Textron, Inc.

BOSTITCH DIV . OF TEXTRON , INC. 377 Bostitch Division of Textron, Inc. and Sequoia District Council of Carpenters, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner Bostitch Division of Textron, Inc. and Sequoia District Council of Carpenters, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Cases 20-RC-7923 and 20-RC-5015 June 3, 1969 DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION By CHAIRMAN MCCULIOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND ZAGORIA On March 10, 1969, Trial Examiner Herman Corenman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety and that the Union's objections to the election conducted in Case 20-RC-7923 be overruled and a certificate of results of election issue, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief and Respondent filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Union's objections to the election conducted in Case 20-RC-7923 on March 28, 1969, be, and they hereby are, overruled. As the Union failed to receive a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify the results of the election. CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid ballots cast in the election conducted in Case 20-RC-7923 has not been cast for Sequoia District Council of Carpenters, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and that said labor organization is not the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. MEMBER BROWN, dissenting: Unlike my colleagues, my examination- of the Respondent's campaign literature and speeches convinces me that they tended to engender an unreasoning fear in the employees' minds that their jobs and economic welfare were in danger should the Union win the election. A decision in cases like the instant one must be based solely on a consideration of the totality of the campaign, as words and phrases, which are lawful when considered alone, may be "united in such a fashion as to yield an improper end product."' In my opinion, application of this principle to the statements here requires the conclusion that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Thus, here in the period of approximately I month before the election on March 28, the Respondent distributed seven letters, cartoons, and circulars, gave a lengthy speech twice to two different shifts of employees, and informally addressed six groups of employees. In its campaign Respondent emphasized that selection of the Union would result in the likelihood of strikes with accompanying loss of wages and jobs, loss of direct contact with management, reduction of overtime, and discontinuance of the production of certain marginal items with consequent job loss. In addition, the Respondent stressed the benefits the Company presently provided and the conditional nature of these benefits by stating, "[i]f the Union wins the election, negotiations will not start on the premise that the Union will merely add new benefits. If the Union wins, all matters concerning your wages, hours and working conditions, including past and present will be subject to collective bargaining." Similarly, the Respondent indicated the futility of selecting the Union with statements such as the following: "It just doesn't make any sense to me for you to have to pay tribute to a union to get what you are getting now, and maybe even less than what you would have received anyway, without a union." It matters little that Respondent's expressions were temperate in tone and stated in opinion form rather than as facts, as this subtlety is lost on the 'Daniel Construction Company, Inc v. N.L.R.B. 341 F 2d 805 (C.A. 4), enfg. in relevant part 145 NLRB 1397. 176 NLRB No. 47 378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR average employee and there emerges from the volume of rhetoric only the spectre of strikes, dire economic consequences, and job loss should the Union win the election. The inevitable result was to create an atmosphere of fear which rendered the employees incapable of making a free choice. For the above reasons, I would find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and would set the election aside and order a new one. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HERMAN CORENMAN, Trial Examiner: This matter, a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein called the Act, was heard at Fresno, California, on December 3 and 4, 1968,' with the General Counsel and the Respondent participating, pursuant to due notice to all parties, upon a complaint issued by the General Counsel on October 22, alleging violations of Section 8(aXl) of the Act by Bostitch Division of Textron , Inc., herein called the Respondent . Sequoia District Council of Carpenters, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, did not appear at the hearing . Respondent's answer denied committing the complaint 's alleged unfair labor practices. On March 28, in Case 20-RC-7923, an election was held in a unit of Respondent's production and maintenance employees at its Visalia, California plant which the Union lost by a vote of 38 to 34. On April 2, the Union filed and served timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election . Pursuant to Section 102.33 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, as amended, the hearing on the objections in the representation matter have been consolidated for hearing with the complaint herein. All parties were afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. Briefs received from the General Counsel and Respondent have been carefully considered . Upon the entire record in the case , I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The pleadings establish, and I find , that the Respondent is a Rhode Island corporation with its principal place of business at East Greenwich , Rhode Island. Respondent operates and maintains a manufacturing plant at Visalia, California, where it is engaged in the production of staple machines and wire products. During the past year, in the course and conduct of its business operations , Respondent, from its Visalia, California, plant sold goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of California. It is admitted by the pleadings, and I find, that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. All dates hereafter refer to year 1968 unless otherwise noted. RELATIONS BOARD 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The sole issue in the complaint proceeding in Case 30-CA-5015 is whether certain election propaganda, oral and written, disseminated by the Respondent before the March 28 Board -conducted representation election interfered with, restrained, or coerced employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. B. The Election Campaign Preceding the election , the Respondent conducted a propaganda campaign to defeat the Union . Evidence adduced at the hearing shows that on March 4 , 1968, the Respondent distributed a letter to the employees notifying them of the approaching election and that it was a serious matter . In this letter , the Respondent set forth its position against unionization , and of its intention to give the employees the facts. On March 14, 1968, the Respondent distributed another letter to the employees again reminding them of the importance of the election which was scheduled for March 28. This letter enumerated to the employees the many benefits they enjoyed without a union and emphasized that they obtained without a union , and that a union was not needed in the future to make further progress . It reminded the employees that their progress was made without strikes, picket lines, lost paychecks, and without the misery and bitterness that a union brings with it; and that employees chances for wage increases and job security comes when the company can meet competition and remain successful in business , which can be accomplished by everyone working together as a team. On March 14, Respondent mailed a cartoon to the employees entitled "Do you want this to happen to you," urging the employees to "vote no " and depicting an individual weighted down with a heavy burden of union dues, fines, assessments for strike funds, political contributions and initiation fees . On March 22, another cartoon was distributed to the employees entitled "It's your choice " showing one well dressed head of the household with pay check in hand , at home with his contented family while beneath him stands a forlorn tattered worker with empty pockets on strike at the factory. At the bottom is the legend "VOTE NO." On March 28 , Respondent circulated a bulletin urging the employees to vote "no" as a guarantee against strikes, lost pay days, the payment of union initiation fees, dues or assessments, and for job security and protection of "yourself and family." In addition to the foregoing campaign literature, Respondent on March 21 issued a letter to the employees and on March 26 its final letter to the employees. Respondent's plant manager , Hubbard, also read from a carefully prepared text identical speeches to different shifts of employees assembled in the plant on March 26 and on March 27 . Additionally, in the week preceding the March 28 election , Hubbard addressed six groups of departmental employees in the plant from March 20-27 reviewing with them essentially the same matter contained BOSTITCH DIV. OF TEXTRON, INC. 379 in the written speech.' Since the General Counsel contends that remarks contained in the March 21 and 26 letters and in the written speech violated Section 8(ax l) when considered within the context of all Respondent's election propaganda disclosed by the record, I have attached those three documents to this Decision as Appendixes A, B, and C for ready reference.' The General Counsel makes no claim that the other letters and cartoons reference to above per se violated the Act. I have concluded that in their total context the March 21 and 26 letters and the in-plant speeches (Appendixes A, B, and C) made by the Respondent in the course of the preelection campaign were privileged by Section 8(c)' of the Act. C. Analysis and Discussion of Propaganda I shall herein discuss those written or oral messages to the employees which the General Counsel contended were not privileged as free speech within the meaning of Section 8(c). (1) In its March 26 letter it was asserted by the Respondent that "the Carpenters' Union is a serious threat to the continued successful operation of this company - and your jobs"; and the letter closed with the remark "So, why gamble with your money, and the security and future of yourself, your family, and your company, by bringing this union into the plant." The General Counsel construed the March 21 letter as an implied threat of loss of employment. I do not regard this language, taken in its context, as a threat of reprisal that the Respondent would take if the Union came in but rather as a prediction of unfavorable consequences that might follow from possible union action, namely as recounted in the March 21 letter that the union would want a "union shop" under which employees will suffer job loss if they don't pay union dues and initiation fees estimated by the Respondent as "at least $100.00 a year; that the "only way they (the Union) could try to force us to agree to any demands we believe are unreasonable, or that would raise our costs out of line, forcing our prices higher than our competitors - would be by PULLING YOU OUT ON STRIKE - and if you go on strike you cannot collect unemployment insurance and you can be permanently replaced." Such prediction coupled with the statement that economic strikers are subject to loss of jobs by permanent replacement have been held by the Board and the Courts to be privileged by Section 8(c), as a reasonably accurate statement of the right of the employer to operate his business in the course of a strike by the permanent replacement of strikers within the purview of N.L.R.B. v. Mackey Co., 355 U.S. 333,1 Harvey Aluminum, Inc., 156 NLRB 1353, N.L.R.B. v. Herman Wilson Timber Co., 355 F.2d 426 (C.A. 8), denying enforcement of 149 NLRB 673; 11 find that in the course of the conversation between Hubbard and employee Fred Sartuche, Hubbard's remarks do not depart in material aspects from the general import of his prepared written speech. 'The March 21 and 26 letters sent to the employees were both in English and Spanish. The speeches by Mr . Hubbard in the plant were in English only, without an interpreter. 'Sec. 8(c) provides as follows: The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this Act, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. Werthan Bag Corp. of Nashville, 167 NLRB No. 3; Delta Sportswear Inc., 160 NLRB No. 30; James Hotel Co., d/bla Skirvin Hotel, 142 NLRB 761, Texas Boat Manufacturing Co., 143 NLRB 264. Likewise the Respondent's statement that "the Carpenters' Union is a serious threat to the continued successful operation of this company -- and your jobs," in the context made, was no more than a prediction of action the Union might take in connection with possibly making unreasonable demands and possibly strike action which could seriously affect plant operation and employee jobs. N.L.R.B. v. Lyman Printing & Finishing Co., Inc., 357 F.2d 844 (C.A. 4), denying enforcement of 150 NLRB 844; F.T. Adams Co., Inc., 166 NLRB No. 112; cf. Greensboro Hosiery Mills, Inc., 162 NLRB No. 108. Unlike the General Counsel, I do not regard the Respondent's statement in the March 21 letter which follows to be a threat of reprisal or force: Up until now, you had the right to speak for yourself and settle with us personally any problems you have had. But if this Union were to get in here, this freedom and this right would be taken away from you and placed in the hands of the Union. And, who would be the stewards and committee people who would handle your affairs? Look around you and see who is active in pushing the Union. Are they individuals whom you consider capable of handling your problems, and into whose hands you would be willing to entrust your business and your affairs. In the context of the statement, it is difficult to perceive that the Respondent would want to revoke the privilege of employees individually taking up and settling their grievances and problems with management or that he intended to carry that message to them. Obviously, he was referring to the Union's right and insistence under Section 9(a) of the Act to adjust grievances and to be given an opportunity to be present at such adjustments, a fact of industrial life. See Valencia Baxt Express, Inc. 143 NLRB 211, 217-218. Obviously, the remark was a prediction of what the Union would probably want in connection with a contractual grievance procedure and is entitled to under Section 9(a) of the Act. Harvey Aluminum , Inc., 156 NLRB 1353; Nalco Chemical Co., 163 NLRB No. 19. Westmont Engineering, 170 NLRB No. 6; Capitol Electric Power, 171 NLRB No. 42; Worzalla Publishing Co., 171 NLRB No. 34; K. O. Steel Castings, Inc., 172 NLRB No. 216; James Hotel Co. d/bla Skirvin Hotel, 142 NLRB 761. The March 26 Letter The General Counsel contends that the March 26 letter violated Section 8(a)(1). Specifically, the General Counsel's brief charges that Respondent threatened employees with loss of existing benefits and job security by informing them "If the Union wins the election, negotiation will not start on the premise that the Union will merely add new benefits. If the Union wins, all matters concerning your wages, hours and working conditions, including past and present - will be subject to collective bargaining." Again, in the' context of all the Respondent's preelection propaganda, I do not regard this statement as coercive or as a threat of reprisal. On the contrary, the Respondent's aforesaid statement was a 'Mackey, supra, was not overruled by N L R.B. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co.. 389 U.S 375. 380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD reasonable explanation that all of the terms and conditions of employment were the subject of negotiation. Playskool Manufacturing Company, 172 NLRB No. 177; Capitol Electric Power Assn., 171 NLRB No. 42; Orchard Corporation of America, 170 NLRB No. 141; Jacob Brenner Company, Inc., 160 NLRB 131, 138; Trent Tube Company, 147 NLRB 538, 541. The General Counsel points to the following statement in the March 26 letter as a threat to the employees' job security: Where unions are, strikes generally occur. If we should have a strike, our customers would probably go elsewhere. They are not concerned about you or this company. They want a steady and reliable source of supply. With any stoppage or interruption of production , they would not hesitate one moment to take their business elsewhere, and probably never come back. Why risk the possible loss of your job. Again, in the context of all the Respondent 's election propaganda, the foregoing statement cannot be regarded as a threat of reprisal or force, but a prediction of the risks of loss of customers occasioned by a work stoppage. In the absence of any evidence that the Respondent's surmise of possible customer loss is patently false, it must be accepted as a legitimate prediction and opinion of a possible risk resulting from a work stoppage by the Union. Warton Drilling Co. Inc., 164 NLRB No. 51; Formex Co., 160 NLRB No. 67; Cf. Haynes Stellite Company, 136 NLRB 95. Respondent's identical speeches on March 26 and 27 from a prepared text (reproduced here as Appendix C) were largely a reiteration of propaganda contained in the March 21 and March 26 letter and the departmental meetings held in the last week before the March 28 election. The Speeches In the speeches of March 26 and 27, Respondent's plant manager told the employees, If we had to make substantial increases in our hourly rates, or if we had to adopt unecomonic union practices, we couldn't continue our present liberal overtime policy. In addition , we would have to stop making some of our low-profit items like finishing nails, wide crown staples. Right now they are not hurting us too much, but if our expenses go up substantially, we have to get out of that business - and that would mean less work and fewer jobs for our employees. The General Counsel contends that the foregoing remarks amounted to employer threats to cut overtime hours and jobs. Again, it is clear that the Respondent was not making a threat of reprisal if the employees selected the Union. To the contrary he was expressing his views that the consequences of negotiation with the Union might result in the Respondent being required to increase wages to the point that economic considerations might require the reduction of overtime hours and the discontinuance of producing certain marginal items. These were views and expressions of opinion that the Respondent was privileged to make by Section 8(c) of the Act. The Board expressed its policy in T. M. Duche Nut Co., Inc., 174 NLRB No. 72, as follows: An employer is not precluded from carrying to its employees the possible adverse economic consequences that might be expected if its business costs are increased, provided this is done in a noncoercive manner. (citing (Citing Wagner Industrial Products Company Inc., 170 NLRB No. 157; T.R.W. Electronic Component Division TRW, Inc., 169 NLRB No. 6) Such expressions constitute permissible predictions of the possible economic consequences of increased costs rather than threats of reprisal to force employees into abandoning the Union. The General Counsel contended that these remarks in the speech violated Section 8(a)(1): As far as I can see , bringing a union here can only cause trouble for all of us. Now I'll tell you why I say that. If a union gets in here, we will not be able to give any more than we can afford - and you can get that without a union anyway .... Quite frankly, I don't see how any union can get you any more than we have already given you or what you can expect in the normal course of events. We have given you the most we can without endangering our financial position here. The General Counsel contends that the Respondent's remarks aforesaid , amounted to a statement that choosing the Union would be a futile act. Granting that the employer argued to the employees that the Union could do no more for the employees than the employer was now doing for them, that argument was no more than the expression of his view or opinion within the privilege of Section 8(c) of the Act. It did not constitute a threat of reprisal. In the same speech the employer assured the employees that if they selected the Union, he would bargain with it in good faith. The employer is privileged to express his opinion to the employees that unionization is not desirable for them and the reasons for his opinion. (George Groh & Sons, 141 NLRB 931; Bruns Garage, Inc., 148 NLRB 363; Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc., 143 NLRB 386.) Summary and Conclusion Reexamining the March 21 and March 26 letters and the written speech that was made on March 26 and 27 and which contains essentially the substance of remarks made to employee group from March 21 to 26, I find and conclude that all of the matter contained therein amounted to the dissemination and expression of views, argument or opinion within the meaning of Section 8(c) of the Act. None of the remarks, oral or written, amounted to threats of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. The remarks contained in the documents in issue were temperate and singularly free from terroristic overtones. The dominant message in the Respondent's propaganda was to point out to the employees the benefits that they were enjoying without a union and the possibility that union demands would worsen their economic position. Whether the arguments were sound or not is irrelevant to a determination as to whether they were privileged by Section 8(c). In any event, the opinions expressed and the prediction of unfavorable events that might flow in the future from possible union tactics and demands, were not based on patently or proven misrepresentations of fact. In essence, none of the statements, written or oral, made by the Respondent implied that it was going to take any action in retaliation for its employees' organizational activities, or if they selected the Union. Rather they were, in my view, statements of opinion, prediction of events that might occur, and a review of benefits presently provided by the Respondent, which were relevant to the election issues, and which the Respondent had every right BOSTITCH DIV. OF TEXTRON, INC. 381 to call to the attention of its employees. That the Respondent presented to his employees a biased and partisan view of the risks of unionism cannot be gainsaid . But this he was privileged to do . As the court said in Southwire Co., 383 F. 2d 235 (C.A. 5): The guaranty of speech and assembly to the employer and to the union goes to the heart of the contest over whether an employee wishes to join a union . It is the employee who is to make the choice and a free flow of information, the good and the bad , informs him as to the choices available. It is an adversary proceeding and hardly impartial. Accord N. L.R.B. v . TRW-Semiconductors Inc., 385 F.2d 753 (C. A. 9). See also T. M. Duche Nut Company Inc., 174 NLRB No. 72, where the Board expressed the opinion that "An employer is not precluded from conveying to its employees the possible adverse economic consequences that might be expected if its business costs are increased, provided this is done in a noncoercive manner." I have concluded that the propaganda in issue which is set forth in Appendices A, B, and C did not interfere with, restrain , or coerce employees within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), because privileged by Section 8 (c) of the Act. In this connection it is important to note that the Respondent's election propaganda was disseminated or spoken in an atmosphere free from other alleged unfair labor practices. iv. objection to election The union objections to conduct affecting the results of the election were as follows: The Employer made material and substantial misstatements of fact, implying to the employees that if the Carpenters became their certified representative, the business would be closed and the employees' jobs would suffer; the Employer untruthfully indicated to the employees that if the Carpenters became their certified collective bargaining agent , the employees would be required to pay political contributions which would not only be an unlawful requirement but is totally untrue; Company representatives offered substantial wage increases and betterment of conditions if the employees voted not to accept the Carpenters Union as their certified bargaining agent. The evidence adduced by the General Counsel to support the claimed 8(a)(l) violation is offered to support the Union's objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. I find that the employer's election propaganda in evidence did not interfere with the employees' free and uninhibited choice in the selection of a bargaining representative. As heretofore found, Respondent did not engage in any threats of reprisal or force or promise of benefits. Respondent's election propaganda in overall content reviewed existing benefits without unionism and the employer's liberal policy, as opposed to the risks and burdens of unionism, which, the employer pointed out, could result adversely to the employees' economic interests. The arguments made by the employer, although clearly partisan, were temperate, free from exacerbating vituperation or terroristic forebodings and devoid of proven campaign trickery, though self-laudatory and deprecatory of the union. The propaganda emanaged by letters, cartoons and speeches from March 21 to 27; and the Union had ample time to reply and to disseminate its own propaganda. Additionally, the employees were capable of evaluating the employer's letters and remarks as typical campaign propaganda. I find that the objections to election are without merit and should be overruled.6 T. M. Duche Nut Company, Inc., 174 NLRB No. 72; The Orchard Corporation of America, 170 NLRB No. 141; Worzalla Publishing Co., 171 NLRB No. 34; Warton Drilling Co., Inc., 164 NLRB No. 51; Howmet Corp., 171 NLRB No. 18; TRW Electronic Component Division, 169 NLRB No. 6; Dyersburg Cotton Products, Inc., 168 NLRB No. 151; Allied Egry Business Systems, Inc., 169 NLRB No. 60; Trent Tube Company, 147 NLRB 538; American Greeting Corporation, 146 NLRB 1440. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed; that the Union's objections to the election be overruled; and that a certificate of results of election issue. 'The transcript of the hearing is corrected as shown on Appendix D attached hereto [omitted from publication] in accordance with the General Counsel's motion. APPENDIX A Division of BOSTITCH Textron Inc. March 21, 1968 To All Employees and Their Families: The Carpenter's Union is a serious threat to the continued successful operation of this Company and - your jobs. For this reason, we are very strongly against bringing this Union into the plant. You can block this threat by voting NO in the election. When the Union paints a rosy picture, watch out! Here are a few things they don't tell you: First, it should be clearly understood that the Union is an expensive business . . are first and foremost interested in your money. If you vote the Union into the plant, it will cost each and every one of you at least $100.00 a year in dues - not to mention initiation fees, special assessments and fines. What guarantee do you have that the Union won't raise their dues, or that there won't be fines, extra assessments and political contributions? Whether you like it or not, you may find yourself paying to support strikes in plants you never heard of. Another thing - these Union sharpies won't ever trust you to pay them. The first thing they will want is a "Union Shop" contract - a contract under which you must become a member of the Union and pay dues to them, or else the Union can have you fired. Think this over carefully. Is this what you want? 382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Up until now you had the right to speak for yourself and settle with us personally any problems you have had. But if this Union were to get in here, this freedom and this right would be taken away from you and placed in the hands of the Union . And, who would be the stewards and committee people who would handle your affairs? Look around you and see who is active in pushing this Union. Are they individuals whom you consider capable of handling your problems, and into whose hands you would be willing to entrust your business and your affairs? Now, don't make the mistake of believing, as many employees have, that if the Union is voted in, you will automatically receive a wage increase and other benefits. Nothing could be further from the truth ! If the Carpenters were to win the election , there would still be only one way they could try to force us to agree to any demands we believe are unreasonable , or that would raise our costs out of line, forcing our prices higher than our competitors - that would be by PULLING YOU OUT ON STRIKE! We hope you realize and understand that this Company has no intention of yielding to such pressure as that - ever. What's more - if you go out on strike , you cannot even collect unemployment insurance , and you can be permanently replaced . So, when the strike ,is over you will have lost everything, including your job. So, why gamble with your money, and the security and future of yourself, your family and your Company, by bringing this Union into the plant? Play safe . Keep these outsiders where they belong - on the outside . They have no place in this plant. VOTE RIGHT VOTE ON THE RIGHT SIDE VOTE NO APPENDIX B Division of BOSTITCH Textron Inc. March 26, 1968 To All Employees and Their Families: On Thursday, March 28th, you will decide whether or not to have the Carpenter' s Union at Bostitch . How you vote is important to all of us - because the future success of this plant and your welfare are at stake in this election. Here are a few final facts you should remember before you vote: 1. The election will be by secret ballot, under the supervision of the National Labor Relations Board. You will vote in complete secrecy , and no one will ever know how you voted . You are free to vote against the Union, no matter what you have said or done before the election. Even if you have signed a Union authorization card, or promised to vote for the Union , you can still vote NO on March 28th . Don't be misled if the Union representative or anyone else tells you differently. 2. BY ALL MEANS, VOTE IN THIS ELECTION. Don't stand aside, believing that its outcome will not affect you. A majority of the votes cast will determine the results, and your failure to vote is the same as a vote for the Union . If you do not want the Carpenters - be sure to vote "NO UNION". 3. It is only your money that the Union is interested in - not you . If you vote the Union in, they won't even trust you to pay them. The first thing the Union wants is a check-off of your dues and assessments out of your pay, so that they can get your money before it even comes into your hand. Whose security are these paid Union agents looking out for? 4. The Company is forbidden to make promises to you before the election. On the other hand, the Union has made many "pie-in-the-sky" promises. Their promises are empty ones, since they have no ability to carry them out. 5. Real job security comes from your Company, and your Company alone . It is your Company that furnishes your job and your paycheck -- not the Union. The Carpenters will never furnish you a day's work or a cent of pay. 6. If the Union wins the election, negotiations will not start on the premise that the Union will merely add new benefits. If the Union wins, all matters concerning your wages, hours and working conditions, including past and present - will be subject to collective bargaining. 7. Where Unions are, strikes generally occur. If we should have a strike, our customers would probably go elsewhere. They are not concerned about you or this Company. They want a steady and reliable source of supply. With any stoppage or interruption of production, they would not hesitate one moment to take their business elsewhere, and probably never come back. Why risk the possible loss of your job? 8. Don't get the idea that you can bring the Carpenters into the plant on a trial basis and get rid of them, if you do not like the results. Too many employees who are stuck in a Union shop have found out to their sorrow it isn't that easy! Avoid making their mistake, by keeping the Carpenters out in the first place. 9. The Company can and does guarantee that we shall continue to treat you fairly. Without a Union, we can accomplish more for the mutual benefit of the Company and the employee. Now we hope you will think about all the things we have tried to bring out in our talks with you and in our letters . As matters now stand, you have a steady job at good wages and with good benefits. We hope to make things even better. Is there any good reason to bring this outside Union in, pay your money to it, and at the same time run the risk of tearing everything apart? If you will study this whole matter carefully, we believe that you will surely come to the conclusion in your own good judgment : That you stand to lose if the Union were to get in here , and that you stand to gain by keeping it out. APPENDIX C SPEECH BOSTITCH Ladies & Gentlemen: I wish you would give me your attention for a few minutes. I want to talk to you about the election that is going to be held here tomorrow afternoon. I don't like to have to read a speech to you, but I don't want to be misquoted by the Union. That's their usual technique, so I think I'd better read the speech so there can be no question about what I say. I hope you will bear with me. I want you to know right from the beginning that I am not making any promises or any threats. I don't want to know the way you are going to vote, although naturally I would like you to vote "No", and I'm not trying to find out whether you are for or against the Union. That's all BOSTITCH DIV. OF TEXTRON, INC. 383 your business and your affair. You have a right to be for the Union. But I also want you to know that you have a right to be against the Union, and for the Company. It's your business. I am only interested in giving you some true facts, and giving you our side -- the Company's side, on this whole thing. First -- it is important that all of you vote - and I hope you'll vote against the Union -- because the result will be determined by the majority of votes actually cast. For example, if 70 employees vote, the Union would have to get 36 votes to win the election. If only 50 vote, the Union would have to get only 26 votes in order to win. So, be sure to vote because if you do not want a union, but fail to vote, the effect is the same as if you had voted for the Union. Remember, if the Union gets a majority of the votes cast -- not necessarily a majority of all the eligible votes, it will then have the right to represent everyone - not just those who voted for it. Some of you have asked whether or not you have to vote for the union because you previously signed a union card. Some were talked into signing cards - others, perhaps, were pressured into signing , and others have simply changed their minds. No matter what the reason, the answer is you don't have to vote for the Union, even though you may have signed one of their cards. Don't let anybody tell you differently. That is why the election is by secret ballot, and no one will know how you vote. You will be given a ballot and asked to go into a booth and mark it. The left-hand box will say "Yes" and if you mark that box, it means you want a union. The right-hand box - the right way is the "No" box, and you mark that for NO union. I hope you do just that - mark the right side - the correct side -- the NO side. Bear in mind that promises and only promises are all this union can give you. They can promise you anything, but can they deliver? The union organizers don't care about that. All they want is your vote - and the dues, assessments and initiation fees that go with it. That's all they care about. Once they get you to vote for them, they won't have to worry then about making good on their promises. Remember -- only the Company can deliver. Don't forget - it's the Company that hires you, pays you and provides you with work - not the union. The union doesn't go out and get orders that provide work for you. The union doesn't finance this business . And it's not the union that has to service our customers and satisfy them. It's the Company that does all these things . It's the Company that pays you. The union doesn't give you a job and pay you. Only the Company can do that. So, when you boil it all down, all the union can do is make promises - but it is the Company that actually delivers. And we have delivered! Let's face it -- we have delivered in the past without a union - because of our own voluntary policy of fair treatment for all. We didn't need a union to force us to do this, and we don't need a union to force us to treat you just as fairly in the future. As a result of this voluntary policy of fair treatment for all, there are 18 benefits that we have given you, and that you now have at this Company. And remember -- you have not had to pay one single red cent in union dues to get these benefits, and you have never had to be troubled with a union and its rules and regulations. You now have and enjoy an overall setup which is as good as any comparable shop in the area - union or non-union . When you go out and compare conditions in similar business, you will find that your setup here is much better. When you talk about an overall setup, you have got to take into consideration a number of things. You have to consider your earnings, your benefits, the type of place you work in and how management treats you. You also have to consider benefits and pay on an annual basis . Sure, you may go into a place and see that they have a rate on a job that is a little higher than some of our rates. That may be true here and there. But the important thing is not simply what the particular hourly rate is. The important thing is what is in your pay check at the end of the week and at the end of the year. What does it total to? What does it amount to? In some of the places where they might have a few higher rates than some of ours, you undoubtedly find that they do not have the steady work that you enjoy here. At the end of the year when you total up all the hours worked, you will find they have worked many hours or weeks less than you, and that your total earnings are well above the earnings in those plants. Your weekly pay checks and your total income - which are what really count - . are much better than most places. Another thing - you have direct personal contact with management. Now this is nothing to sneeze at. This contact - this direct contact that you have with management, is an important thing. I hope it is important to you, because it is very important to us in management. I know that many of you have taken advantage of this direct contact to come to us with your personal problems. We have always tried to help you. This has been helpful to you and its been a good thing for the shop, too, because we have had (or I always thought we had) a happy and contented shop. Look, if you have a problem in your job, whether it's connected with your work or whether it's a personal problem, you have an absolute right to come in to see us at any time and discuss it with us. Now I'm not telling you that we are going to solve every problem that might come up, because sometimes a problem cannot be solved. I am not telling you that if you have a gripe or grievance or a complaint that it is necessarily going to be decided your way. But I am telling you one thing - we will listen to your problem, whatever it is, and I guarantee you and promise you that we will give you an honest answer, and that we will give your problem complete and fair consideration. And we will try to solve it. And where it is humanly possible, we will solve it - believe me. Now I am not promising you anything new. This direct contact policy has been in existence here as long as I have been here. I am telling you about something that already exists. I am telling you about something that many people here take advantage of regularly. If a union were to get in here, this direct contact with us as we now have it, and as you know it, would be out the window! It could not exist any longer. That's not because I would want it that way, but because that's the way the union wants it. The union law says that you cannot come in to see us alone . You have got to give your problem to a Union Steward, and he's the one that will be presenting your problems to us. Well, you know what that means. First of all, would you want someone else handling your personal problems? And second, if, for some reason, the Steward or the union representative does not like you, they would probably bury your request or complaint at the bottom of a pile. We might never even get to see it. You know who is active in pushing this union. Ask yourself - are they individuals in whom you would be 384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD willing to entrust your business and affairs , if they were your Stewards? You know these unions - they thrive on trouble and dissension . They don't want things to run smoothly . They don't like the idea (in fact they won't let it happen ) of a fellow being able to talk to his boss on a friendly, personal basis . And you know why - because it makes them less important . And I don 't want that to happen here, believe me, and I am sure you don't. If a union got in here, we would be powerless to stop it. To go on - we give you 6 paid holidays . We give you paid vacations, which are in most cases comparable to those given in union places. We have an excellent group insurance program, with which I am sure you are familiar , and which is at least equal to those in many union places. We have given you pensions which are administered by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company - so you know your pension rights are safe and protected. We have a stock savings plan under which you receive the Company's contribution after 6 years. I could go on and point out other benefits you enjoy, such as: coffee breaks, wash-up time, funeral leave, an eye-glass allowance of $10.00 and so on. But there is no point in going into too much detail . You know this has always been a good place to work . We don't try to make your lives miserable with a lot of rules and regulations and do everything by the book . This is the way we have chosen to operate, and I think it has worked out well for you, as well as for us. Let's keep it that way - without a union and union restrictions. Finally - you have real job security . At Bostitch, you get true job security - not union insecurity ! The union has probably tried to sell you a line that they are going to guarantee you job security . That's just plain baloney! No union can guarantee you a job. No union can guarantee you steady work. Remember - the Company hires you, pays you and provides you with a job - not the union. So, when you boil it right down, your jobs and pay come from our customers who buy our products . They are the ones who really provide us with work right here. If we cannot get our customers to buy from us, we have no business and no payrolls. So job security depends on customer security , and this can be achieved by you - the worker, and by the Company , only when there is 100% cooperation. Now, it is also important for you to understand that for a Company to be successful, and to provide work for its employees , it must be able to meet competition - that is, it must be able to sell its products at a competitive price, because if it cannot compete, it cannot sell the goods. This can be achieved only if we have team -work among all the people concerned . This business has to be one happy family, the way it has always been. We must all pull together. If anything comes in to disrupt the harmony that we have had here, the fine spirit of cooperation that exists, then naturally something has to suffer; and our ability to satisfy our customers - that is, to sell them at a price they are willing to buy at, would suffer . And as I said before, if the customers stop buying , then your jobs suffer accordingly. Now suppose, despite everything I say, you people decide not to follow my advice and you should vote the union in. If that should happen , we would of course have to bargain with the union - and we would bargain in good faith, as required by law. One of the first things the union would require, if they get a contract here, would be that we sign a so-called "Union Shop Provision " and "Check-Off" provision. This would mean that everyone, whether or not they had voted for the union or wanted to be a union member, would have to join the union and would have to pay union dues, initiation fees, assessments, and so on . This could add up to a lot of money which would come right out of your pay - and you would never see it! Because of this so-called "check-off" provision, we would be required to pay it directly to the union. I understand that the union has promised you that your dues won't be more than $6.00 per month $72.00 per year, with an initiation fee of $30.00. Do you know that the union dues at Gang-Nail Truss are $8.75 per month - $105.00 per year - with an initiation fee of $50.00? Now who is this union really kidding? Do you think that the union is going to let you off with paying $6.00 a month , while the employees at Gang-Nail Truss pay substantially more? You can rest assured that once you vote the union in, your dues will be the same as everyone else's - whether you like it or not - and you won't have anything to say about it. Just to show you what can happen once a union gets its hands on you - the automobile worker's union raised their dues from $5.00 per month to $20.00 per month, for all their members earning between $2.00 and $2.99 per hour, and to $25.00 per month for those earning $3.00 per hour or over in order to support their strike against Ford. Even the Steelworkers are getting into the act, and they have asked that a $5 .00 per month assessment be made for initial financing of the strike fund against the steel companies. So you can see for yourself that any increase the union might get you, if you vote them in, could be eaten up by what you have to pay them . You might wind up with less take-home pay than you now have. Compare this with the policy we have always followed of giving individual increases on a merit basis every six months. It has always been our policy to give pay increases as employees become more experienced, and as they gain more time with the Company. This policy has put more money into your pockets, without the necessity of paying anything to a union - and this policy , if continued without the necessity of dealing with the union , will continue to put additional money into your pockets - still without any part of it having to go to a union. You know that we have been fair to you in the past. You know that you don't need a union to force us to continue to be fair to you in the future! Another thing - we are a small plant and we operate flexibly. We move people around as needed. If we can't do that, we are in trouble. But, the union doesn 't allow this. Under union rules, everyone has his or her own job with a little fence around it - and we would not be allowed to move people around freely to take care of all the little emergencies that come up from day to day. Union red tape and restrictions would hurt us badly. And if we couldn't move you around , we would just have to send you home because of the lack of work. Furthermore, if we had to make substantial increases in our hourly rates, or if we had to adopt uneconomic union practices, we couldn 't continue our present liberal overtime policy. In addition, we would have to stop making some of our low-profit items like Finishing Nails, Wide Crown Staples. Right now they are not hurting us too much, but if our expenses go up substantially , we have to get out of BOSTITCH DIV. OF TEXTRON, INC. 385 that business - and that would mean less work and fewer jobs for our employees. As I said to you before , if we have to bargain with this union, we will bargain in good faith as required by law, but that doesn't mean we would have to agree to anything that the union said. We certainly would not be able to agree to anything that would hurt the continued existence of this plant. The union salesmen want you to believe that you have everything to gain and nothing to lose by voting for them. That is just not true and they know it. When we sit down to bargain with the union , if we have to , we will bargain about each and every item , term and condition of your employment. In other words - we will bargain about your vacation plan, about your holidays, your hourly rates, your bereavement pay, your insurance, and everything else you have . You might wind up with more as a result of the bargaining , but it is just as possible that you will wind up with the same as you have now , or even less. This has happened before when a union came in and it can happen again . Getting a union in here is not a guarantee that you will get anything more or better than you have now. As far as I can see, bringing a union in here can only cause trouble for all of us. Now, I'll tell you why I say that . If a union gets in here, we will not be able to give anymore than we can afford - and you get that without a union anyway. You know that - your past experience here shows that . But is the union going to be satisfied? They don't care about you. All they are interested in is your dues and the power that they think that they can get, and because they' ll be stuck with promises which they will have to try to fulfill, they'll probably try to force us to give you more than what we can really afford to give. At that point, we'll have to make a choice whether to give more than we could afford , and lose our ability to compete or to take a strike . And if a strike does take place, the union would insist on your going out on strike, even if you don't want to, and would prevent those people from working who want to continue to work. Now let me tell you this - if we had a strike here, we would have to continue to run our business, strike or no strike . Our doors would remain open and we would have to hire replacements for anybody who went out on strike, and once you're replaced, that means the end of your jobs. The law gives us the right to permanently replace economic strikers , and don't let the union tell you anything differently. And even if a strike didn't last long, and you came back to work after being out some period of time, how many weeks' wages would you have lost, and do you think you will ever be able to make up the money that was lost during the strike? Why, it would take months or maybe years or even never. Quite frankly, I don't see how any union can get you any more than what we have already given you or what you can expect in the normal course of events. We have given you the most we can without endangering our financial position here. We are in a very tough business. Competition is brutal. We can survive only as long as our expenses of doing business don't get out of line. Of course, I recognize that there is room for improvement here. After all, there's room for improvement anywhere - whether it's in a union shop or in a non-union shop. Things are not perfect anywhere. There is no such thing as a perfect place. This Company has always recognized that fact and I will always recognize the fact that there is room for improvement here. I can only tell you one thing - we are the kind of people who are always seeking to continue making improvements in your wages , benefits and working conditions, when we can do so without jeopardizing the Company. Nobody had to ask us and nobody had to tell us when to make improvements in the past, and nobody will have to tell us in the future when additional improvements can be and should be made. Remember - you get all these benefits that you now have, and nobody forced us to do this for you. No union was necessary to get this for you. We did this on our own voluntarily - because we have a policy of making improvements when our financial situation allows it, and I hope we will be able to maintain this policy in the future. I hope that we will be able to continually make uhprovements here . I see no reason why we cannot make more and more improvements as the years go by. This is what I am hoping for and I am,sure this is what you are h )ping for, too. The important thing to remember is that you havt, had these improvements and you haven 't had to pay one single red cent to a union to get them; and in the future , if there is no union, you are not going to have to pay anything to a union to get more benefits and more improvements. It just doesn't make any sense to me for you to have to pay tribute to a union to get what you are getting now, and mal be even less than what you would have received any'vay, without a union. The future of this operation is in your hands. All of you must know that we are doing our level best for you. Bringing a union in cannot force us to do more than our best - and it could cost you money besides. Where's the percentage for you? Why take a risk? Why risk the possibility of strikes , short workweeks, and all the rest that goes with bringing in a union? Don't risk a secure future with this Company by voting in this union. I think I deserve your confidence . Show me that you have confidence in me by voting "No" in tomorrow's election. Thank you for listening.