Boaz Spinning Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1969

177 N.L.R.B. 788 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

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