International Paper Co.

INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. 615 International Paper Company and United Paper Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner. Case 16-RC-8592 ' 14 December 1984 • DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION BY MEMBER ZIMMERMAN, HUNTER, AND DENNIS The National Labor , Relations Board, by a three- member panel, has considered objections to an election held on 21 July 1983 and the hearing offi- cer's report recommending disposition of them. The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulat- ed Election Agreement. The tally of .ballots shows 24 for and 47 against the Petitioner, with 6 chal- lenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect the results. • The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the hearing officer's findings and recommendations only to the extent consistent herewith. The hearing officer recommended sustaining the Petitioner's Objections 1 and 5, 1 which contended. respectively that the Employer made unlawful threats to reduce wage rates, and that the Employ- er conveyed to the employees the futility of select- ing the Petitioner as their collective-bargaining agent. We find that the Employer engaged in no objectionable conduct. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of em- ployees at the Employer's lumber mill in New Boston, Texas. The Employer also operates other mills, including unionized plants at Coushatta, Lou- isiana, and Nacogdoches, Texas. During the Petitioner's organizing campaign, the Employer's officials conducted a series of meetings with the employees. At the first meeting or meet- ings held on or about 27 June 1983, the Employer's regional manager Ben Smith addressed the employ- ees. Smith's remarks commenced with an introduc- 'tion: Let me take a few minutes here and discuss what the law is 'and how collective' bargarning [sic] really works. First, I hope everyone understand [sic] that 'collective bargaining does not mean that a company must agree to anything a union asks for or to sign a contract at all, if the company does not think the contract is in the plant's or In the 'absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt, pro forma, the hear- ing officer's recommendations that Objections 2 and 6 be overruled At the hearing the Petitioner withdrew Objections 3 and 4, with no opposition by the Employer The hearing officer thereafter declined to consider these objections in her report the employees' best interest. The labor laws re- quire the parties to bargain in good faith, but it [sic] does not require them to agree with each other . . . . Even if they do agree, that does not necessarily mean wages or benefits will im- prove . . . . After negotiations, things may go up, they may stay the same . . . or they may go down. . . . Smith informed employees that within the last several years at various plants operated by the Em- ployer . . there have been a number of unionized operations where pay has been negotiated frozen or reduced . . . . While most of these freezes and reductions were in paper and con- verting plants at IP, it shows you that through good faith bargaining, wages and benefits are frequently reduced. Additional meetings were held about 6 and 7 July 1983, - with Plant Manager Glenn Haddox and Smith as the speakers. In these remarks the officials compared the wages of the New Boston employees with those at other lumber mills across the South. The New Boston wages were higher. The Employ- er's spokesmen continued: We have discussed what the law says about wages and benefits changing in a contract. And, if need be, we will bargain in good faith at New Boston. You need to understand, how- ever, that we will not agree to anything in a union contract which we believe is not in the best interest of the company. Take, for exam- ple, wages and benefits. It is clear to me that we would have a strong argument in any ne- gotiations that wages and benefits are already too high here. Now, I am not threatening you people; you have a legal right to have a union represent you. But because we care about you as employees, you need to understand that we have a legal right to bargain hard for what we believe is best for the business. Now we have some further information which we will dis- cuss with you before you vote which leads us to believe that this union will agree to lower wages and benefits than we have right now in New Boston. Further meetings were held during the weeks of 13 and 19 July 1983. Assistant Plant Manager Henry Conly spoke for the Employer at a meeting held during this time. As found by the hearing offi- cer, Conly indicated that the Employer would bar- gain for lower wages like those at the Employer's union-represented plants, i.e., Coushatta and Na- cogdoches. Conly compared the wages at New 273 NLRB No. 88 616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Boston and Coushatta, pointed to Coushatta's wages on a bulletin board, and said, "These wages are the ones we. are shooting for."- Conly also spoke of his participation in prior negotiations at one of the unionized mills, noted that he was a hard negotiator, and stated, "You better bring a big lunch, because it could take a long time to negoti- ate a contract." A chart comparing the wages of New Boston with Coushatta and Nacogdoches was posted in the plant shortly before the election. Several em- ployees noticed these wage comparisons, including the higher New Boston figures. The hearing officer treated Objection 5 together with Objection 1 because both objections involved conduct of the Employer which occurred in the same series of employee meetings. She concluded that this conduct created an "atmosphere of appre- hension in the voters' minds," inculcated a sense of futility, and interfered with the employees' choice. We conclude to the contrary that the Employer's speech and actions were consistent with the re- quirements of the Act. In evaluating whether an employer's statements during a union organizing campaign have a coer- cive effect on employees, the focus of our inquiry is whether the totality of the employer's statements have created an atmosphere preventing a free and untrammeled choice by the employees, therebj,' dis- rupting the intended laboratory conditions.2 The present Case is barren of such coercive' cir- cumstances. Contrary to the hearing officer, we discern no basis to warrant a conclusion that the Employer improperly warned employees of a de- crease in wages and benefits and thereby "inculcate[d] in employees a sense of fiftility." Con- sistent with our recent decision in Caradco Corp., 267 NL1k13 1356 (1983), the statements made by the Employer regarding the possibility of lower wages and benefits cannot, in context, reasonably be con- strued as a threat to reduce employee wages or benefits if the -Petitioner won the election. Thus, as in Caradco; the comments of the Employer's repre- sentative emphasized repeatedly that any reduction in wages and benefits could only be undertaken through collective bargaining with the Union. In the meetings held about 27 June, Regional Manager Smith stressed the Employer's commit- ment to good-faith bargaining and remarked that as a result of negotiations "things may go up; they may stay the same . . . or they may go down." All though Smith referred to unionized plants operated by the Employer where wages had been reduced, he specifically informed employees that this oc- 2 General ShAoe'Corp , 77 NLRB 124 (1948) curred "through good faith bargaining." In the meetings held about 6 and 7 July, Smith and Plant Manager Haddox referred to possible wage and benefit reductions only in the context of collective bargaining. Indeed, they expressly stated to em- ployees ' that the Employer had reason to believe that "this union will agree to lower wages and ben- efits," thereby emphasizing the collaborative nature of any reduction through negotiations. In addition, Smith and Haddox assured employees in these meetings -that they had a legal right to choose union representation' and expressly disavowed any threat-- of retaliation. Assistant Plant Manager Conly's remarks at the later meetings reiterated the Employer's adherence to the bargaining process.- The statements attributed to Conly contain express of clearly implied references 'to 'negotiation: the Employer would bargain for wages like those at its unionized _plants; he was a hard negotiator; "these wages are the ones we' are shooting for," and "it could take a long time to negotiate a contract" (em- phasis' added). Viewed in their entirety, these re- marks convey no indication that the Employer would initiate unilateral changes in the employees' terms' and conditions of employment or retaliate against employees because-they selected the Union. It bears emphasis that we vview the later meet- ings, as the employees viewed them, in the light of the initial sessions held only 2 to 3 weeks earlier. Hence we interpret Conly's gesture to the bulletin board, as , well, as his remarks, in the light of Smith's and' Haddox's repeated expressions of their willingness to cOmply with the requirements of col- lective bargaining. Neither Conly's gesture, nor his remarks, can be considered in this context to have disrupted the laboratory conditions for the election, or to have inculcated a sense of futility. The Em- ployer's subsequent posting of the chart containing wage comparisons is not objectionable. We have upheld the use of similar charts in the past. 3 Fur- ther, employees clearly were aware that the Em- ployer's statements regarding its commitment ‘to- collective bargaining were not merely idle words but had been demonstrated by negotiated agreee- ment at its other unionized plants.4 3 Viacom Cablevision of Dayton, 267 NLRB 1141'(i983) 4 Our dissenting colleague contends that the Employer, through Assist- ant Plant Manager Conly, made "an explicit declaration of an ad- verse consequence of unionization" by allegedly indicating that the Em- ployer would "insist" on lower wage levels The hearing officer found in her concluding analysis, however, that Conly stated only that the Em- ployer "would bargain for" wages like those at its unionized plants and that those were the wages the Employer "was shooting for" and "wanted to negotiate" Although the term "insist on" appears in Employer's Exh 13, Conly testified he did not read this speech word for word, but used the text as an outline, and no credited union witness claimed to have heard ?Insist on " It is clear that the Employer's statements regarding - Continued INTERNATIONAL . PAPER CO 617 Accordingly, as the record does not support the Petitioner's objections that the Employer's speech- es constituted a threat of retaliation or incalCated a sense of futilitS, among the -emplOyees, the objec- tions are ,hereby overruled. Because the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner 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 CERTIFIED that a majority. of the valid bal- lots have not been cast • for United .Paperworkers International Union, .AFL-CIO and- that it is not the exclusive representatie of • these bargaining unit employees. • MEMBER ZIMMERMAN, dissenting. - • For the reasons expressed in the hearing officer's report attached hereto, I would sustain the -Peti- tioner's Objections 1 and 5 and set the eledtion aside. The Employer's campaign statements can only be interpreted' 'as thieatening retaliation against the employees 'in the event' -that 'the' 'New Boston plant became unionized. I agree with the hearing officer that the Employer's 'references to "bargaining" and "negotiations" are insufficient' to mask the intended coercive tone of the Employer's speeches and conduct. Indicative of the tone of the entire _campaign is this excerpt from Assistant Plant Manager .Conly's remarks to the employees on 13 and 14 July: "I can assure you. . . that if we are rap:fired to negotiate wages and benefits with this union, these . "-2-. are the wages we will insist on in a. lumbermill" con- tract at New Boston" (Em' p. Exh, 13). (emii'hasis,in the original). It coald not be clearer ;that 'the Em- ployer signaled the employees in this sentenCe that it would seek a lesser wage level. precisely _because the Union was present., thus: if the -employees voted for the ,Union, they were "assured" of the Employer's insistence upon- the lower wage levels of Coushatta and Nacogdoches. If the employees voted against the Union, according to the clear im- plication of Conly's remarks, the 'existing, higher wage levels would remain undisturbed—wage levels which the Employer set and therefore clear- ly found- acceptable. The Employer's transparent indication of its intent to administer differential treatment to its employees - depending On the out- Come Of the election creates an atmosphere of ap- prehension and a sense of futility" in the minds of wages and benefits, taken as a whole, neither indicated that it would un- dertake unilateral action nor implied that it would retaliate' against em- ployees by administering differential treatment depending on the outcome of the election Thus, We find that the Employer did not exceed the limits of permissible campaign conduct Caradco Corp, supra voting employees, and warrants setting aside the election. Accordingly, I dissent.' The present case is distinguishable from three recent cases in which I found an employer's remarks to its employees unobjectionable I have agreed to the certification of election results where an employer made no express or implied promise that the employees' wages would be increased if the union were voted out, and where the employer made no suggestion that the employees' wages or benefits would suffer if they voted the -union in Viacom Cablevision of Dayton, 267 NLRB 1141. (1983), Caradco Corp. 267 NLRB 1356 (1983). I have also voted to certify the election results where the employer's predictions as to the effects of unionization referred to "demonstrably probable" consequences beyond its own con- trol International Harvester Go, 258 NLRB 1162 (1981) (Member Zim- merman, dissenting) In the instant case, the Employer told the employees •.that, if required to bargain with the Union,. it would insist on a fixed, lesser wage rate Far from implication or suggestion, this was an explicit declaration by the Employer of an adverse consequence of unionization * well within its own control,' 'APPENDIX Findings of Fact Objections 1 and 5 Since these two objections involve statements alleged- ly occurring on or about the same dates and in the same series of employee meetings held by Assistnat Plant Man- _ ager Henry Conly, they will be treated together, for the purporse of this Report. Petitioner's Position: The Petitioner, in support of these objections (regard- ing the threat to reduced wages and the futility of select- ing the Petitioner as collective-bargaining agent), offered employee witnesses Ronald Lofland, George ConwaY,2 and Ricky Almand. It was undisputed that during the Petitioner's organiz- ing .campaign, the Employer, through various manage- ment personnel, held a series of employee meetings for the purpose of explaining its positon. These meetings oc- curred between _June 27 and July 19 on a weekly basis, at varying times ,and places, and involved employees grouped by departments and/or by their union' senti- ments. The meetings lasted between 15 to 60 minutes and were held during work hours. The first series of employee meetings was held primar- ly by Ben Smith, Regional Manager of the Arkansas Wood Products Division, around June 27. Glenn Haddox, Plant , Manager, and Henry Conly, Assistant Plant Manager, were' present and participated in lesser degrees. There were no allegations that objectionable statements were made during this first series of meetings; they are mentioned for background purposes. The em- ployees were told of other companys and unions agree- ing to pay cuts and reductions in benefits, after bargain- ing. A copy of excerpts from Smith's speech was sup- plied as Employer's Exhibit 4 and it stated therein: At IP within the last several years, there have been - a number of unionized operations where pay has been negotiated, frozen or reduced. In fact, after 2 Conway's employment was terminated 7/18/83. 618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bargaining with the same union, IP has frozen wages in several operations and actually reduced wages in others where the employees were repre- sented by the UPIU. While most of these freezes and reductions were in paper and converting plants at IP, it shows you that through good faith bargain- ing, wages and benefits are frequently reduced. The second series of employee meetings occurred around July 6 -and 7 Again Ben Smith was the primary spokesperson, with Glen Haddox participating. Petition- er's witness Ron Lofland recalled that at the meeting he attended, Company personnel explained why they didn't need a union, with emphasis on strikes and "lots of em- phasis on wages being reduced to possibly the national average wage." Lofland recalled this latter statement oc- curring around July 7 and 13 and that Glenn Haddox and Ben Smith were the speakers. The third and fourth series of employee meetings oc- curred the weeks of July 13 and 19. At the fourth meet- ing Lofland recalled Conly making wage comparisons between New Boston and Coushatta, La. on a bulletin board. He said Conly went to the board, pointed to Cou- shatta's wages, which were consideraby lower than New Boston's, and said, "these wages are the ones we are shooting for." He later testified that the wages were from $1.50 to $1.75 lower for the same type jobs at Cou- shatta than those at New Boston. Lofland stated that Conly also spoke of the negotia- tions he had been involved in before, that he was a hard negotiator and that: — You better bring a big lunch, because it could take a long time to negotiate a contract. And after this meeting Lofland testified there were wage comparisons posted throughout the saw mill area for people to view, up until the election. Lofland recalled the wage comparisons being posted on a chalkboard in the saw mill area and in an office in the breakroom. Petitioner's witness George Conway testified as fol- lows: The third meeting, the fourth meeting, Henry said that if the union came in, he would do everything he could to get . the wages lowered to what they was at other_ mills and—it was the third meeting be- cause he said that he was negotiating contracts at the mill that he came from and that he wanted to negotiate this contract and they would get their wages down. Conway also recalled the Coushatta wage rates being posted on the bulletin board on a rack. As Conway had been discharged on July, 18, and had a charge pending dismissal in the National Labor Relations Board Regional Office at the time of the hearing, the Employer requested and received (for cross-examination purposes) a portion of Conway's affidavit 3 relating to the 3 Employer's Exhibit 2 objection issues mentioned under direct examination. Under cross-examination Conway testified that Conly had referred to a chart showing average wage differ- ences between union and non-union plants, and Conley recalled no specific columns on Coushatta'S wages. He guessed, it was' not clear, that Coushatta was included in those average union wages. A part of Conway's affidavit . was read into the record, under cross-examination, and- it stated 'that- during the week of July 11, Conly had said. "he has a very experi- enced contract negotiator and he Wou/d bargain our wages down, and our benefits cut down . . ." But in ear- lier direct testimony, Conway -had said Conly would get their wages down. When asked which of his statements was true, Conway replied "both." Petitioner's witness Ricky Almand;testffied that he ,attended five of the Em- ployer's meetings and that the fifth was held the day before the election Almand recalled that at one of the meetings there was a-little, "board-like deal" on a three- legged pedestal. It had the wages on certain jobs-for Na- cogdoches and and New Boston and the dif- ferences between the pay,. and that Conly and Smith were always saying "how much better, how much more we was, making than Nacogdoches and Coushatta." Almand's recollection was similar to Conway's in that he recalled being told that the reason Conly was brought to New Boston was because he negotiated. contracts at other plants and that Conly would. "try to negotiate the contract with the—whenever it come time, when and if the Union made it, come time [sic], for negotiation to get our wages down • with Nacogdoches and Coushatta." . He recalled the kiln operator _classification showing, a dif- . ferenCe, between New. Boston and Coushatta and Nacog- doches of about 38 cents Under cross-examination Almand said that he assumed the chart containing the comparisions between New Boston and the.United Paperworkers International Union average wages included Coushatta and Nacogdoches. And he-restated that a chart was posted which included Coushatta and Nacogdoches in front of the mill break- room and on a three-legged pedestal in the office confer- ence room. - Employer Position: The Employer, in defense of these two objections, of- fered Ben Smith, Henry Conly, and John Clary as wit- nesses. Smith testified that at the first meeting on June 27, it was. hiss objectiveto inform the employees that it could be hard bargaining and that wages could be re- duced. He referred to a newspaper, article telling the story of unions which had agreed to pay cuts. and reduc- tions in benefits . . . with the point that "these union- ized companies bargain with the unions for less money and less fringe benefits for their employees.4 4 Excerpts from Smith's speech were provided as Employer's Exhibit 4, with the Employer refusing to put the entire speech info .the record, advising that the other portions did not deal with the objections raised herein INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. 619 At the second series of,meetings (July 6 and 7) Smith testified that he read from Employer's Exhibit 5 and referred to the ,chart" on a tripod but did not put on a display of it. The chart reflected the differences between average industry wages and New Boston wages for cer- tain job titles. 6 It noted in his speech that New Boston wages were anywhere from $1-.89. to 24 cents an hour above the average industry wage. A copy of ex- cerpts of Smith's speech as provided, as Employer's Ex- hibit 5, and therein he stated: . . . And, if need be, we will bargain in good faith at New Boston. You need to understand, however, that we will not agree to anything in a union con- tract which we believe is not in the best interest of the company. Take, ' for example, wages and bene- fits It is clear to. me that we would have a strong argument in any ilekotiations that wages and bene- fits are already too high here. Now, I am not threatening you people; you have a legal right to have a union represent you. But because we care about you as employees, you need to understand that we have alegal, right to bargain hard for what we believe is best for the business. Now we have some further information which ' we will discuss with you before you vote which leads us to believe that this union will agree to lower wages and bene- fits than we have right now in New Boston. Smith appeared to reluctantly admit that he was aware wages were basically higher at New Boston than at Na- cogdoches, and that Coushatta was mentioned in the meetings and "it may have been Nacogdoches too." He believed Coushatta and Nacogdoches were Included in the survey's figures (chart referred to in his speech and previously identified as Employer's Exhibit 17.) Henry Conly testified that he spoke from a prepared statement on July 13 and 14,- using the statement as an outline, and that he utilized a chart comparing UPIU av- erage *wages with New Boston's. Ultimately, he advised he spoke with everyone in the plant's conference room of the office building, everyone who was logistically available: A copy of excerpts 6 from his speech was pro- vided as Employer's Exhibit 13. And a copy of the chart was 'provided (minus the wages and differences in wages) as Employer's Exhibit 48. An excerpt from the excerpts of the speech reads. - . . . Now, if you were bargaining for the Compa- ny, and you found out that the Union.had never ne- gotiated wages and benefits as good as what you had paid before the union was voted in, what kind of hard bargain would you demand? Of course, the Union does not want you all .to think about ,union wages and benefits. The. union would like to forget about these wages, too. I . can assure you, however, that if we are required to negotiate wages and bene- fits with this union, these [chart] are the wages we 5 Employer's Exhibit 17 6 The Employer refused to furnish the entire speech, advising • that other portions did not deal with the objections raised herein will insist on in a lumbermill contract at New Boston.7 Conly's testimony regarding the posting of Nacog- doches and Coushatta wages was contradictory. In earli- er testimony Conly answered. Q. In fact, you posted the wage rates from Cou- shatta at one point, didn't you? A. Not any meetings that I delivered. Q. I mean after the meetings, do you have knowledge that the Coushatta wage rates were posted in the plant? A. As an official posting on a bulletin board? Q. That the company put it up somwhere where employees could see it. A. We had an information room where the wage rates were available at any of several mills. Q I am going to ask this question again. Were the wage rates from Coushatta posted someplace in the plant where employees could see them? A. Not that I recall. s Later Conly admitted the Coushatta wages were posted in the plant on July 19; but insisted they were not posted during his speeches on July 13 and July 14. Conley ad- vised- that he told employees he had been "involved in" the negotiations of the contract at Coushatta, that he was on the negotiation committee In other testimony, he denied ever mentioning Coushatta or Nacogdoches in his comments. Conely recalled making a statement on July 13 that if the Paperworkers were certified and they started con- tract negotiations, that "they should pack a lunch" (per- haps stating this in three or four of the employee meet- ings). He specifically denied saying he was a hard bar- gainer but said that "they would insist on bargaining for competitive rates." John L. Clary, Manager of Employee Programs, testi- fied that he prepared the chart containing the average wages paid by the UPIU represented lumber mills and the differences in the wages (to New Boston's). No spe- cific references were made on the chart to Coushatta or Nacogdoches. He did not' recall Conly mentioning Cou- shatta or Nacogdoches but he recalled responding to a question of an employee in one of the meetings that Cou- shatta's wages were included in the averages on the chart. Discussion, Analysis and Recommendation In NLRB v. Ousel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969) the standards for evaluating an employer's predici- ton of the possible effects of unionization are measured as follows: (The employer) may . . . . make a prediciton as to the precise effect he believes unionization will have on his company. In such case, however, the predic- tion must be carefully phrased on the basis of objec- 7 Conly stated he was aware that wages were higher at New Boston than at Nacogdoches and Coushatta—varying from 20 cents an hour on some jobs to 52 00 on other jobs . 620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tive fact to convey an employer's belief as to de- monstrably probable consequences beyond his con- trol . . If there is any implication that an em- ployer may or may not take action soley on his own initiative for reasons Unrelated to economic necessi- ties and known only to him, the statement is no longer a reasonable prediction based on available facts but a threat of retaliation based on misrepre- sentation and coenon, and as such without the pro- tection of the First Amendment . . . • The employees who listened to the Employer's speeches were not aware of the legal terms which can make a speech either coercive or non-coercive, but were average-type production workers. Almand recalled Conly statings that he would try to negotiate New Bos- ton's wages down with those at Coushatta, and Nacog- doches (both UPIU represented mills) Almand recalled Conly stating they were being paid too much. Lofland also testified that Conly made wage comparisons be- tween New Boston and Coushatta and pointed to Cou- shatta's wages on a bulletin board and said "these wages are the ones we are shooting for." Similarly, Conway stated that Conly told the emplOyee group he attended that he (Conly) would do everything he could to get wages lowered to that of other mills; that he wanted to negotiate and they would get their wages lowered. Whether the terms used were "bargain" or "negotiate" the wages down, the effect was the same to these em- ployees. One of the issues of fact was whether the Employer's charts used in the meetings contained wage Comparisons between Coushatta, Nacogdoches, and New Boston While the charts provided as exhibits by the Employer (after the close of the hearing) do not indicate any refer- ence to Coushatta or Nacogdoches, the undersigned con- cludes that this is not pivotal because the chart 'contain- ing Coushatta and Nacogdoches wages compared to New Boston wages was posted shortly before the elec- tion. Conly himself, finally, testified that the Nacog- doches and Coushatta wages were posted on July .19 (transcript pages 183-184). Lofland, Conway and Almand all concurred in their testimony of seeing these wage comparisons and seeing that the New Boston wages were higher Further, both employer witnesses Smith and Clary recalled "Coushatta" and "Nacog- doches" being mentioned in the meetings. It would not be difficult for anyone to get confused, after a series of meetings where charts were shown, and to believe that the figures recalled were on one set of charts rather than another, especially as these figures were posted (and the speeches referring to UPIU wage averages all occurred) within a short span of time in July. While the petitioner's witnesses may not have been knowledgeable on dates of speeches, the undersigned 8 While it was not clear at which meeting in July he heard this state- ment, this did not cause his recollections to be lacking in crediblility specifically credits the testimony of Almand, Conway, and' Lofland regarding the Employer negotiating- or bar- gaining their wages down, or "shooting for Coushatta's wages." Both Almand , and Lofland were direct and care- ful 'in their testimony. Lofland had made some notes of Conly's remarks some time after the speeches, voluntari- ly obtained- them from his vehicle upon request of Em- ployer's counsel, and testified consistently with those notes thereafter. While Conway was credible, he ap- peared to be easily led by both the petitioner and Em- ployer's counsel, and his recall was not - as accurate as Lofland's and Almand's. Further, the excerpts from the Employer's speeches confirmed many of the ideas ex- pressed by these witnesses. . _ Conly, on the other hand, was not as credible, espe- cially with respect to his testimony concerning the post- ing of the - Coushatta wage rates. He appeared to be knowledgeable but reluctant, and at times he was evasive in his answers. While some of this could be explained by the "critical" position in which he was placed during this campaign, the undersigned does not believe this was the reason for his lack of forthrightness. As seen by all of the Employer's literature (excerpts provided) and by the testimony of Smith and Conly, the campaign was obviously designed to emphasize and re- emphasize the Employer's higher wage rates vs the Union's lower wage rates at other IP lumber mills While Section 8(c) of the Act permits an employer to portray its practices (and furnish specific details) with respect to its represented employees so that the voters can be com- pletely informed, the employer is not free to predict and/or warn of wage and benefit decreases if The em- ployees do not vote against the union representation. The undersigned concludes that the general tone of the Employer's meetings was negative and left the im- pressions that: (1) the employees were making more money than the Employer's union-represented mills; (2) the UPIU had not been able to negotiate wages as good as those currently enjoyed in New Boston, (3) Conly had negotiated (or been involved in the negotiations (at Cou- shatta) and would be involved in negotiations in New Boston if theUPIU were elected, (4), Conly indicated the bargaining could be long (bring a sack lunch) and, that they would bargain for wages like those at the other union:represented mills, i.e. like Coushatta and Nacog- doches. The undersigned further conludes that the rea- sonable effects upon the employees of such an campaign (with Coushatta's wages being posted two days before the election), could only be inhibitory, incul- cate in employees a sense of futility, create an "atmos- phere of apprehension in the voters' minds" and interfere with the employees' choice in the elechon to come. Mohawk Bedding Co. 204 NLRB 277. North American Car Corporation 253 NLRB 958. Accordingly, it is recommended that these objections be sustained and a second election directed