 26 found such unit appropriate ' The Board Decision (Case 26-RM-179) of June 28, 1966, appears to he in error in stating this election took place on April 8 , 1965 Decision was reserved at the instant hearing upon Respondent Employer's objection to the Charging Party's application (unopposed by General Counsel) to take official notice of that proceeding and receive in evidence that decision The objection is hereby overruled and the decision received as Charging Party's Exh I 828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to 159.5 The Union filed objections to employer misconduct allegedly affecting the election result. By its order of June 28, 1966, the Board deter- mined that, in view of employer preelection misconduct consisting of actions here at bar alleged to have constituted unfair labor practices, the elec- tion should be set aside and reconducted when con- ditions allow. Notwithstanding the passage of more than 2-1/2 years since the election and over a year since the Board decision, no reelection has yet been held. Involved in the actions here for consideration are Respondent's President Jesse S. Siegel , Vice Pre- sident Sam Siegel - (Jesse's uncle), and Plant Manager Herbert Honick; as well as Hohenwald's former Mayor Keaton. C. Alleged Interference, Restraint , and Coercion 1. March 31 and April 6 actions of Respondent Employer Vice President Sam Siegel The complaint alleges that on or about March 31 and April 6, 1965, Respondent Siegel through let- ters to employees from its vice president, Sam Siegel , warned employees that selection of the Union as bargaining representative would be futile, and would be attended by disruption of community relations and detriment to community industrial growth, as well as the probability of strikes, violence, and loss of work. It is conceded that Respondent Employer dis- tributed to all of its employees, in person or by mail, on March 31 and April 6, 1965, letters of its Vice President Sam Siegel which form the basis for these allegations. Respondent, however, denies that either of the letters says or means what is alleged in the complaint; defending on the further ground that the letters were lawful under Section 8(c) of the Act and in proper exer- cise of the "free speech" guarantee of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It is undisputed that on March 31, 1965, Respon- dent Employer, through its Vice President Sam Siegel wrote and distributed in person or by mail to all of its Hohenwald employees a two-page letter, on letterhead of H-I-S Sportswear Division of Henry I. Siegel Co ., Inc., New York Office, 16 East 34th Street, N. Y. The letter (G.C. Exh. 2C), dated at Bruceton , Tennessee, and addressed "Dear Friends," states: For the past eleven years, the Hohenwald plant has operated in peace and harmony. Friday morning, April 9, you will have the opportunity to determine whether or not this will continue. This is a most serious decision , not only for you but for your loved ones , relatives and all members of this community. The vote you cast in the election to be conducted by the National Labor Relations Board, may very well decide the future progress and industrial growth of this plant. Therefore, in order for you to make the most intelligent decision, you must be informed of all the facts. The purpose of this letter is to place these facts before you-without preju- dice-without influence. The decision will be yours alone. THESE ARE THE FACTS [There follows a series of statements purpor- tedly describing the economic advantages en- joyed by workers at Respondent Siegel's facto- ry-including good wages, insurance benefits, overtime, vacations, and unsurpassed modern working conditions. ] THOSE ARE THE FACTS, SIMPLE, CON- CISE AND CLEAR. Union organizers cannot present you with any facts. They can only make promises. Their promises are entirely irresponsible . Irresponsi- ble because they are in no position to assure you that they will be fulfilled . The union itself, no matter what they promise you CAN NOT SET PRODUCTION STANDARDS-CAN NOT CHANGE WORKING CONDITIONS- CAN NEITHER HIRE NOR FIRE-NOR MAKE ANY CHANGES WHATSOEVER IN PLANT OPERATIONS. The union can guarantee you nothing. REMEMBER! ONLY THE COMPANY PROVIDES JOBS. ONLY THE COMPANY PAYS INSURANCE BENEFITS. ONLY THE COMPANY MAKES VACA- TIONS AND PAID HOLIDAYS POSSIBLE. What can the union do? They can collect dues, levy fines and assessments. Control your ac- tions as an employee. Call strikes. Look around you in a neighboring community the results of union agitation are easy to be seen. Violence-loss of work-disruption of community relations-destruction of -private property-a town divided. Do you want this for Hohenwald? I hope this letter has served its purpose to acquaint you with the facts so that you can make an intelligent decision. I urge you on Friday, April 9th, to vote for continued & The same Board Decision of June 28, 1966, appears to be in further error in stating (p 1, fn I) that of the 387 ballots cast, -159 were for. 382 were against , the Union - The Regional Director's June 23, 1965 , Supple- mental Decision and Direction of Second Election states that, of the 387 ballots cast (of a total of approximately 395 eligibles), 159 were for and 223 against the Union HENRY I. SIEGAL CO., INC. 829 peace and harmony in this community , to vote for future progress and industrial growth. This can be done by simply VOTING NO. Sincerely yours, Sam Siegel It is also undisputed that a week later, on April 6, 1965, 3 days before the election , Respondent Em- ployer , through its Vice President Sam Siegel, dis- tributed to all of its Hohenwald employees, in per- son or by mail, a further two-page letter (G.C. Exh. 2D) on the same letterhead, again addressed to them as "Dear Friends," pointing out that "The day of decision is fast approaching" and urging them to vote since "The importance of your vote can not be over emphasized." The letter stresses in capitalized letters that employees can vote against the Union even if they signed union cards. After indicating emphatically by underlining that the Union "itself" cannot "arrange things so that you work less and get as much or more pay," the letter goes on to say: One thing is certain with a union comes dues , fines , and assessments-and the possibili- ty of strikes-violence and loss of work. The rest of the rosy picture the union paints is nothing but empty promises-that they do not have the power to guarantee. There is only one realistic way to continue the past eleven years of progress in this plant. That is to do what you have been doing. The spirit of cooperation and harmony that you have exhibited during this long period has made the benefits that you receive possible. In closing , let me repeat you must exercise your right to vote and by your absence not per- mit others to exercise it for you . A vote against the union will assure the continued progress of the plant and the spirit of cooperation and har- mony that we have all enjoyed in the past. Friday morning-you owe it to yourself to VOTE NO. It is undisputed that on April 7, 1965, 2 days be- fore the election , another letter on Respondent Em- ployer's letterhead, this time dated at Hohenwald and signed "Herb" by Siegel Plant Manager Her- bert Honick, was distributed to all employees in person or by mail. This letter (G.C. Exh. 2E), after an introduction to the effect that the writer was im- pelled to break his silence by his reluctance to "be letting all of you down" by not speaking out, dismisses "the wild promises you have received" as "baloney." It then goes on to state: I am concerned with the possible loss of a won- derful privilege that we both enjoy-that of the two of us sitting down face to face-two free human beings , and discussing our mutual problems. You know that now, as in the past, all it takes to see me is to walk into my office Problems of all kinds are discussed-personal ones as well as those relating to work. No one has ever left my office without knowing that everything humanly possible would be done to solve these problems. These problems are resolved on a personal basis-not by a commit- tee-not by filling out forms that are passed around from one person to another to be read on a certain day of the week. The relationship, that we both know works, would end if a union is voted in tomorrow. I don't think you want this. You can express your desire for this kind of relationship to con- tinue by voting NO tomorrow. Sincerely, /s/ Herb Herb Honick P. S. If by any chance you need transportation in order to vote Friday call me at the factory phone number 796-3241 or my home phone number 796-3203. I will see to it that you get a ride. Sincerely yours, Sam Siegel 2. April 7 action of Respondent Employer Plant Manager Honick The complaint also alleges that on or about April 7, 1965, Respondent Siegel through a letter to em- ployees from its Plant Manager Herbert Honick warned them that selection of the Union as bargain- ing representative would result in withdrawal of personal relationships so as in essence to prevent or impair effective resolution of employees' problems. Respondent Siegel 's defenses to these allegations are the same as those already described relating to Sam Siegel. 3. April 8 action of Respondent Employer President Jesse Siegel The complaint further alleges that on or about April 8, 1965, Respondent Siegel through a speech to employees by its President Jesse S. Siegel warned employees that selection of the Union as their representative would be futile and would result in possible loss of existing benefits , in plant closure or reduction of work opportunities, and in strikes and violence. Respondent Siegel's defenses again dispute the construction placed upon what was said , and affir- matively set up its right to say what it did in the ex- ercise of "free speech." It is undisputed that between about 9 and 10 o'clock in the morning of April 8, 1965 (the day be- fore the election commencing I1 a.m. on the fol- 830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD lowing day6), Respondent's Hohenwald employees were assembled during working hours at the plant to listen to a speech by Respondent President Jesse Siegel, who was introduced by his uncle, Respon- dent Vice President Sam Siegel. The introductory (and closing) remarks of Sam Siegel and the main speech by Jesse Siegel were recorded and are un- disputed. After an introduction by his uncle Sam, who recollected his nephew as a dirty-faced youngster who "always needed a nickel or dime to buy something, just like your kids need it," and who rose to the occasion and ultimately through his own ability became president after his father's death, Jesse Siegel told the employees (G.C. Exh. 2F): I am the son of the founder of this company, Henry I. Siegel. At his death some sixteen years ago, the responsibilities of running this business were dropped into my hands. The tri- als and tribulations that are a natural part of this or any business often cause me to wonder if my inheritance was entirely a good thing. By and large the past sixteen years have been gratifying. The Hohenwald plant holds a special place in my business career. For it marks the first new factory that was opened during my administra- tion. I had many doubts ten years ago that I would be able to successfully begin a new ven- ture. The success, that has been achieved in Hohenwald quite frankly gave me the con- fidence I needed to go further in the expansion of this business. Hohenwald, then, marks a real milestone in my business career. I finally felt that I could continue in my father's footsteps. I sincerely feel that if I can convince you of the rightness of my views-then the future success of Hohenwald will be assured. All I ask of you is to hear me out. Consider carefully what I have to say and then make your own independent decision. Free of in- fluence-free of prejudice. A wise man once said the only way we can learn what the future will bring is to study the past. A careful analysis of the history and development of this plant is the best means of predicting its future. More than a decade ago this plant was opened. It was in many ways a cooperative venture between the people of Hohenwald and Lewis County and the Siegel Company. Your elected city and county officials agreed to raise the money to build the factory through a bond issue and the Siegel company agreed to sign a lease guaranteeing the payment of these bonds. We also agreed to provide employment to the fullest extent. Right from the beginning, then- the opening of the Hohenwald plant was a kind of partnership between the people of this com- munity, you included, and the Henry I. Siegel Company. It is not necessary to point out that no union had anything whatsoever to do with the inception of this new industry in Hohen- wald. No union put up any of the money, no union provided any of the employment. In fact, they were not on the scene at all. [Siegel then reviewed in detail the progress of the Company "from an initial force of fifty to the present staff of more than four hundred," the growth of earnings, the continuous employ- ment, the employees' insurance coverages, and the total absence of union credit for any of the foregoing.] People are asking what will happen to the in- surance plans they now have if the union is voted in? That is an unanswerable question. It will be a subject for negotiation. No one, union organizers included, can tell you now what the results will be, however I can tell you that the plan you now have will continue if the union is not voted in. [Siegel again referred to existing plant benefits-"fob security and seniority rights" and "vacation benefits," with a reminder of an upcoming September base pay increase and additional paid holiday.] In the same way that this plant was a coopera- tive venture from the beginning-in all fairness I must vigorously proclaim that all the benefits I have enumerated could not have materialized without your cooperation .... Truly-the spirit of industriousness, cooperation and harmoni- ous action that you have so willingly evidenced since the start of this plant , have made it possi- ble for these benefits to occur . Actually you alone have made all of this happen. I am con- fident that as long as this spirit continues the future progress of this plant is assured. I have spent some time now going over the benefits you have . Let us examine the promises the union so brazenly makes. This combination of less work and more "The rule cnumciated by the Board in Peerless Phnood C'ooipum, 107 NLRB 427, forbids, upon penalty of setting an election aside, a preelection speech within 24 hours of a Board-conducted election Sam Siegel's closing remarks (G C. Exh 2F) indicate these speeches were concluded at "ten o'clock." The Siegels' preelection speeches were thus delivered approxi- mately 25 hours prior to the election HENRY I. SIEGAL CO., INC. 831 money is at the heart of the union promise. I sometimes wonder if they think you have no intelligence at all, if they take you to be so foolish as to believe that they have the power to make this come true , when all the evidence tells an entirely different story. Let's suppose that their wild promise could be realized-what would it mean. In our highly competitive industry , the ability to manufacture goods competitively is of prime importance if a plant is to operate successfully . There are hun- dreds of pants manufacturers throughout the country who would immediately be in a posi- tion to cut into your work . This kind of ir- responsible promise reveals the short sighted- ness and shallow nature of the union's interest in the future progress of our plant . They feel you understand so little about the true situa- tion that you will grab the bait without noticing the hook in it. In my opinion , if such a promise could come true it might well be the beginning of the end of the progress of the Hohenwald plant. In the final analysis it is the company's respon- sibility to it's-employees to make certain that they are getting every possible advantage-in forms of higher wages-insurance and other fringe benefits that are consistant with the con- tinuing competitive position of the plant.... People are asking , "if the union is not voted in will engineers be back ?" The answer to that question is simple. That engineering job is over and they will not be back . However, I do not mean to imply that your company will not con- tinue to seek out ways of improving production in the future ... I feel proud of the fact that the latest engineering program was able to raise earnings in this plant from 15 to 20%. The company gained additional production. You got more money. The business was more competitive . The position of the company in the industry improved . Everyone benefited. Union organizers tell you that they are a responsible union-not a bunch of hoodlums. They tell you that they are a peaceful union. They do not tell the whole story . Less than six months ago this same union was engaged in a violent strike in another part of the state.' Not many years ago this union was involved in a protracted strike in a nearby community, Mt. Pleasant." The result of both these strikes was that the plants closed and were later sold to other companies. In our own history with the union in 1946-a long, violent, and destructive strike took place in our Dickson plant.9 You have only to look around you in your neighboring community , to see the destructive forces of unionism . I am told that that city is torn with strife, violence-law breaking- hostility between neighbors and loss of work are paralyzing the community . There is no reason for this to happen in Hohenwald. This is an important decision which you will be making and you owe it to yourself, your family and the community to consider carefully what is best for you. Will you disturb the peace and harmony of this plant for the irresponsible promises of the union and the doubtful privilege of paying dues? Will you turn over the right to act and think for yourself in exchange for control over all your actions as an employee of this plant? Will you risk strikes and violence to satisfy a union whose primary interest is to feather its own next [ sic]? The answer should be obvious! You have heard my views. I appreciate the at- tention and courtesy that you have so kindly afforded me. I am certain that if you consider carefully what I have had to say the rightness of my opinion will become clear. However the decision tomorrow will be yours. That is the way it ought to be . Because you are the factory . It is your future and you can make it what you will. [Siegel assures the employees their decision will be "respected by the company " and urges them to vote and then "return to work in a spirit of good neighborliness."] In conclusion let me extend my good wishes to you all-and let me urge you one more time to reject the union tomorrow and continue the progress of this plant and community. VOTE NO. Thank you very much. Jesse Siegel's uncle, Sam Siegel, thereupon pointed out to the assembled employees that "It is ten o'clock now and as you know it's April 8th and I would appreciate it very much to turn the machines on one at a time. Don't turn them on at one time because the fuses will blow . Just one at a time start turning them on and let's go back to work and good luck. Thank you." 4. April 1 and 8 actions of Mayor Keaton The complaint additionally alleges that on or about April l and 8 , 1965, Respondent Siegel through distribution of a newspaper editorial (April I) and a newspaper advertisement (April 8) to its employees by its agent Respondent Keaton warned its employees that selection of the Union as their ' No data have been supplied here regarding this " No data have been supplied here regarding this " A resume of Board cases involving, among others, Siegel's Dickson, Tennessee, plant may he found in Table I. infra 832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bargaining representative would be futile and would result in possible loss of existing benefits, reduction in overtime work, plant closure, strikes, violence, and loss of employment opportunities through failure of other industries to locate in the area. Respondents' defenses are again the same, except that, additionally, Keaton's agency and Siegel's responsibility for his actions are denied. Called by General Counsel as a witness, William Capelle Keaton, Sr., testified that he was mayor of Hohenwald from 1951 to May 1967. It would seem, according to testimony of Keaton which I credit, that some 20 years ago, when he relocated in Hohenwald to start an insurance agency and prac- tice law, industry being almost totally lacking in the area, he with others set about to attract industry to the community. Accordingly, a civic club was founded in 1946 or 1947, with himself as its first secretary. A country club was also formed, of which he likewise was a charter member and at various times (including the present) president. In 1951 he was elected mayor of Hohenwald on an in- dustrialization platform-"That was the only reason I ran." Thereafter he was reelected and held office as mayor for 16 years without opposition. To launch the industrialization program, he designed and circulated throughout the United States a brochure to attract industries to locate in Lewis County. In these endeavors he was assisted by an informal local industrial development group. As a result of these efforts under his leadership, around 1954, for the first time in Tennessee history indus- trial bonds pledging the credit of local government were authorized and floated to finance or subsidize private industrial construction. This was accom- plished with participation by two local banks, with a portion of the bond issue subsequently retired and acquired by the State of Tennessee. At or about the same time (1954), Mayor Keaton was approached by Respondent Siegel concerning the possibilities of similarly municipally financed plant construction of a factory employing 300-400 workers. Ensuing negotiations apparently resulted in Siegel's assump- tion of obligations relating to the existing plant, which was to be enlarged to suit Siegel's specifica- tions, through a further municipal bond issue, which appears to have been authorized by local vote following a campaign in which Mayor Keaton enlisted public support. A portion of the interest service cost of the first industrial bond issue of $200,000 was defrayed by the city and county. Also testifying as General Counsel's witness, Cur- tis M. Barrow, the current secretary of Lewis Coun- ty Civic Club, described that club as "similar to the Chamber of Commerce," agreeing that "for practi- cal purposes ... the membership ... consists of the businessmen in or near Hohenwald ... including the Henry I. Siegel Company.""' The club's expen- ses are defrayed by dues of its members (1 18 in 1965) as well as a horse show. Consistent with Mayor Keaton's testimony as to its purpose, the civic club appears to have maintained interest in local industrial development along approved lines. Thus, its minutes for February 25, 1963, show that Mayor Keaton reported to the club" meeting on various matters, including a new hospital, expanded water system, and also a meeting that night to stimulate an "increase in the industrial bond"; 12 further (G.C. Exh. 3): Mayor Keaton announced that there would [be] a hearing of National Labor Relations Board on March 14.1L All business men were encouraged and urged to stand up against the union.12 It is the only way we can attract indus- try. It is the problem of the people of Lewis county and the city of Hohenwald.12 If the peo- ple don't stand to gether we are through because we do not have location or resources to attract industry. 12 Industry is worried about organized labor and will not go where it is or- ganized. Bob Beaver [?]. Reported that if plans went through the plant would be increased 109,000 sq. ft. and there would be from 80 to 160 more employees. This would give an in- crease in male jobs. The least take home pay per employee is $1.43 per hour. The plant average for the last 6 Wks was $1.61 per hour. The labor for the plant is excellent, but experience is needed. In his testimony, Mayor Keaton acknowledged that at civic club meetings he has voiced opposition to union activity in Hohenwald and Lewis County because "I did not think they needed it," since "about the only asset we have here" is "fine people here who are native born people, who are trainable .. As far as fighting for these people here, I'll fight for them tomorrow and from now on to see that they are treated fairly. I didn't think that we needed anybody else to come in and see to their welfare...." Although he at first denied knowledge of a unionizing campaign at the Siegel plant, he shortly thereafter conceded that he knew a union was trying to gain entry there "as soon as the plant came here."" He and Respondent Vice President Sam Siegel are friends-"I have visited in his home for years and Mr. Siegel has visited in my home on "' Although Barrow stated that "anyone can belong" who pays dues, Mayor Keaton later conceded that the percentage of workingmen members "would he very small" and he named none Respondent Vice President Sam Siegel and Plant Manager Herbert Honick are members " Cnic Club Secretary Barross explained that the Mayor of Hohenwald (who is also a member of the club) "has regularly attended" the club's meetings and as a regular feature reports on civic developments and progress " Mayor Keaton explained that this particular industrial bond was for the building of Lewis Products Company " Sam Siegel's laconic comment on this subject was, "The Amalgamated Clothing were engaged in organizing the Siegel Company for the last 20 years " According to Union West Tennessee Director Clearon A Smith, the organizing campaign at the Siegel Hohenwald plant commenced around September 1962 HENRY I. SIEGAL CO., INC. many occasions." Sam Siegel also conceded that "It is well known ... in the community that (I] and he [Mayor Keaton] are good friends." According to Siegel, he visits or speaks to Mayor Keaton most of the time when he comes to Hohenwald, perhaps averaging monthly, from his residence and office in Bruceton. Following the Board-conducted union election on April 9, Mayor Keaton repaired to the Siegel plant at Sam Siegel's invitation to supply ad- ditional police patrols "in case there was any van- dalism, or anything around there." In March 1965, shortly before the April 9 union election at Siegel's Hohenwald factory, Siegel Vice President Sam Siegel-according to his testimony- readily supplied Mayor Keaton, at the latter's request, with the names and addresses of Siegel's factory employees." According to Siegel, he neither inquired nor did Keaton indicate the pur- pose of the list; in Siegel's words: I didn't even think about it .... We are ac- customed with city officials asking different things of the company to help them out to get industry .... He [Mayor Keaton] wants to prove the point that we have so many people working and so many men would be available to go to work. The weekly Lewis County Herald is the only locally published newspaper in Lewis County. At all times here material its editor (and, apparently, also owner) was and is Hulon O. Dunn, Mayor Keaton's nephew, whom Keaton was instrumental in relocat- ing in Hohenwald and acquiring the newspaper. Knowing (according to Keaton's testimony) that Dunn's views were, the same as Keaton' s, anti- union , Keaton suggested to Dunn that "it would be well if he would comment about the coming elec- tion at the Siegel plant." Dunn did so in an editorial in the April 1, 1965, issue, which-utilizing the list of employees received from Sam Siegel-Keaton distributed by mail to all Siegel employees. This editorial, thus distributed to those employees, states: Remember when Hohenwald was a one-horse town with gravel streets, homes heated with wood, average income was $400.00 per family a year, upon graduation from high school or college young people had to seek employment out of the county and even out of the state? Why? Simply because there was no employ- ment to be had in Lewis County. But things have changed in the last few years. Now industry is here, the standard of living has risen to its highest point in the history of the county. Why did industry come to Hohenwald? Because there was a bountiful labor supply, and because people in Lewis County were in- " It is noted that, according to the Board's June 28, 1966, decision, a similar request by the Union for a voters' eligibility list was refused by 833 terested in seeing Hohenwald a better place to live, because some people in Lewis County wanted home folks to be able to find employ- ment in Lewis County, and because some peo- ple in Lewis County did a heck of a lot of work and a good job selling Lewis County to indus- trial heads. These are but a few of the reasons we are now living "higher on the hog" and our young people can find jobs when they become of job age. Now there are outsiders who have no interest in Lewis County, except the money that can be derived from industrial employees, who are seeking to unionize employees at the Henry I. Siegel Company. We understand the Amalga- mated Clothing Workers of America are to hold an election in April. We fail to see how a union can benefit em- ployees of the Henry I Siegel Company, which pays among top salaries in the clothing indus- try, and has a $1 million annual payroll in Lewis County. WE BELIEVE a vote for the union would jeopardize the future industrial expansion of Lewis County. WE BELIEVE you will not have as many dol- lars in your possession at the end of the year if the plant here is organized. We believe you will not work as much over- time, as you now enjoy. WE BELIEVE your fringe benefits will be no better, if as good, if your plant is organized. WE BELIEVE there's a chance violence could erupt if the plant is organized, as has been the case in numerous other places in the state, and when it is over, we believe friendships, man's most important and cherished earthly posses- sion would never be the same. WE BELIEVE very few people in Hohenwald believe in this kind of actions. WE BELIEVE, if you will think straight, rely solely on your own judgment, you will know you have nothing to gain by organizing the Henry I Siegel Company. * * * * FREE COPY If you are one of the people this week that Siegel, resulting in a union objection to the election which was sub- sequently sustained by the Regional Director 354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt 1 - 54 834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD receives a free copy of the Herald, whether you are a resident of the County or work in the county, we urge you to examine it carefully and we would also invite you to become a weekly subscriber if you find it interesting. Thereafter Mayor Keaton, according to his testimony, personally designed and prepared the copy for,15 and inserted and personally paid for, a full double-page notice or advertisement which ap- peared in the Lewis County Herald of April 8, 1965 (curiously, one side of the advertisement-upper left corner-bears the date April 1), the day before the election. Further according to Mayor Keaton's testimony, he also at his own personal expense had this issue of the newspaper mailed to all Siegel em- ployees;' and, still further, at his own personal ex- pense, he "employed some boys" to distribute co- pies of this double-page spread not only in the au- tomobiles in the Siegel plant parking lot-including those of executives there-but also in "cars all over town" and in "the rest of the plants and on the streets uptown" as well as probably in residences. Mayor Keaton avers he has never in any way been reimbursed, and that he does not expect reimburse- ment," for any of these alleged out-of-pocket ex- penses, estimated by him at $300 which he claims to have paid to his newspaperman nephew. This double-page standard-size newspaper spread (G.C. Exh. 2B) is contained within an overall heavy black border and is headed, in large dark print, with three columns underneath also in large dark print: HOHENWALD, LEWIS COUNTY, TENNES- SEE, U. S. A. Yesterday Today Tomorrow. At the bottom it is subscribed, "W. C. KEATON, Mayor." The Yesterday column is apparently intended as an accurate review of the past. The first entry is "1941-'John Just Left Town for Dee-troit."' The ensuing items refer to 1951, 1958, and 1964, show- ing, among other things, an increase in industrial employment (lumbering apparently excluded only for year 1951) from 225 to 1,300, population from 1,700 to 3,134 (March 1965 for this item), retail businesses from 75 to 135," and rise in per capita income from $679 to $2,200. The Today column, presumably intended as a fractual overview of the existing situation-it starts out by stating, "We hope to point out facts-NOT FICTION"-is subheaded in heavy print: "Today Hohenwald stands at the crossroads. What cross- roads?" After pointing out that the column's author (the mayor) may through this expression be "lay[ing] ourselves, our families, and our property open to physical attack, and distruction [sic] ... but-if this be true then such is our destiny , .." and implying that Hohenwald will continue to prosper "if all things are equal," Mayor Keaton's Today column goes on to state: Let's get down to brass tacks, get our heads out of the sand, be honest with ourselves, think about the future and the welfare of Not Only Ourselves But Of Our Children and Our Neighbors Children. What Do We Stand To Gain if the Henry I. Seigel Co. plant is organized? Do the workers in the two plants of the Seigel Co. which are organized receive better wages, better insurance plans and fringe benefits, more regular work, more overtime, more take home pay than the Hohenwald plant? Why don't we do some honest checking and find out. I don't believe those workers are in as good a position as are ours. If nothing then is to be gained, what do our workers stand to lose? (1) $10,000 to $15,000 per year in union dues. (2) Possibly reduction in wages to those of the union. (3) Possibly reduction of Insurance plans to those of the union. (4) Liberty and freedom. Can any union guarantee any improvement for our workers? Certainly not-only promises. Could the Company close the plant? Certainly, see the Supreme Court ruling of last week. Do we want strife in Our Town such as we read about (not in New York or Chicago) in our neighboring towns? Why not talk to some of the people in Lawrenceburg where neighbor no longer speak to neighbor and neighbor may have his barn burned. " Keaton insisted that not only did he personally prepare the copy, but also the photographed "cuts" from other papers, including one dealing with the Supreme Court's Darlington case decision , which he allegedly had on hand in a personal clippings file In response to questions by coun- sel for Respondent Siegel, Keaton denied that Siegel had any prior knowl- edge as to the content of this notice or advertisement Keaton also testified that he was unable to "recall any conversation with them [t e , Sam Siegel and Hontck] that I was wntmg an article to be published in the paper " Sam Siegel and Houck denied knowledge of it, as well as of the April I editorial , before appearing in the paper. Keaton also testified that when he was at the Siegel plant office on the day following the April 8 notice- that is, on April 9, election day - comment there in the office, probably by Sam Siegel , "certainly wasn't unfavorable." "' There were thus some 800 mailings (i e , 400 of the April I issue and 400 of the April 8 issue) to employees " Sam Siegel testified, with regard to whether he had asked Keaton the cost or who had paid for it, "I don't recall asking him that question - " "During the period 1958 to 1963 retail sales increased 199 per cent The next largest increase of any county in the state was 83 per cent - HENRY I . SIEGAL CO., INC. 835 Do you honestly believe union organizers are here from all over because they have friends or relatives here they want help? Could it be they are only here because it is their means of earning a living, a business with them, a way of life, to collect dues to pay their salaries? Or are they here because they love us so much they want to help us-Do you Honestly Believe This? I sincerely believe our people will consider all sides of the matter and when this is done will say to the Outsiders-Go home, we are capa- ble of seeing after our own affairs. Sincerely, W. C. KEATON, Mayor The Tomorrow column of Mayor Keaton's dou- ble-page spread is headed by a dark "?" followed by the words, "is Hohenwald next for this?" The column, consisting of news clippings and photo- graphs, is apparently designed to portray an accu- rate official mayoral prognostication of things to come in Hohenwald in the event of the unionization of the Siegel plant. The news clippings and photo- graphs comprising this column provide in illuminat- ing insight to their author's look into the future. Eight clippings are headed as follows: "Police Probe Plant Shooting"; "Violence Marks Picket Line at Lawrenceburg"; "Non-Striker's Home Struck By Blasts"; "Dynamite Blast Shakes Oneida Plant"; "Violence Flares At Hickory Mill Plant in Wayne"; -10 Dynamite Sticks Found in Woman's Car";" "15 Pickets Held in Miner's Death"; and "Right to Close Up Upheld By Court." Underneath the last-described clipping is a part of the heading of another article, the rest of the heading and the article being torn away; for some reason only the first few words of the heading have not been torn away but are reproduced as part of the Tomorrow column-the words are "400 Killed In-." In addi- tion to the foregoing there is a photograph of a man traversing a scene of devastation, with the following underneath the picture: "A 22-year old Murray Ohio worker walks through the ruins of a barn that was destroyed by fire Tuesday night near Hen- ryville, Glen Cummings, shown above, checks `tin and ashes,' the only remains of the barn and its contents of hay and corn which were completely destroyed by the fire. The barn was owned by Glen's father, John `Sammy' Cummings who crossed picket lines at the bicycle plant less than a week ago. Within hours of the time the barn burned, a car belonging to another non-union worker was riddled [?] by shotgun blasts in the same area." The remaining item appears to be part of a legend to a photograph which is not shown, referring, so far as legible, to "Tires ... slashed after members of Teamsters Local 327 began picketing .... A later report from Lawrenceburg was that the tires had been removed from the au- tomobile and burned and the automobile set up on blocks." A reading of the other clippings indicates that five of them (including the quoted two) refer to Murray-Ohio bicycle plant or a Teamsters union; and that eight of the nine clippings refer to violence including shooting homicide, dynamiting, shotgun blasting of plant and nonstriker's home and au- tomobile, arson, heaving of bricks through windshields, and tire slashing. Finally, Mayor Keaton's Tomorrow column contains a partial news clipping concerning the Supreme Court's decision in the Darlington case. The clipping is headed, "Right To Close Up Upheld By Court." The partial clipping points out that when that company went out of business "500 people in the town of about 6,000 population lost their jobs." As to the foregoing, as already indicated, Respondent Siegel Vice President Sam Siegel and its Hohenwald Plant Manager Honick denied knowledge of either the April I editorial or the April 8 notice in advance of their publication, as well as the mailing of the April I editorial, although some 400 copies were mailed. As already stated, Mayor Keaton denied prior knowledge on the part of Siegel as to the content of the April 8 notice, and that he was unable to "recall any conversation with them [i.e., Sam Siegel and Honick] that I was writing an article to be published in the paper." However, both Siegel and Honick conceded they read the April 1 editorial-Honick on April 1 or 2 when he received the newspaper in the mail; and also at least Honick the April 8 "article," notice, or advertisement on April 8 (the day before the elec- tion), when it was left in the cars parked in Respon- dent Siegel's plant parking lot.20 Sam Siegel and Honick conceded that at no time in any way did either of them, or anybody else on Respondent Siegel's behalf, disavow or disassociate or attempt to disavow or disassociate Respondent Siegel from the April 1 or April 8 publications or their distribu- p1 Mayor Keaton testified that Respondent Siegel's operators are predominantly women ' Siegel Plant Manger Honick testified unequivocally that he found a copy of the Keaton double-page spread in his car at the plant on April 8 and also noticed others in other cars there. Sam Siegal's testimony on the same subject as observed by me appeared to be far from candid He first testified that he saw the double-page spread "after the election " Then, asked whether a copy had not been left in his car on April 8, the day before the election, his response was, "I don't think I was here in my car " He then testified he "thinks" he was at the plant at least in the morning of the day before the election but "doubts" he was there in the afternoon His next testimony was that "I don't recall being here that afternoon or not I am not too sure " Asked whether as general manager he did not know that hand- bills had been left in every car in the plant parking lot, his answer was, "I don't live here " Finally, however , he conceded that he was still at the plant in the afternoon and that " probably " he "knew the contents of the adver- tisement li e , G C Exh 2BJ before iIJ left Hohenwald that day, April the 8th Itlhat afternoon " 836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tions; each stating that he was not requested to do so, and Honick testifying with respect to the April 8 double-page spread handbilling of each car in the Siegel parking lot, that he "felt that his [i.e., Mayor Keaton's] name being on it would identify whoever put it in." 5. Concluding findings and rationale At the outset, it is noted that the Board has in ef- fect already had before it the conduct here involved and has stated its views thereon, including Respon- dent Siegel's accountability for Mayor Keaton's ac- tions. No useful purpose would be served through regurgitation here of those views which are clearly presented in the Board's June 28, 1966, decision. Contrary to Respondent Siegel's insistence, they should not be disregarded.21 Moreover, this case is remarkably like another case involving Respondent Siegel recently decided by the Board, wherein the Board expressed similar sentiments; viz, Henry 1. Siegel, Inc., 165 NLRB 493. The record made in the instant case before the Trial Examiner on the scene would independently of the Board's prior decisions impel the same result. In cases of this type, the nature of the employee population, in terms of the milieu within which it functions, should not be ignored. There is a relativi- ty even to threats. What to one type of employee in one location would be a potent threat (e.g., display of firearms to a New York City garment worker) might be weak compared to another kind of threat to another kind of employee in another kind of en- vironment (e.g., threat of job loss and of social and community ostracism, voiced concurrently by em- ployer, mayor, and newspaper, in a small communi- ty where job opportunities are very scarce, but dis- play of firearms is not particularly fearsome) An overhead gossamer may in the gnat's eye be a sword of Damocles. As the Trial Examiner ob- served, Hohenwald is a small Tennessee communi- ty22 in a semirural setting. It would be surprising in- deed if a combination of employer, economic, com- munity, social, and local govermental pressures could there be ignored with impunity or by other than the lionhearted at risk of economic isolation and social ostracism if not worse. The total effect of a joinder of such pressures upon the factory popu- lation here involved may be minimized only at the cost of muting reality. It is the effect of Respondents' pronouncements, taken at a reasonable running view, upon the per- sons at whom beamed, rather than their post facto Y' It is recogm7ed in this connection that the te.1t of whether misconduct is sufficient to constitute an unfair labor practice or whether it merely merits setting aside an election is not precisely identical, cf General Shoe Corporation, 77 NLRB 124, 126-127, Industrial Steel Products Compa ns, Inc , 143 NLRB 336, 347, Plapsl ool Manufacturing Compam, 140 NLRB 1417, 1419, Dal-Tes Optical Compam, Inc , 137 NLRB 1782, 1786-87 However, here the Board has explicated in detail its basic views with regard to the actions involved. Although the outcome of the election case does not mandate the decision in this unfair labor practices case , it does vacuumistic troy weighing to a punctilio by others, which must govern. It is thus doubtful that the Em- ployer's factory hands would react to the subtle se- mantical trabeculations deftly tooled into these communications, with the sophisticated sensitivity of savants of labor law. Omnipresent lurking reali- ties of industrial relations life, known to the Board through daily exercise of its administrative steward- ship over the Act, teach forcefully that what in sterile ivorytower ratiocination might represent borderline utterances arguably privileged by the seeming categorical imperatives of precedential generalizations, would on factory floor constitute loaded threats of job loss stabbing at economic sur- vival of self and family. "What to an outsider will be no more than the vigorous presentation of a con- viction, to an employee may be the manifestation of a determination which it is not safe to thwart." N.L.R.B. v. Federbush Company, Inc., 121 F.2d 954, 957 (C.A. 2). There is no true necessity here to engage in eclectic dissection of Respondents' communica- tions phrase by phrase, so as to filet the impermissi- ble from the permissible. As is common in cases of this type, the communications include some words, phrases, and sentences which in isolation are in no way improper because clear in meaning and privileged in thrust. However, as it is further usual in such cases, there is also a skillful interlarding of threats and half-threats veiled in differing degrees of transparency. There is also much of the tricky language of ambiguity, some subtle and some less so. As is known to all trained at the bar, such Janus-headed communication serves the useful double purpose of, on the one hand, traducing those at whom aimed and, on the other hand-that real purpose having been accomplished-being of sufficiently ambiguous entendre to be susceptible of deft argumentative minimization when subjected to regulatory agency or court scrutiny, as being al- legedly no more than the crude communicative en- deavor of unschooled innocence misconstrued by overzealous law enforcement officials. But even apart from undertaking a comprehensive substan- tive analysis of the language itself from the point of view of those upon whom it was actually used, a fair standard is that he who has unleashed the murky overtones of double entendre, in preference to simple words sterile of threat, should be held ac- countable therefor-somewhat as is an insurer who markets an ambiguous form-since it is he who chose to present it in that way and who utilized it to his advantage. Cf N.L.R.B. v. Miller-Charles and not follow that the views expressed by the Board in the former should not in the latter be accorded the weight they deserve 22 As pointed out in the Board 's June 28, 1966, Decision setting.iside the election " According to the U S Bureau of Census, the population of Hohenwald as of 1960 was 2,191 and the population of Lewis County I in which Hohenwald is locatedi was 6,249 According to the Employer, 108 of its employees live in Hohenwald and had street addresses, 209 had rural route addresses in Lewis County, and 83 lived in adjacent counties ( Board Decision on Review , June 28, 1966, Case 26-RM-179, fn 2 ) HENRY I. SIEGAL CO., INC. Company, 341 F 2d 870, 874 (C.A. 2). We have long since been taught that "A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used"(Holmes, J , in Tonne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418, 425) and that "Words are not pebbles in alien juxtaposition, they have only a communal existence, and not only does the mean- ing of each interpenetrate the other, but all in their aggregate take their purport from the setting in which they are used, of which the relation between the speaker and the hearer is perhaps the most im- portant part."(Learned Hand, J., in N.L.R.B. v. Federbush Co., Inc., supra at 957.) "Proof positive" that statements in a given con- text actually coerced employees is unessential to establish violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act It is sufficient "even though the statements may not be directly coercive, if they could be reasonably so construed by the employees" (N.L.R.B. v. Electric Steam Radiator Corporation, 321 F.2d 733, 736 (C.A. 6); see also Wausau Steel Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 377 F.2d 369, 372 (C.A. 7), N L.R.B. V. Ford Brothers, 170 F 2d 735, 738 (C.A. 6), or if "the words used ... in vacuo, may have been in- nocent, in the context ... in which the words were spoken they can reasonably be regarded as ominous" (Local 901, Intl. Brotherhood of Team- sters v. Compton, 291 F 2d 793, 797 (C.A. 1). As recently expressed by Mr Justice Harlan for a unanimus Court, such utterances , including what is pointedly left unsaid but suggested to the imagina- tion of even the unimaginative, carry "the sug- gestion of a fist inside the velvet glove. Employees are not likely to miss the inference that the source of benefits now conferred is also the source from which future benefits must flow and which may dry up if it is not obliged." (N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 409.) Respondents' election eve pronouncements expressly and by that implication which all recognize to be no less clear than expres- sion tolled for employees the ominous note that, if they desired to bargain collectively (as the Act guarantees them the right to do), they would im- peril their existing benefits and advantages and jeopardize those which would otherwise be forthcoming in the future Employees were painted a reign of terror and violence in the event of unionization , with strikes, income slashed and eliminated, and plant closed in a community destroyed. It was indicated that the best employees could look forward to from collective bargaining was payment of dues and tribute to the union, at the loss of existing and future benefits, privileges, and liberty, and that it would be futile for them to attempt to bargain collectively. It was also in- dicated to employees (by Plant Manager Honick) that-contrary to law (cf., e.g., N L.R.B. v. Graber 837 Mfg. Co., Inc., 382 F.2d 990 (C.A. 7)-unioniza- tion would bring a loss of employees' statutorily protected right to present their own greivances to management . In totality, Respondents' preelection pronouncements, in their 9-day preelection blitz- krieg, were no less than a potent threat of a new era disastrous to the employees' aspirations if not their very continued economic existence, in the event they were so unintelligent and foolhardy as to seek to avail themselves of their statutory right to bar- gain collectively. "[T]he desire of employees to unionize is directly proportional to the advantages thought to be obtained from such action." Radio Officers' Union v. N.L.R.B., 347 U.S. 17, 46. "There is no more effective way to dissuade em- ployees from voting for a collective-bargaining representative than to tell them that their votes for such a representative will avail them nothing." The Trane Co, 137 NLRB 1506, 1510. See also N.L.R.B. v. Electric City Dyeing Co, 178 F 2d 980, 981 (C.A. 3); N.L.R.B. v. Gate City Cotton Mills, 167 F 2d 647, 648-649 (C.A. 5). Subjecting, as we are required, Respondents' pronouncements, in their prevailing contextual en- velope, to the indicated Board and judicial assays, it is apparent that the pronouncements here unfairly hobbled the employees' freedom of choice, thereby interfering with, restraining , and coercing them in the statutorily guaranteed security of the exercise of their right to bargain collectively instead of "bar- gaining" individually as their Employer insistently made it clear they should continue to do at their peril. This Respondent Siegel accomplished by for- cefully and unmistakably equating collective bar- gaining with such dread spectres as economic retrogression , violence, plant closure, and job loss-in short , disaster and ruin . Potent as this was, stabbing at the vitals of the continued welfare if not survival of employees and their families, the Em- ployer's threat was superfatted by Mayor Keaton's dovetailing activities-with the Employer's knowledge, cooperative acquiescence, and ex- ploitative approbation and ratification-which added the powerful aura of official sanction2.1 to private coercion . Under the special circumstances in this particular community , Respondents' con- joined , time-integrated activities toward a common end constituted a synchronized continuum or high- pressure amalgam of threats and coercion which, in terms of the practical realities of the situation, are neither susceptible of nor require unblending one from the other . Although Siegel 's described activi- ties themselves violated Section 8(a)(1), Keaton's paralleling contributions-toward Siegel 's ends- made them worse . In small communities like Hohenwald , there is a well-understood natural con- fluence of the rivulets of private ( e.g., economic and social ), semiofficial, and official opinion-mold- ing power structures which determine the com- " Perhaps particularly in a communit) of the sue of Hohenwald, the ma) or in a direct sense constitutes the Image of las% and order 838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pelling direction of the mainstream of the commu- nity. There is clearly discernible here a remarkable sameness in the nature of the warnings beamed at the employees by the Siegel executives and Mayor Keaton in their joint venture to stop collective bar- gaining from coming to Hohenwald. By their con- joined activities and pressures they placed a fear- some price tag upon the employees' mere naked ex- ercise of a right which the Act was specifically designed to guarantee-namely, the right to bargain collectively instead of individually-free from such coercive restraint. A right is not free if its exercise must be attended with the necessity of braving the crossfire of such threats. None but the foolhardy will treat a warning of job loss by one having the power to make it come true as other than a threat of job loss for the exercise of the "right" to unionize. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. W. C. Nabors Company, 196 F.2d 272, 276 (C.A. 5); N.L.R.B. v. Eastern Die Co., 340 F.2d 607 (C.A. 1), cert. denied 381 U.S. 951 "Language may serve to enlighten a hearer, though it also betrays the speaker's feelings and desires; but the light it sheds will be in some degree clouded, if the hearer is in his power." N.L.R.B. v. Federbush Company, Inc., 121 F.2d 954, 957 (C.A. 2). The answer to Respondents' contention that their utterances are invulnerable to question because of Section 8(c) of the Act and the First Amendment to the Constitution is simple. Section 8(c) expressly excepts from privileged "free speech" any "expres- sion contain[ing] ... threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit", and it has long since been emphasized by prime authority that the First Amendment is similarly bounded, cf. N.L.R.B. v. United Steelworkers of America, CIO, 357 U.S. 357, 362, N.L.R.B. v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 314 U.S. 469, 477, 478. Furthermore, "Even though such statements may be expressive of opinion only, if their reasonable tendency is coercive in effect, they are violative of Section 8(a)(1)." N.L.R.B. v. Kingsford Motor Car Co., 313 F.2d 826, 832 (C.A. 6). It is accordingly found that, substantially as al- leged in the complaint, Respondent Siegel, both through its own executives and through Mayor Keaton," interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7, in violation of Section 8(a)(1), of the Act. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B., 371 F.2d 740 (C.A.D.C.), enfg. Hamburg Shirt Corporation, 156 NLRB 511; Colson Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 347 F.2d 128, 137 (C.A. 8), cert. denied 382 U.S. 904, enfg. 148 NLRB 827; N.L.R.B. v. Bibb Mfg. Co., 188 F.2d 825, 826-827 (C.A. 5); Henry I. Siegel, Inc., 165 NLRB 493; Dean Industries, Inc., and Howard Staf- ford, Mayor of Pontotoc, Mississippi, 162 NLRB 1078; Henry 1. Siegel Co., Inc., 26-RM-179, 62 LRRM 1629; Universal Manufacturing Corporation of Mississippi, 156 NLRB 1459; Thunderbird Hotel, Inc., 152 NLRB 1416; Henry 1. Siegel Co., Inc., 148 NLRB 1192; Utica-Herbrand Tool Division of Kel- sey-Hayes Company, 145 NLRB 1717, 1719-20. Insofar as Mayor Keaton himself is concerned, it is found that by his described actions he also vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, both as partici- pant in Respondent Siegel's described violations, as Siegel's instrumentality and agent within the broad statutory definition (Act, Sec. 2(13) and 2(2) ), and also as an individual actor. In the latter regard, it is apparent that public officials, local or other, are not exempt from the requirement of obedience to law, including the National Labor Relations Act. To begin with, such individuals are not excluded from the Act's definitions of "person" or "employer" (Act, Sec. 2(1) and (2)), the latter expressly in- cluding "any person acting as an agent of an em- ployer" (id., Sec. 2(2)). The Board has had occa- sion to hold, in comparable situations, that public officials who fail to comply with the Act will be found to be in violation thereof. Dean Industries, Inc., and Howard Stafford, Mayor of Pontotoc, Mis- sissippi, 162 NLRB Thunderbird Hotel, Inc., 152 NLRB 1416. It is contended that Mayor Keaton was merely expressing his own views. Mayor Keaton is, of course, entitled to his own views. But, if their ac- tivation in conjunction with an employer's concur- rent coercive restraints upon employees clashes with legal requirements, he gains no immunity by =' I c , in view of (I ) the close integration of Siegel's acts with Keaton's as indicated herein and in the Board's June 28, 1966, decision in Case 26-RM-179, (2) Respondent Siegel's knowledge and exploitation of and its total failure to disavow or disassociate itself in any way from Keaton's described activities, including Keaton's use of its list of employees' names and address (freely furnished by Siegel) and Keaton's use of its plant park- ing lot premises for the described handbilling purposes, (3) the broad definition of "agency" in Section 2(13) of the Act, which the circum- stances indicate Keaton here satisfies, (4) the factors adverted to uifra, as indicia of the joint and overlapping economic nature of the endeavor on the part of both Respondents Although, as already stated, Respondent Siegel would be held in violation here even without considering Keaton's acts sties, it should he emph.isi7ed that to permit Siegel under the described circumstances to have the ad'..intage of Keaton's activities while hiding be- hind his official skirts could serve to undermine and emasculate the Act by substituting for the national industrial relations policy intended thereby a fragmented policy for every municipality and its local supporter throughout the nation The result would he encouragement to proliferation of islands of lawless separatism from which, as privileged sanctuaries, economic warfare could be waged with impunity against law-abiding com- munities which do not hold themselves out to employers is havens of unionfree operations with bountiful labor supply Such a result would he totally at odds with the policies and purposes of the Act as explicitly declared by Congress in its preamble Under the total circumstances shown. %sewed without excessive naivete, Siegel's plea that it was the mere innocent "beneficiary" of Keaton's self-propelled antiunion hostility is re- jected in fact and in law Cf Nash v Florida Industrial Cununnsuw, 389 U S 235,239-240 HENRY I . SIEGAL CO., INC. 839 reason of his mayoral office;15 nor does the em- ployer who reaps the advantage of the resulting symbiotic amalgam with its own violative activities unattended by any attempt at disassociation or dis- avowal, by later insisting that they were no more than a coincidence of viewpoints. Otherwise, Mayor Keaton (as well as the mayor of every city, town, village, and hamlet in America) could over- ride, and through him any employer could over- come, the Federal will. In this way, the Congres- sional policies enunciated for all in the Act, as well as other statutes, could be frustrated. It is insisted by Respondents that Mayor Keaton did not act on behalf of the Employer here, but acted on his own. Under the Act, no beribboned instrument of attorn- ment is required to affix liability for violation upon actor or beneficiary. The Act expressly provides (Sec. 2(13)) and it has repeatedly been pointed out that common law tests of agency need not be ful- filled in these cases." It may nevertheless be ob- served that, even under technical common law rules, agency through ratification, knowledgeable acceptance or retention of the fruits of the alleged agent's act, or though failure to disavow are firmly recognized.L7 And where, unlike here, a degree of doubt were to be engendered because of the em- ployer's indignant protestation of absolute in- nocence of association with the activities of well-in- tentioned and politically powerful civic-minded friends, a pattern of seeming behavorial parallelism in which the employer has, mayhap also innocently, been previously enmeshed28-a matter of official knowledge to the Board in execution of its statutory responsibilities-perhaps ought not to be over- looked. The mantle of innocence may become mot- tled by age spots. The circumstances clearly indicate that the ef- forts to stop unionization of the Siegel Hohenwald plant constituted a joint endeavor in which Respon- dent Keaton actively participated with Respondent Siegel. In so concluding, effect has been given among other circumstances to the following: the preeminent role of Keaton in procuring Siegel to locate a factory in Hohenwald in a context of Keaton's strong views about plentiful labor supply untainted by unionism-i.e., exercise of rights to bargain collectively as guaranteed by Federal law; the financial stake of the City of Hohenwald arising out of its obligations on the Siegel factory industrial construction bonds, to eliminate any cloud on the horizon to Siegel's continuation of its factory in Hohenwald, such as might be presented by its unionization; the size and closely knit nature of Hohenwald as a community; the social ties29 between Siegel executives and Keaton; Keaton's ac- tivist role in trying to prevent the Siegel plant from becoming unionized, including his procuring his nephew newspaper owner to write an editorial on the subject in the only local newspaper, and also Keaton's alleged purchase at his own expense of a double-page advertisement warning Siegel em- ployees against unionization; Siegel's furnishing of lists of names and addresses of its employees util- ized for the purpose of Keaton's mailing to Siegel's employees of Keaton's nephew's antiunion newspaper editorial30 as well as of Keaton's double- page spread; Keaton's personal organization of the handbilling of automobiles in Siegel's factory park- ing lot, with knowledge thereof on the part of Siegel's executives; the remarkable sameness of the warnings and arguments concurrently beamed at the employees by Siegel and by Keaton; Siegel's " In a classic early case, As/fibs v White, 2 Ld Raym 938, 92 Engl Rep 126 (1703), it was stated The single question in this case is, whether if a free burgess of a cor- poration, is ho has an undoubted right to give his vote in the election of a burgess to serve in parliament, he refused and hinder'd to give it by the officer , if an action on the case will lie against such officer . I im of opinion, that this action on the case is .fi proper action My brother Powell indeed thinks, that an action upon the case is not main- tainable, because here is no hurt or damage to the plaintiff, but surely every injury imports a damage, though it does not cost the party one farthing , and it is impossible to prove the contrary, for a damage is not merely pecuniary, but an injury imports a damage, when .i man is thereby hindered of his right So if a man give another a cuff on the ear, though it cost him nothing , no not so much as a little diachylon, yet he shall have his action, for it is a personal injury So here in the principle case, the plaintiff is obstructed of his right, and shall therefore have his action And it is no objection to say, that it will occasion multiplicity of ,fictions, for if men will multiply injuries, ac- tions must be multiplied too, for every main that is injured ought to have his recompense the gist of the action is, that the plaintiff hav- ing a right to stand for the place, and it being difficult to determine who had a majority, he had therefore a right to demand a poll, and the defendant by denying it was liable to an action If publick officers will infringe men 's rights, they ought to pay greater damages than other men, to deter and hinder other officers from the like offenses :" E g , Anialganmted Clothoig Worker% of A,iienca, Al'L-CIO v NLRB ,317F2d740,744(CADC ), Colson Corporationv NLRB, 347 F 2d 128, 136-137 (C A 8), cert denied 382 U S 904, N L R B v Arlansas-Louisiana Gas Conipxim, 333 F 2d 790. 795-796 (C A 8). Henri 1 Siegel, Jim , 165 NLRB 493, Dean Didustrie %, lire . and Hon ard Stafford, Mayor of Poritoto . Mississippi . 162 NLRB 1078 "It is true of a union as of an employer that it may he responsible for acts which it has not expressly authorized or which might not he attributable to it on strict application of the rules of respwndeat superior International Asxxiation of Matluntits v Labor Board, 31 1 U S 72, 80, Hein z Co v Labor Board , 31 1 U S 514 " Mill Wagon Drivers Union v Meadon moor Dairies , Inc , 312 U S 287, 295 Restatement (Second ) Agent s. ch 4 See also Ainalganiaied C lotlong Worlers of Ann•rica, AFL-CIO v N L R B, 371 F 2d 740, 744 (C A D C ). Intertspe Company v N L R B , 371 F 2d 787, 788 (C A 4), Coon Cor- poration v NIL R B , 347 F 2d 128, 137 (C A 8), cert denied 382 U S 904, Henrv I Siegel, In c u , 165 NLRB 493 See Table 1, infra Mayor Keaton testified that he is friendly with Sam Siegel and that "I have visited in his home for years and Mr Siegel has visited in my home on many occasions 35As noted in the Board's June 28, 1966, Decision on Review of the Re- gional Director's June 23 , 1965, determination setting aside the April 9 election ( Case 26-RM-179 ), one of the Union 's objections to the election (upheld by the Regional Director ) was Siegel 's refusal to accede to the Union's request for the names and addresses of eligible voters 840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD knowledge of Keaton's preelection antiunion activi- ties" and failure in any way, publicly or privately, toward its employees or otherwise, to disavow or disassociate itself therefrom. Under the circum- stances, while in general otherwise favorably im- pressed with the testimonial demeanor of Mayor Keaton, I found unconvincing and therefore cannot credit his testimony to the effect that he undertook and carried out his activities designed to defeat unionization of the Siegel Hohenwald plant purely on his own initiative and at his personal expense, without request of or so much as mentioning it to Siegel. Resolving credibility on this aspect, in the light of the record as a whole, I find, to the con- trary, that the Siegel-Keaton activities to halt unionization of the Siegel plant in Hohenwald con- stituted in integrated plan, effort, and enterprise. It is accordingly found that Respondent Keaton individually, as well as an agent of Respondent Siegel within the statutory definition, by his described actions and participation in Respondent Siegel's unlawful activities, interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7, in viola- tion of Section 8(a)( I ), of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings and the entire record, I state the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. At all material times , Respondent Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc., has been and is an employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. At all material times, Respondent W. C. Keaton has been an agent of Respondent Siegel within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act and an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 3. At all material times, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, has been and is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. Assertion of jurisdiction in this proceeding is proper. 5. By their conduct set forth in section III which has been found to constitute unfair labor practices, Respondents and each of them have interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the ex- ercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act.32 THE REMEDY We move now to the question of remedy. At the conclusion of General Counsel 's case, the Charging Party (Union ) sought permission to present proof of its representation strength in the bargaining unit, relating to its recognitional-bar- gaining request which Respondent Siegel had refused . This application was opposed by Respon- dent Siegel ( as well as by General Counsel) upon the ground that after investigation General Counsel had declined to include in his complaint here an al- legation of violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, notwithstanding a union charge to that effect. The Union made it clear that it sought no amendment or expansion of the complaint , which is limited to allegations of violation of Section 8(a)(1 ). I granted the Union's application for the reason that the Board has issued bargaining orders based upon 8(a)( 1) violation , in absence of any 8 (a)(5) viola- tion or allegation and even in absence of a bargain- ing request , where circumstances warrant in the presence of a union majority and flagrant unfair labor practices . 33 However, in view of the extensive, prolonged litigation on this aspect of the case sug- gested by the Employer 's indication that it would individually contest the Union's representation designation cards ( said to grossly total approxi- mately 300 in the bargaining unit of approximately 400), I granted Respondents and General Counsel time to apply to the Board for leave to appeal from this ruling . Subject to the Board 's ruling and possi- ble necessity for continuing the hearing on this aspect (i.e., union representation strength ) alone, all parties rested. Respondent Siegel, but not Gen- eral Counsel , thereupon petitioned the Board for leave to appeal from this ruling . By its order of July 17, 1967, the Board denied leave to appeal , without prejudice . Thereafter, prompted by desire to avoid, or at least to bring within reasonable limits, what otherwise loomed as a monumental litigation involving hundreds of union cards, on July 26, 1967, 1 issued an order setting the case for further hearing, requiring statements of the parties' posi- " Upon testimonial demeanor observations and the record as a whole, I reject Sam Siegel's unpersuasive suggestions that he was unaware of what Mayor Keaton was doing Keaton's own testimony indicates the opposite, including his receipt of the list of employees' names and addresses from Sam Siegel, utilized for his preelection antiunion propagandvmg of the em- ployees, although, in response to questioning by Siegel's counsel, Keaton indicated he could not "recall" being asked or telling the purpose for the list Mayor Keaton testified, however, that Siegel "knew that I needed it for a purpose in connection with trying to secure industry, ' and he conceded that Siegel "knew that [11 would use it the right way "A similar list of eligi- ble voters had been refused by Siegel to the Union, resulting in a union ob- jection to the election which the Regional Director sustained " For Additional Conclusions of Law 6 and 7, see the section entitled "The Remedy " "See, cg JC!'emu'iCo v NLRB, 384F2d479(CA 10), tVaamu Steel Coi poiaii nt v N L R B , 377 F 2d 369, 373-374 (C A 7), Ututed Steeluor/em of Anietua, 41-L-CI0 1 Nottlmest Engineering Contpani I v N L R B, 376 F 2d 770, 772-773 (C A D.C ); N L R.B v Delight Ba/eii, Inc , 353 F 2d 344, 347 (C A 6), Cohon Coipoiation v N L R B , 347 F 2d 128 (C A 8), cert denied 382 U S 904, Local,Vo 152, aff/n in- !etnational Brotherhood of leanntem, C7tauffrun, lVan•dou+enie,i and Hel- per of 4merita [A met it an Compies iec/ Stye! Corporation I v .V L R B , 343 F 2d 107 (C A D C ), Piaiechi Aot iaft Corporation .. N L R B , 280 F 2d 575 (C A 3), cert denied 364 U S 933, Summit Moung Corporation v N.L.R.B., 260 F 2d 894, 900 (C A. 3); N L R B v Caldarera, 209 F 2d 265, 268-269 (C A 8), D. H. Holmes Co v N L R B, 179 F.2d 876 (C.A 5), enfg order 81 NLRB 753, 756 Cf. N L R.B v Flomatic Corporation, 347 F 2d 74 (C A 2) HENRY I. SIEGAL CO., INC. 841 tions, and regulating the future course of the hear- ing. This order among other things required the Union to furnish to the Employer a photocopy of each of the union representation designation cards relied on, the Employer thereupon to state its defenses thereto. Although the Union complied with this order, Respondent Siegel sought leave to appeal to the Board therefrom. By its order of Au- gust 22, 1967, the Board denied leave to appeal. Respondent Siegel thereupon complied with the order. Undoubtedly an extremely substantial amount of trial time was saved in this way, since the issues were thereby clearly identified and narrowed and the labors of the ensuing hearing relatively sharply delineated.'' The hearing was accordingly resumed, limited to the issues raised by the parties' disclosed positions in the voluminous but informa- tive documents exchanged in compliance with the July 26, 1967, order. Early in the resumed hearing, a substantial issue presented itself as to the identi- ties and numbers of employees within the bargain- ing unit on various dates covering a period of several months (i.e., from the date of the Union's January 18, 1965, bargaining request to the April 9, 1965, election) In response to the Union's sub- pena, the Employer produced voluminous records bearing on this issue. Consistent with the practice initiated by me in the July 26, 1967, order, I suspended the hearing so as to afford reasonable opportunity for study of the subpenaed records, upon the basis of which on September 13, 1967, I orally directed a further exchange of position state- ments of the parties as a preliminary to continuing the hearing. By September 27, 1967, letter from union counsel, I was informed that the Union was unable to establish a majority but that at one point it held representation authorization cards of precisely 50 percent (197 of 394) of the unit em- ployees, and requesting leave thus to establish the extent of its reprepresentation strength, even though short of an absolute arithmetical majority, at a resumed hearing, on the theory that but for Respondents' unfair labor practices it would have attained a majority. By application dated October 6,35 General Counsel moved for an order closing the hearing in view of the Union's conceded inabili- ty to establish a numerical majority, which in the General Counsel's view precluded a bargaining order remedy. After the case was removed by me from the calendar sine die on October 16, 1967, union counsel filed a voluminous offer of proof, of- fering primarily to establish that it held valid union representation designation cards from as many as 50 percent of the employees in the appropriate bar- gaining unit, as indicated above. No objection was received to the proposed offer of proof. My further order of October 23 closed the hearing record, with leave to all parties to propose findings of fact and conclusions of law and to submit briefs 36 Upon receipt of the concession from union coun- sel that it is unable to establish that it held union representation designation cards from a majority of employees in the bargaining unit at any time material herein, I closed the hearing record because I agree with General Counsel's position in its mo- tion of October 6, 1967, which is hereby granted, that such a majority is a precondition to a bargain- ing order. The Board has so held, expressly reject- ing the contention here advanced by the Union that it is entitled to a bargaining order since, but for the Employer's unfair labor practices, it would have at- tained a majority. See J. P. Stevens and Co., Inc., 163 NLRB 217, 218; Scott's, Inc., 159 NLRB 1795, 1806-07, enfd. as modified 383 F.2d 230, 234 (C.A.D.C.); J. P Stevens and Co., Inc., 157 NLRB 869, 877, enfd. as modified 380 F.2d 292 (C.A. 2); H. W. Elson Bottling Company, 155 NLRB 714, 715-716, enfd. as modified 379 F.2d 223 (C A. 6); Tennsco Corp., 141 NLRB 296, 299, enforcement denied 339 F.2d 396 (C.A. 6). It is noted that in Henry 1. Siegel, Inc., 165 NLRB 493, the Union controlled a majority. Cf. Bigelow v RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 327 U.S. 251, 264-266; Franks Bros. Company v. N.L.R.B., 321 U.S. 702, 704-706; J.P. Stevens & Co., Inc. v. NL.R.B., 380 F.2d 292, 303-304 (C.A. 2); Bannon Mills, Inc, 146 NLRB 611, 614; Bok, The Regulation of Campaign Tactics in Representation Elections Under the National Labor Relations Act, 78 Harv. L. Rev. 38, 138-139 & n 274 (1964). It cannot be denied that where an employer has prevented a technical union majority with the union at the very threshold, in a large unit, absence of an effective remedy would seem to en- courage employers to violate the Act, cf. Local Union No. 2, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the U.S. and Canada (Astrone Plumbing & Heat- ing Corp.), 152 NLRB 1093, 1114, enfd as modified 360 F 2d 428 (C.A. 2), citing N.L.R.B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 344 U.S. 344 Any revision of Board policy on this matter must come from the Board in a case and under circumstances that it deems appropriate, cf Iowa Beef Packers, Inc., 144 NLRB 615, 616, and cases cited fn. 2; Insurance Agents' International Union, AFL-CIO (The Pru- dential Insurance Company of America), 119 NLRB 768, 773, Ranco, Inc., 109 NLRB 998, 1009-10, fn. 8 1 accordingly decline to accept the Union's " "Administrative hearings, like court hearings, should concern the real issues between the parties " Harvey Aluminum (Inc) v N.L R B , 335 F.2d 749, 758 (C A. 8) Cf Gardner, Shrinking the Big Case, 16 ABA Ad L. Rev 5 (1963) " Received by me on October 10, prior to which I had on October 9 written counsel requesting the definitive statements of position contem- plated by my September 13 order "' All documents filed or received from counsel as %%ell as copies of the Trial Examiner's orders and communications to counsel, not heretofore marked in esidence at the hearing, base in accordance nnith the prosisions of my order of October 23, 1967, and the Charging Party's application, which is hereby granted, been identified, marked, and incorporated into the hearing record as exhibits, or as proffered and rejected exhibits, in ac- cordance with a list hereto annexed as "Appendix A " I Not published I 842 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD offer of proof pertaining to these union cards and deny its application for a bargaining order In so holding, it is assumed for purposes of this proceed- ing as tendered by the Union's offer of proof, that its January 18, 1965, recognitional-bargaining de- mand upon Siegel was a continuing demand until the date of the April 9, 1965, election, and that at some time during the intervening period the Union held unambiguous, unequivocal, and valid representation designation cards from 50 percent (i e., 197 of 394) of Siegel's Hohenwald employees in an appropriate bargaining unit. In accordance with the foregoing and upon the entire record, I state the following: ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 6. 37 At all material times, the following has been and is a unit of employees at Respondent Siegel's Hohenwald, Tennessee, plant, appropriate for pur- poses of collective bargaining: All production and maintenance employees at the Hohenwald, Tennes- see, plant of Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc., including quality samplers, stock and service personnel, plant clerical employees, janitors, watchmen and machin- ists, but excluding office clerical employees, guards, foreladies and other supervisors as defined in the Act. 7. In view of the fact (conceded by the Union) that the Union has not, on or subsequent to its January 18, 1965, request of Respondent Siegel for recognition as the bargaining representative of said Respondent's employees in the above ap- propriate bargaining unit, represented an arithmeti- cal majority of said employees, the Union is not en- titled to a bargaining order herein, nothwithstand- ing: a. The Union's representation in the week end- ing April 10, 1965, of 197 out of 394 or 50 percent of the employees in said appropriate bargaining unit;" b. The nature and extent of unfair labor prac- tices, as found herein, and Respondent Siegel's previous history of unfair labor practices, and the other circumstances detailed herein; and c. That the Union would have attained such majority representation status3 8 except for Respon- dent Siegel 's unfair labor practices as found herein. Although as indicated above, under controlling Board law the Union is not entitled to a bargaining order here upon the proof proffered, it does not fol- low that the Union should be afforded no relief other than the usual notice posting , which it persua- sively urges would provide it no redress for wrongs suffered and would be largely ineffectual here. The question of remedy under the indicated circum- stances therefore commands consideration , and it is to that question we now address ourselves. Respondent Siegel is no stranger to the Board. It has had a long history before the Board. We are told that in fashioning an appropriate remedy, we may properly consider such a history. N.L.R.B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Co , 344 U.S. 344, 348-349; Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union No 728, aff/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Overnite Transport Co.) v. N.L.R.B., 332 F.2d 693, 695, 697 (C.A. 5), cert denied 379 U.S. 913; Local 138,-In- ternational Union of Operating Engineers, AFL- CIO (J. J. Hagerty, Inc.) v. N.L.R.B., 321 F.2d 130, 138 (C.A. 2); N.L.R.B. v. Springfield Building and Construction Trades Council (Leo Spear Con- struction Co.), 262 F.2d 494, 489-499 (C.A. 1), cited with approval in N.L.R.B. v. Ochoa Fertilizer Corp., 368 U.S. 322, Jaffe, The Judicial Enforce- ment of Administrative Orders, 76 Harv. L. Rev. 865, 892 (1963). Siegel 's history with the Board is shown in Table 1. Section 10( c) of the Act empowers the Board to order violators "to cease and desist from such un- fair labor practice , and to take such affirmative ac- tion including reinstatement of employees with or without back pay, as will effectuate the policies of this Act." Test of this statutory authority has drawn from our highest Court the characterization that it "charges the Board with the task of devising [ef- fective] remedies." N.L.R.B. v. Seven - Up Bottling Co, 344 U.S 344, 346.(19 We are constantly adjured by higher authority to design effective remedies '40 as shown , obedience to the Act's mandates requires no less. " Numbered in continuation of Conclusions of Law set forth in said sec- tion, ugna " Not established or found factually herein, but merely assumed in view of my rejection as matter of law (for reasons explicated in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy," supra) of the Union's offer of proof to this effect '" Further experience appears amply to have borne out the concern of the statutory authors (voiced regarding another instance of need for effec- tual remedy for violation of the Act) "Experience has demonstrated that the Board has not been able in some instances to correct unfair labor practices until after substantial injury has been done Since the Board's orders are not self-enforcing, it has sometimes been possible for persons violating the act to accomplish their unlawful objective before being placed under any legal restraint and thereby to make it impossible or not feasible to restore or preserve the status quo pending litigation " (S Rep No 105, 80th Cong , l st Sess 8, 27 (1947) ) 40See, e g , Fibreboard Paper Products Corp v N L R.B , 379 U.S 203, 215-217, N L R B v Lrie Resistor Corp, 373 U S 221, 236, N L R B v Seven-Up Bottling Co , 344 U S 344, 346-349, Virgaua F.les iris & Poster Co v N L R B, 319 U S 533, 539-540, Phelps Dodge Corp v N L R B, 313 U S 177, 188, 194, 198 The Board's Chairman has accorded continu- ing recognition to this need See, c g , McCulloch, A /ale of I uo Cities or Lae in Aumn, 1962 Proceedings of American Bar Association Section of Labor Relations Law, 14, 25, in which the Chairman spoke of the necessity for designing remedies "that will give more protection to the rights of self- organvatnon, discourage unfair labor practices by unions and employers, and encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining "There are additional considerations here "The fact that the )second) election is still to be held adds strength to the view that the policies of the Act would require an appropriate Board order to offset, insofar as such an order could do so, the effect of such unfair labor practices" United Steehior/,ess of America, AFL-CIO f Wagner Industrial Produ, is Co, Inc ) v N L R B , 386 F 2d 981, 983 (C A D C , Oct 24, 1967) "Certainly it is not one of the purposes of the election provisions I of the Act) to supply an employer with a procedural device by which he may secure the time necessary to defeat efforts toward organization being made by a union " Joy Silk Mills v N L.R.B, 185 F.2d 732 ,741 (C A.D C ), cert denied 341 U S 914 HENRY I. SIEGAL CO., INC. 843 Inasmuch as Respondents have been found to have violated the Act as indicated, I shall of course recommend the conventional posting-of-notice remedy. However, in view of the repetitive pattern of the acts involved (cf., e.g., Henry 1. Siegel, Inc., 165 NLRB 493, the Employer's history with the Board (Table I), and the overall situation here in- volved-including the large number of employees in the unit, the substantial union representation showing proferred, and the unfeasibility of holding a new election for a long period of time since the last election (April 1965) which was aborted through Respondents' misconduct affecting the out- come-I am persuaded of the merit of the Union's contention that a garden-variety notice posting here would not suffice to erase the effects of that misconduct or to promote the policies and purposes of the Act. I shall accordingly recommend that Respondents be required to take certain additional actions under the circumstances; viz, (1) that the notice be posted for 6 months; (2) that the notice be mailed to each employee, to counter the mailings to the employees of the various offending preelection communications from Respondents'41 (3) that the notice be published in the Lewis County Herald, to counter the offending preelection publi- cation therein and handbilling and mailing thereof;42 (4) that in the event Respondent Siegel within 6 months at its expense assembles and ad- dresses its employees regarding unionization or at- tempted exercise of any right under the Act, said Respondent shall provide like facilities for the same purpose to the Union, at the latter's request;43 (5) that the Union shall for a period of 6 months be provided with reasonable access to and use of Respondent Siegel's Hohenwald plant bulletin boards for lawful union purposes;44 and (6) that Respondent Siegel shall for a period of 6 months keep the Union supplied, at the latter's request, with the names and residence addresses of all em- ployees in the bargaining unit here found ap- propriate.45,46 Also, in view of the circumstances here present, including this Employer's history with the Board, I shall include the recommendation that it be required to cease and desist from infringing in any other manner upon the rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I recom- mend that it be ordered that: 1. Respondent Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc., its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, and Respon- dent W C. Keaton, Mayor of Hohenwald, and his agents and successors, shall: a. Cease and desist from: (1) Directly or indirectly threatening any em- ployee with plant shutdown, strikes, violence, job loss, discharge, reduction of overtime and other work opportunities, loss or jeopardization of exist- ing job benefits, loss of future employment oppor- tunities through failure of other industries to locate or remain in the area, community disruption and disintegration, hazard to family well being, or other economic harm, loss, detriment, disadvantage, reprisal, or retaliation, in the event of unionization or because of union or other lawful organizational membership, affiliation, sympathy, support, assistance, or activity, or for engaging or attempting to engage in the right to bargain collectively or ex- ercise or attempt to exercise any other right under the Act. (2) Directly or indirectly threatening any em- ployee that union membership will be' futile since no advantage or benefit would be derived therefrom which would not be derived in the absence thereof. (3) Directly or indirectly threatening, informing, or advising any employee that in the event of 'i Cf International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO v N L R B (Scott's, Inc ), 383 F 2d 230, 232 (C A D C ), NLRB v H W Elson Bottling Co, 379 F 2d 223, 225 (C A 6), J. P. Stevens and Co, Inc, 167 NLRB 258, 264-265, J P Stevens and Co, Inc., 1167 NLRB 266 , 270-271, Marlene Industries Corp, 166 NLRB 703, 705-706, J P Stevens and Co, Inc., 157 NLRB 869, 881, enfd as modified 380 F 2d 292 (C A 2),cert denied 389 U S 1005. az Cf Dean Industries, it and Hon aril Stafford, Ma, or of Pontotoc, Mis- sissippi, 162 NLRB 1078N, Porto Mills, Inc., 149 NLRB 1454, 1473 "Cf International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO v N L R B (Scott's, Inc ), 383 F 2d 230, 232 (C A D C ), N L R B v H W Ehon Bottling Co, 379 F 2d 223, 225 (C A 6), Mont- gomery Ward & Co v. N L.R.B , 339 F.2d 889,894 (C.A. 6). In this con- nection, it is found that in view of the rural and semirural nature of the area in which Respondent Employer's Hohenwald plant is located, and the con- figuration and wide geographical dispersion of residence addresses of unit employees, as well as the nature and extent of the employment turnover, provision of such reasonable access and facilities is essential, will tend in part to undo the effects of Respondents' unfair labor practices, and will promote the purposes and policies of the Act "Cf N L R B v H W Elson Bottling Co, 379 F 2d 223, 225 (C A 6) J P Stevens and Co, list , 167 NLRB 258, 264-265, J P Stevens and Co Inc , 167 NLRB 266, 270-271, Marlene industries Corp , 166 NLRB 703 705-706, of J P Stei ens & Co , Isa v N L R B , 380 F 2d 292, 305 (C A 2) I find that in view of the rural and semirural nature of the area in which Respondent Employer's Hohenwald plant is located, and the configuration and wide geographical dispersion of residence addresses of unit employees, as well as the nature and extent of the employment turnover, provision of such reasonable access and facilities is essential, will tend in part to undo the effects of Respondents' unfair labor practices, and will promote the purposes and policies of the Act. "Cf J P Stevens and Co , list , 167 NLRB 258, 264-265, Marlene ht- dustries Corp , 166 NLRB 703, 705-706, 1 find that in view of the rural and semirural nature of the area in which Respondent Employer's Hohenwald plant is located, and the configuration and wide geographical dispersion of residence addresses of unit employees, as well as the nature and extent of the employment turnover, provision of such data is reasonable and essen- tial under all of the circumstances of this case, will tend in part to undo the effects of Respondents' unfair labor practices, and will promote the pur- poses and policies of the Act "' In view of the potential propriety of requiring reimbursement to the Union of its organving expenses (cf Burger, J , in Local 57, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO v N L R B (Garsi on Corp ), 374 F.2d 295 , 304, fn 22 (C.A D.C ), cert denied 387 U S 942 ), 1 have given consideration to but rejected such a remedy here , since it has neither been requested nor would the showing made , including the Employer's his- tory before the Board (Table 1). appear to warrant it 844 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unionization he will no longer be able to exercise the right to present individual grievances or com- plaints to or discuss mutual problems affecting his employment directly with his employer. (4) Directly or indirectly making any threat or any inducement involving threat or the withholding of threat of economic harm , to any employee or employee's family, so as to procure or attempt to procure any employee to deal with Respondent Siegel individually instead of bargaining collective- ly. (5) Directly or indirectly interfering with, restraining, coercing , or threatening any employee in the exercise of his right to select , elect, designate , be represented by, and bargain collec- tively through , any labor organization of the em- ployees' choice. (6) Interfering in any other manner with, or restraining or coercing , any employee in the exer- cise of his right to self-organization ; to form, join, or assist any labor organization ; to bargain collec- tively through representatives of his own choosing; to engage in concerted activities of his own choos- ing; to engage in concerted activities for the pur- pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection ; or to refrain from any and all such ac- tivities. b. Take the following affirmative actions neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (I) Respondent Siegel shall post in its factory in Hohenwald , Tennessee, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."47 [Board 's Appendix substituted for Trial Examiner 's Appendix .] Copies of said notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 26, after being duly signed by said Respondents ' authorized representative, shall be posted by said Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 6 consecutive months thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by said Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (2) Respondents , jointly and severally, shall cause to be mailed , postpaid , within 30 days from the date hereof," to each employee of Respondent Siegel at his or her residence address, a full and exact copy of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix B."44 [Board 's Appendix substituted for Trial Examiner 's Appendix. ] (3) Respondents, jointly and severally, shall cause to be published in the Lewis County Herald within 30 days from the date hereof,"" at their sole cost and expense, a copy of the attached notice marked "Appendix B.",'i [Board's Appendix sub- stituted for Trial Examiner's Appendix.] and shall further, at their sole cost and expense, cause a copy thereof to be mailed postpaid to each and every Hohenwald, Tennessee, plant employee of Respon- dent Siegel. Said copy so published shall be ar- ranged as a full double-page spread in format sub- stantially the same as or reasonably comparable to that utilized for the announcement printed and dis- tributed as a double-page spread over the signature or name of Respondent Keaton in said newspaper's issue of April 8, 1965. (4) In the event that Respondent Siegel at any time or times within 6 months from the date hereof" assembles and addresses its Hohenwald plant employees concerning any aspect of said em- ployees' protected concerted activities or their ac- tual or attempted exercise , participation in, or as- sertion of any right secured by the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, said Respondent shall within a reasonable time or times after each such assemblage , on an equivalent basis, upon demand of the Union, provide like facilities and time , at said Respondent's expense , to the Union and its representatives , for the Union's organizational pur- poses. (5) Respondent Siegel shall for a period of 6 months from the date hereof" provide to the Union and its representatives, for lawful union purposes, reasonable access to and use of its Hohenwald, Tennessee, plant bulletin boards and all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. (6) Respondent Siegel shall for a period of 6 months from the date hereof"4 furnish in writing to the Union, at the Union's request, the names and residence addresses of each and every employee in the bargaining unit and said Respondent's Hohen- wald, Tennessee, plant here found appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes. (7) Respondents, jointly and severally, shall notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply therewith." 2. The application of the Charging Party, Amal- gamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, for a bargaining order herein is hereby denied. " In the csent that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the cords "a Decision and Order" shall he substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner' in the notice In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals the words a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall he substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " ` This period shall automatically he deemed extended nuttau, mutun- dn, to commence from the date of any Board adoptive order or court en- forcement decree 41 See fn 47 "See fn 48 " Sec fn 47 "See fn 48 See fn 48 " See fn 48 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read ''Respondents jointly and severally, shall notify s.ud Regional Director, in writing within It) days from the date of this Order, chat steps h.ne been taken to comply herewith " Table 1 - Respondent Siegel's History with the Board Chrono. Dates or Locales NLRB Charging Act Secs. & NLRB Case Court Cita Comments Ref. No . Periods Case Party Issues Involved Citations, Lions of Acts Decisions, & Decisions, Involved Orders & Decrees Dec . 1942 Dickson, C-2682 Amal. 8(1) & (3); 52 NLRB 810 Mayor of Dickson agreed Jan. 1943 Tenn. Clothing Siegel locked (1943);dis- to provide Siegel rent- Wkrs. out Ees. & missed on free plant for 5 yrs. closed plant TX's finding Title to property acquired for U activi- for lack of by public trusteeship ties; refused substantial & 1,500 persons pledged to reinstate credible ev- 6% of earnings to sink- locked-out Ees; idence ing fund to amortize threatened Ees underlying mortgage. with arrest, When agreed payments not plant closure, forthcoming & possessory & changed work proceedings instituted conditions; & against Siegel to regain incited commu- possession of plant, nity business- Siegel purchased under- men & others to lying mortgage & rented oppose plant premises from trusteeship. unionism. Involves local authorities aligned in in- terest with Sie e 2 Jan. 1943 Dickson, R-4772 Amal. Siegel refused 47 NLRB 74 1. Siege s Dickson pint enn. Clothing to recognize (1943); elec- (700 employees) closed Wkrs. or bargain with tion ordered down at time of hearing. U. within 30 2. Siegel did not attend days. hearing. 3. Siegel refused to produce subpenaed payroll records. Chrono. Ref. No. Dates or Periods of Acts Involved Locales LRB ase Charging Party Act Secs. & !Issues Involved ^ NLRB Case Citations, Decisions, & Orders Court Cita- tions, Decisions, & Decrees Comments 3 Oct. 1947 Fulton, -RC-9 Amal. Siegel refused 76 NLRB 976 Ky. Clothing to recognize or (1948); elec Wkrs. bargain with U. tion ordered Siegel defended within 30 on ground it was days. negotiating renew- al agreement with United Garment Wkrs., Loc. 319. 4 Sep. 1961 (1) Dick- 26-CA- IAmal. 8(a)(1)&(5); 1. 140 NLRB 1. 324 F. June 1964 son, Tenn 1 1179 !Clothing Siegel refused to 1292 (1963); ; 2d 228 and (2) Wkrs. incorporate wage dismissed on (C.A. 2, Fulton, incentive into ground wage 11963); re- Ky. collective- incentive versed & bargaining agree- factor in remanded. ment after agree- effect incor- iBd. deter- ! ing to it. porated into mination collective that wage agreement. incentive l 2. On remand, factor in 147 NLRB 594 tcorporated ! (1964); Siegelinto con- violated 8(a) 'tract, not (1) & (5) by !supported failing to by record, incorporate !thus estab- wage incentivelishing factor into violation collective 'by Siegel agreement; no of 8(a)(1) aiver by U. & (5). Re- manded to W. to pass on question of waiver. 00 Chrono. Ref. No. Dates or Periods of Acts Involved Locales LRB Case Charging Party Act Secs. & Issues Involved NLRB Case Citations, Decisions, & Orders Court Cita - tions, Decisions, & Decrees Comments 2. 340 F.2d 309 (C.A. 2, 1965); enfd. 5, 6, Apr.-Oct. 1) Bruce- 26-CA- Amal. a 1 ; at 143 NLRB 382 328 F.2d 25 3 cases, consoli- and 7 1962 ton, Tenn., 1371 Clothing Bruceton plant, (1963); as (C.A. 2, dated for hearing, (2) Treze- 6-CA- Wkrs. Siegel procured to Bruceton 1964); enfd. involving 3 differ- vant, 1256 Ees' affidavits plant, Siegel ent Siegel plants. Tenn. , & filed with NLRB held in vio- (3) Glea- 6-CA- in interference lation except son, Tenn. 1304 with NLRB in as to speech, processes, coer- surveillance, cively interroga-1 & one an- ted Ees, conveyed stance of impression of alleged threat surveillance, As to Treze- threatened Ees vant & Glea- with reprisals & son plants, job loss, & made dismissed. unlawful speech to Ees. At Treze- vant plant,U seek I to reopen settled ULP charges be- cause of Siegel's violations at Bruceton plant. At Gleason plant, Siegel conveyed impression of surveillance over Ees' U activities. 00 00 .01 00 Chrono. Dates or Locales NLRB Charging Act Secs. & NLRB Case oust Cita- Comments Ref. No. Periods Case Party Issues Involved Citations, tions, of Acts Decisions, & Decisions, Involved Orders Decrees 8 Aug. 1963 New York, 2-CA- Amal. 8(a)(1) & (5); 153 NLRB 1448 Sequel to chrono- . Y. 9736 Clothing Siegel refused to (1965); dis- logical reference (Dickson, Wkrs. incorporate wage missed (re- 4, supra. Tenn., & incentive provisio versing TX; ulton , in 1963 collective decision by Ky.) agreement, althougl full Bd.). agreed to. Siegel claims waiver by U. 9 May 1963 Bruceton, 6:RM- Amal. Siegel engaged in 148 NLRB 1192 Local official & enn. 146 Clothing preelection miscon (1964); Charge businessmen were Wkrs. duct affecting sustained, allegedly active results of Ed'. e- election set in campaigning lection. side, new against U. lection or- Involves local eyed. Although Rd. did official & business not reach this men aligned on side aspect of case, of Siegel. Chairman McCulloch would also have sustained this objection to election. 10 Mar .-Apr. Hohenwald, 26-RM- Amal. Siegel engaged in 26-RM=179 1. Election held 1965 enn. 179 Clothing preelection miscon- 1966), 62 4/9/65. Bd. dee- Wkrs. duct affecting LRRM 1629; ision setting results of Bd. Charges sus- aside election & election. tained, elec- ordering new elec tion set a- Lion held when Involves local side, & new conditions permit, uthorities aligned election or- 6/28/66. No new I n side of Siegel. dered election yet been L_ held. Chrono. Ref. No. Dates or Periods of Acts Involved Locales NLRB Case Charging Party Act Secs. & Issues Involved NLRB Case Citations, Decisions, Orders Court Cita- tions, Decisions, & Decrees Comments 1 2. Bd. held Siegel also responsible for coordinated anti -U activities of mayor. 3. Same conduct as involved in in- 11 Mar. -Apr. Hohen- 26-CA- Amal. 8(a)(1); eco- 1965 wald, Tenn. I 20b1 Clothing Wkrs. nomic threats of plant closure, job loss, jeop- ardy to existing benefits, com- munity disinte- gration, etc. , in event of unioni- zation. Involves local authorities a- ligned on side of Sie ;el. 12 & 13 1 May-Jul. Eloy, ; 28-CA- Aural. 8(a)(1) & (5); 1965 & Ariz. 1251-& Clothing' Siegel engaged Feb. 196 28-RC- Wkrs. in preelection 1326 1 misconduct af- fecting results of Bd . election, involving threats of reprisal and plant closure or , a conversion speech, and refusa^ because of 165 NLRB 493 Appeals by (1967 ); char g-I U in C.A. s sustained , I D.C. & e without reach- Siegel in ing issue of C.A. 2 legality of consoli- speech; Siegel dated in held responsi- C.A.D.C. ble for actions by 9/27/67 of local peopl C.A. 2 order. stant case. 1 Cnz Instant case. Eloy, Ariz. (pop. 5400) Eloy Develop- ment Corp. sold stock, purchased land, construct- ed plant, & leased it to Siegel. Upon attempts to unionize, EDC ^ qo 00 00 Chrono. Dates or Locales NLRB Charging, Act Secs. & Ref. No. Periods Case Party Issues Involved of Acts Involved .to bargain with U. NLRB Case ourt Cita- Citations, ions, Decisions, & ecisions, Orders Decrees close relation- ship, "overlap of financial interests," & failure to disavow paral- lel activities; bargaining order Comments O O group extremely active in anti-U activity , also Z town newspaper-- O involving publi- Z cation of double - r page newspaper ad & handbilling in Siegel OC Involves local citizens' com- mittee aligned with Siegel. issued, in view of U majority, notwithstand- ing U loss of 7/2/65 elec- tion as result of Siegel's misconduct. parking lot & elsewhere.