Boaz Spinning Co., Inc.

788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD- Boaz Spinning Company, Inc. and Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, Petitioner. Case 10-RC-7587 June 30, 1969 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND ZAGORIA Pursuant to the provisions of a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election, executed on November 21, 1968, an election by secret ballot was conducted on December 19, 1968, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 10, among the employees in the stipulated unit. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 218 eligible voters, 210 cast valid ballots, of which 83 were cast for, and 127 were against, the Petitioner, and 4 ballots were challenged. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on April 1, 1969, issued and duly served upon the parties his Report on Objections, in which he recommended that the objections be overruled in their entirety, and that certification of results of election issue. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's recommendation that the objections should be overruled. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the Regional Director's report, the Petitioner's exceptions thereto, and the entire record in this case, and makes the following findings: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization which claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The following unit, as stipulated by the parties, constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. All production and maintenance employees of the Employer's plant at Guntersville, Alabama, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Petitioner filed five separate objections which the Regional Director found raised no substantial or material issues with respect to the conduct of the election, and he recommended that the objections be overruled in their entirety. The Petitioner has excepted to the Regional Director's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, with respect to objections 1, 2, and 4. No exceptions having been filed with respect to objections 3 and 5, we shall adopt, pro forma, the Regional Director's recommendations as to those objections. As to objections 2 and 4, we find that the Petitioner's exceptions raise no substantial issues of fact or law which would warrant reversing the Regional Director' s findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and those objections are accordingly overruled. The Regional Director found that during the course of the preelection period the Employer's representatives made two speeches to assemblages of employees, the first being made on November 12 and the second on December 17, 1968, the latter date preceding the election by 2 days. The Regional Director concluded that the speeches, which were read essentially verbatim from prepared texts, did not threaten plant closure and did not exceed the bounds of permissible campaign propaganda. We disagree. The speech made to the assembled employees on November 12, 1967, was read by vice president of Manufacturing Joe Thatcher from a prepared text approximately 17 pages in length. Thatcher reviewed for the employees detailed case histories of nine textile plants, at least one of them owned and operated by the Employer, which had been organized by the Petitioner and which had been forced to close after prolonged strikes called by the Petitioner. Thatcher stated that he wanted to make clear that he was not saying that these mills closed because the Union was voted in or because they had a union, but because they were no longer able to get customers, to compete in the industry, and to operate at a profit. Thatcher then added: On the other hand, I can tell you that in my opinion the strikes, dissension, the bitterness and hatred that the TWUA started up in those plants did a lot to put those plants in a position to where they could not compete. During the course of his speech, Thatcher also reviewed for the employees his version of the byproducts of strikes, including plant closures, loss of jobs, replacement, loss of income, violence, bloodshed, and disruption of family and community life. Thatcher made clear to the employees that the Union could obtain nothing for them that the Employer could not or would not concede, which he 177 NLRB No. 103 BOAZ SPINNING COMPANY, INC. 789 coupled with the admonition, "And, again, you do not have to join the Union or pay Union dues to get what our Company is willing to give ." In addition to the above, Thatcher reviewed for the employees how their employment benefits had increased since the Company acquired the Boaz plant, informed them that the Employer was committed to providing them with a full program of job benefits when the plant's economic position justified such action, and promised them that "this will be done with or without a union." Additional references were made to the fact that the employees had a "good bit better" insurance program and paid less for it than the employees at the TWUA-organized plant at Chattanooga , and to the jury make-up system which was "added this year at our non-union plants. The union asked for it at the union plant but the Company refused to give it." The second speech made to the assembled employees was given on December 17, 1968, by the President R. C. Thatcher, which he also read from a prepared text of approximately 17 pages. This speech was in large measure a repetition of the speech given by Joe Thatcher on November 12. R. C. Thatcher commenced his speech on the keynote that the employees' families and loved ones depended on them and their jobs, and cautioned them that their incomes could be affected "if the TWUA gets the chance to do here as they have in so many other places, to pull their long and bitter strikes and to stir up unrest and dissension ...." The speech reviewed for the employees the cases histories of a number of strikes called by the Petitioner, with graphic examples of violence, bloodshed , shootings, loss of jobs and income , and disruption of families and whole communities . Stated in terms of an expression of opinion , R. C. Thatcher informed the employees that the Petitioner, by its strikes and by stirring up bitterness and dissension , destroyed the spirit of teamwork and cooperation between employees and their employers and had forced many mills to close . As his managerial colleague had on November 12, R. C. Thatcher reviewed for the employees the benefits they had received in the past and he assured them that the improvement in benefits would continue in the future as economics justified such action, and would occur with or without a union . He also announced to the employees, apparently for the first time, that the company intended to provide additional supervisors "to help you work out your problems and to help you solve problems that come up." From time-to-time during the course of the speech, R.C. Thatcher reverted to the subject of strikes , cautioned the employees that the Union could only obtain for them what the Company could or would give, and informed them that they didn't need to pay union dues to get what the Company was going to give them anyway. Considering the total content of the Employer's speeches given on November 12 and December 17, 1968, we cannot agree with the Regional Director's finding and conclusion that the remarks to the employees did not exceed the bounds of permissible campaign tactics. Considered in total context, the contents of the speeches purveyed a constant repetition of the theme that selection of the Petitioner as the bargaining representative could only result in strikes, bitterness and dissension, attended by job and income loss to the employees, violence and bloodshed, and disruption of family and community relationships. Intrinsically interwoven into this theme was the recurring reminder to the employees, exemplified by graphic and detailed case histories, that the selection of the Petitioner as the bargaining representative at other textile mills had resulted in prolonged strikes, accompanied by bitterness and dissension to such a degree that cooperation between the employees and their employers had failed, and the mills had ultimately been closed. In arguing against unionism , an employer is free to discuss rationally the potency of strikes as a weapon and the effectiveness of the Union seeking to represent his employees. It is, however, a different matter when the employer leads the employees to believe that they must strike in order to get concessions. A major presupposition of the concept of collective bargaining "is that minds can be changed by discussion, and that skilled, rational, cogent argument can produce change without the necessity for striking. When an employer frames the issue of whether or not the employees should vote for a union purely in terms of what a strike might accomplish, he demonstrates an attitude of predetermination that bargaining itself will accomplish nothing. If an employer displayed such an attitude in entering upon collective bargaining, he would not be bargaining in good faith, within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Similarly, an employer who evinces such a frame of mind prior to an election is indicating that he will not live up to the mandate of Section 8(a)(5). Policy considerations dictate that employees should not be led to believe, before voting, that their choice is simply between no union or striking. That narrow choice is essentially what this Employer gave them. Furthermore, coupled with this implied message of the alleged futility of union representation was the express announcement to the employers that the Employer was the fount of all existing and future benefits, which could not be improved by resort to collective bargaining, and that the employees did not need a union to obtain benefits the Employer would give them in any event. Finally, the speeches contained less-than-subtle suggestions that the employees were better off without a union than with one. In summary, the whole of the message to the employees was to instill in them a fear of the adverse effects of collective bargaining, coupled with the admonition that the selection of the Petitioner as their bargaining representative was a complete 790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD excursion into futility.' Accordingly, we find merit in Petitioner's objection I and we shall set aside the election. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the election previously conducted herein on December 19, 1968 , be, and it hereby is, set aside. [Direction of Second Election' omitted from publication.] MEMBER ZAGORIA, dissenting: Like the Regional Director, I would find that all of the Petitioner's objections are without merit, and would certify the results of the election. 'Thomas Products Co Division of Thomas Industries , Inc, 167 NLRB No. 106; General Automation Manufacturing. Incorporated, 167 NLRB No 66, and General Industries Electronics Company, 146 NLRB 1139 'In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N.L R B. V. Wyman-Gordon Company, 394 F 2d 759. Accordingly, it is directed that an election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 10 within 7 days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances . Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed