Goodall Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 24, 1946

68 N.L.R.B. 252 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of GOODALL COMPANY and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
In the Matter of GOODALL COMPANY and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
Cases Nos. 10-R-1143 and 10-C-1566, respectively.-
Decided May 24, 1946
Messrs. Paul S. Kuelthau and Albert D. Maynard, for the Board.
Frantz, McConnell & Seymour, by Messrs. Thomas G. McConnell
and W C. Anderson, of Knoxville, Tenn., for the respondent.
Mr. Carl F. Albrecht, of Nashville, Tenn., for the Union:
Mr. Ross H. Williams, of Knoxville, Tenn., for the Committee.
Miss Kate Wallach, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election of the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, in Case No. 10-R-1143,1
an election was held on May 31, 1944, among the employees of Goodall
Company, Knoxville, Tennessee, to determine whether the employees
desired to be represented by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
CIO, herein called the Union, for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing. At the election, a majority of the votes were cast against the Union.
On June 5, 1944, the Union filed objections to the election because of
alleged interference and coercion on the part of the respondent.2 On
August 18, 1944, the Regional Director issued his Report on Objections,
reporting that the objections raised substantial and material issues with
respect to the election and recommending that the Board direct a hearing
upon the objections. On September 8, 1944, the respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Regional Director's Report on Objections. On September
13, 1944, the Board issued an order directing that a hearing be held
on the objection to the election, and consolidating Case No. 10-R-1143
i Matter of Goodall Company, 56 N L. R B 465
2In substance, in its objections the Union alleged that by disparaging remarks against the
Union and its leaders , by a speech given by the respondent ' s president on the day before the
election, by assisting a committee of employees formed for the purpose of opposing the Union,
and by distributing circulars , the respondent influenced the employees in their choice of a
collective bargaining representative.
68 N. L. R. B., No. 31.
252
GOODALL COMPANY 253
with Case No. 1O-C-1566, a proceeding involving a charge filed by the
Union that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices.
Upon an amended charge duly filed by the Union in Case No. 10-C-
1566, the Board, by its Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta,
Georgia), issued its complaint, dated September 22, 1944, against the
respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49
Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied
by notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent
and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in
substance, that since on or about November 1, 1943, the respondent (a)
vilified, disparaged, and expressed disapproval of the Union; (b) urged,
persuaded, threatened, and warned employees to refrain from assisting,
and becoming or remaining members of, the Union; (c) interrogated em-
ployees concerning their union affiliation; (d) made a speech to the
employees discouraging membership in the Union; (e) announced a
vacation plan on the eve of an election conducted by the Board, thereby
d:,,couragng membership in the Union; (f) aided and abetted the circu-
lation of anti-union newspapers and other anti-union propaganda to its
employees; and (g) condoned and aided anti-union employees and a
committee of them in opposing the Union. The respondent filed an
answer in which it denied the allegations of the complaint with respect
to the unfair labor practices and set forth certain affirmative defenses,
discussed hereinafter.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Knoxville, Tennessee, on
October 5 and 6, 1944, before Robert F. Koretz, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. During the hearing, the
Trial Examiner granted a motion by Hazel Wilhite, Nora Dance, Alice
Morrison, Sylvia Hickman, Reva Henry, Cleo Henry, and Juleda Peters,
a self-styled "committee of employees entitled to vote in the election"
of May 31, 1944, herein called the Committee, to intervene in the pro-
ceeding. The Board, the respondent, the Union, and the Committee were
represented and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. Near the close of the
hearing, counsel for the Board moved to amend the complaint to con-
form to the proof. The motion was granted without objection. At the
conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the Board, the respondent and
the Committee argued orally before the Trial Examiner. In the course
of his argument, counsel for the respondent moved to dismiss the com-
plaint on the grounds, in substance, that the allegations in the Regional
Director's Report on Objections in Case No. 10-R-1143, in the amended
254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
charge, and in the complaint "are at total variance"; that the allegations
of the complaint, if proved, "are wholly insufficient to sustain a charge
of unfair labor practice"; and that the evidence failed to support the
allegations of the Complaint. Ruling on the motion was reserved by the
Trial Examiner, who denied the motion in his Intermediate Report.
During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made rulings on
other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The
Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made during the
course of the hearing, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On December 2, 1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent, the
Union, and the Committee, finding that the respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (1)
of the Act. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and a supporting brief. No exceptions or briefs were
filed by the Union or by the Committee.
Pursuant to notice and at the request of the respondent, a hearing
for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board on March
20, 1945, at Washington, D. C. The respondent appeared by counsel and
participated in the argument. The Union and the Committee did not
appear.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respondent's
exceptions and briefs, including a brief filed by the respondent with the
Trial Examiner, and the entire record in the case, and finds that the
exceptions are without merit insofar as they are inconsistent with the
findings, conclusions, and order set forth below.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT3
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent , Goodall Company, a Maine corporation , maintain-
ing its principal office at Cincinnati , Ohio, and operating plants at Cin-
cinnati , Ohio; Danville, Kentucky ; Roanoke, Alabama ; Sanford, Maine;
and Knoxville , Tennessee , is engaged in the manufacture , sale and dis-
tribution of men 's clothing . Only the Knoxville operations are involved
in this proceeding . In the Knoxville operations , the respondent each
year uses raw materials valued at over $ 1,000,000, of which more than
80 percent is shipped to Knoxville from points outside the State of
Tennessee . The respondent annually sells and delivers to customers
outside Tennessee about $3,000 ,000 worth of products , representing over
80 percent of the products manufactured and processed at Knoxville.
Unless otherwise indicated , the findings of fact are based upon admitted facts or un-
contradicted testimony which the Board credits.
GOODALL COMPANY
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
255
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor organization,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to
membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background; the Union's organizational efforts
About the latter part of 1943, the Union commenced a campaign to
organize the respondent's employees.4 On March 6, 1944, the Union
filed a petition with the Board alleging that a question affecting commerce
had arisen concerning the representation of employees of the respondent.
A hearing was held upon the petition on April 11, 1944. On May 12,
as stated above, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election,
in which it directed that an election by secret ballot be conducted among
all the respondent's production and maintenance employees at Knoxville,
with certain exceptions not here material, to determine whether they
desired to be represented by the Union for the purposes of collective
bargaining; pursuant to the Direction of Election, an election was con-
ducted on May 31, 1944; and a majority of the votes were cast against
the Union.
In the course of its campaign which preceded the election, the Union
held meetings, otherwise solicited the support of employees outside the
plant, and distributed literature at the plant gates and through the mail.
Hazel Wilhite, whose conduct as chairman of the Committee is dis-
cussed hereinafter, was asked by union members "not to work against"
the Union in the event that she would not "work for them." In the
main, the literature which the Union circulated was devoted to argu-
ments that organization in the Union would result in higher wages and
other improved working conditions.5 One of the persons who was active
4 Previously the Union had made efforts to organize the employees . The Union and United
Garment Workers of America participated in an election in January 1943, pursuant to a
Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board on December 14, 1942. In that election
a majority of the employees cast votes for neither union. See Matter of Goodall Company, 45
N. L. R. B. 1307.
" In its answer the respondent alleges that "the C. I O. circulated and distributed written
circulars disparaging and vilifying respondent and its officers and agents , and making scurrilous
attacks on the respondent and its management ." The only references to the respondent and
its agents in the circulars were criticisms of the respondent 's labor policies . Illustrative of the
strongest statements appearing in the circulars is the following:
PANT'S DEPARTMENT WORKERS ATTENTION 1
Many of you are only being paid 404 an hour.
Coat Department Workers are receiving 500 and 600 an hour, while workers in the
Pants and Coat Departments of Amalgamated Union Shops are averaging 854 to 924 an
hour.
Because our Union is asking for increased wages for all Goodall Employees, Elmer
(Ward ), or one of his $ 10,000 a year hirelings from Cincinnati , may soon make a tearful,
sobbing speech to you and offer some of you a measley 54 increase , maybe 104 an hour
if you will promise not to join and vote for the Union.
BE ON GUARD I DON'T BE FOOLED
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on the Union's behalf in the organizational effort was Reverend Charles
C. Webber, a national representative of the Union.
B. Conduct of the respondent preceding and attending the election of
May 31,1944
1. The activities of the Committee
On or about April 1, 1944, Hazel Wilhite, Juleda Peters, Alice Morri-
son, Sylvia Hickman, Nora Dance, Reva Henry, and Cleo Henry, em-
ployees of the respondent, formed the Committee, the purpose of which
as stated by Wilhite, "was to defeat, if possible, the C. I. O. Union."e
Wilhite, Peters, and Morrison became chairman, secretary, and treasurer,
respectively, of the Committee. The Committee selected Sam H. Scand-
lyn, editor and publisher of "Progressive Labor," a weekly publication
described hereinafter, as its advisor. In furtherance of its purpose, the
Committee caused to be prepared and printed two circulars. A copy.
of the first was mailed to each of the respondent's employees on or
about May 6, 1944; a copy of the second was mailed to each of the
employees on or about May 26, 1944. In brief, the circulars, either
expressly or by plain implication, labeled leaders of the Union with the
terms "Communist," "racketeers," "grafters," and similar appellations ;
accused the Union and its leaders of forcing employees to join and pay
dues to the Union, promoting illegal strikes, and resorting to violence
and murder ; and asserted that the "primary motive" of the C. I. O.
and the Union was "to gain control of the mass production industries
to further their anti-American red, revolutionary conspiracy." Among
the statements appearing in the circular of May 26 was the following :
Do you have any assurance that in case the Union should win that
the Goodall Company would continue to operate its plant in Knox-
ville? And in case it should move, would you be willing to leave
this state to work for them?
The preparation and distribution of the circulars was financed by the
members of the Committee and a few other employees.
Wilhite and other members of the Committee left the plant during
working hours on several occasions in order to carry on the Committee's
activities. Wilhite received permission to leave without disclosing her
purpose and punched the time clock as she left the plant on each occasion.
" A few other employees assisted in organizing the Committee, but these persons soon
became inactive.
GOODALL COMPANY 257
There is no convincing evidence that the situation was different re-
specting the other members of the Committee.''
During lunch hour on a day shortly before the first circular was mailed
by the Committee to the employees, Wilhite, Hickman, and Peters were
observed copying the names and addresses of employees from records
at the timekeeper's desk. The timekeeper was not at work that day,
and there is no showing that the timekeeper or any supervisory em-
ployee was aware of this conduct.
As set forth hereinafter, in his speech delivered to the employees on
May 30, the day preceding the election, Elmer Ward, president of the
respondent, praised Wilhite for the "good work" she had been doing.
On June 2, two days after the election of May 31, members of the
Committee and other employees during working hours circulated among
the employees five copies of a letter addressed to the Regional Director
of the Board, urging him to ignore the Union's objections to the elec-
tion." Supervisory employees observed the circulation of the letter, but
took no action to stop it. Approximately 500 signatures were secured to
the letter. On June 3, 1944, it was mailed to the Regional Director.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the respondent, by the conduct
described above, aided the Committee and approved of its action. The
letter addressed to the Board's Regional Director was circulated on
company time and premises in the presence of supervisory employees with
their knowledge and acquiescence. President Elmer Ward praised Com-
T Employee Virginia Gregg testified that on one occasion in May when members of the
Committee left the plant , she looked at the time cards of Wilhite and Morrison , members of
the Committee ; that Morrison 's time card was not checked out; and that Wilhite's card was
checked in at 12.01 p in ., although Wilhite was not in the plant. Gregg further testified that
another employee informed her that she had punched the time clock for Wilhite Employees
are required to punch out themselves when they have permission to leave the plant. There is
no showing , nor can it be inferred from the foregoing , that any representative of management
was aware of Morrison 's failure to punch the time clock or of the fact that another employee
punched the clock for Wilhite.
8 The letter reads as follows:
Knoxville, Tennessee,
June 2, 1944.
DEAR SIR: We the undersigned Employees of the Goodall Company understand that a
protest is being made by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union (C. I. 0 ) of the
election held in this plant on May 31, 1944 in which the union received only 239 votes as
against 478 against said union.
We want to condemn such a procedure on the part of this union and its representatives
as being unfair and uncalled for. We want to state further that we were not coerced or
intimidated into voting (sic) for or against the union by Mr. Ward or any other official
of the Goodall Company. We voted as we pleased and we think that after two defeats
that the union should understand that we do not want any of their interference as to our
affairs.
We earnestly request that you ignore any protest by the union or any effort to set aside
the election or call a third election. We also wish you to know that union representatives
tryed (sic) to get us not to vote in this election if we could not vote for the union. We
feel that this was very unfair and appeared that they only wanted these who would favor
them to vote and force the union on us by the vote of a handful ( sic) of paid union
workers.
Signed
258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mittee Chairman Wilhite for "the good work she had been doing." None
of the witnesses who testified that Ward made this remark explained
such remark, nor did the witnesses testify to its context in Ward's
speech. In the absence of any explanation of Ward's statement by the
respondent, and since there is no evidence of any work which Wilhite
had been doing apart from her ordinary duties in the plant and her work
on behalf of the Committee, we, like the Trial Examiner, infer that
Ward had reference to Wilhite's activities in her capacity as Committee
Chairman and thereby approved of the Committee's activities. As above
described, in its circulars the Committee characterized the union leaders
as "grafters" and "racketeers." The Committee also threatened that the
respondent might move the plant should the Union win the election.
Like the Trial Examiner, we find that by aiding the Committee and ap-
proving its activity, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
2. Activities of foremen and foreladies
Before the election, the respondent's foremen and foreladies made
statements concerning the Union to various employees 9 About January
1944, Mabel Douglas, an employee, joined the Union. Shortly there-
after, Douglas asked her foreman, Chick Horner, for a pass to the lunch
room for herself and another employee.10 Homer said : "When the
Union gets in Goodall Company, there won't be any such thing as a
pass to the lunch room."11 In April 1944, Horner asked Hester Rollins,
an employee, if she was "still working for the Union." After Rollins
answered in the affirmative, Horner stated that she had "better lay off
the Union" and that it was not "the thing" for the employees. Horner
added that he had helped organize the plant of another company in
Knoxville and that he was ashamed of this. On or about May 1, 1944,
when Virginia Gregg, an employee, returned to the plant after having
been at the union hall during her lunch hour, Horner remarked that,
when the employees "got a Union," they could not come to work late
Gregg then facetiously told Horner to join the Union and gave him a
union button. Horner made an obscene remark. Early in May 1944, a
union leaflet, upon which appeared the name of Mabel Douglas and
other employees, was distributed. Shortly thereafter, Horner approached
Douglas while she was at work and asked whether she had not seen her
name in print. Douglas replied that there were two persons named
9 The foremen and foreladies mentioned hereinafter each supervise groups of employees vary-
ing in number from approximately 8 to 45. They devote all their time to supervision and have
authority to recommend hire, discharge , and promotion of employees , and to permit employees
to leave work.
i0 Employees must obtain such passes to go to the lunch room.
11 Shortly thereafter , Horner gave Douglas the pass.
GOODALL COMPANY 259
Mabel Douglas who worked for the respondent. Horner said that he
would have to go to the office to determine whether this was true . Douglas
then acknowledged that it was her name which had appeared and that she
was "for the Union." To Horner's question as to why she was "for
the Union," Douglas answered, "better working conditions and higher
wages." Horner replied that the Union could not secure higher wages
and that the respondent was paying "ceiling prices." Horner stated that
he had helped organize the employees at another plant in Knoxville and
remarked that the "Union never held tip to what they said they would."
On or about May 25 or 26, 1944, Stella Hightower, a forelady, said
to a subordinate, Virginia Gregg, "We need something , but we do not
need a union." About the same time, James Cameron overheard his
forelady, Grace Tucker, tell a group of employees that Ward, presi-
dent of the respondent, had said that if the Union "got control," the
Union would run the plant and he, the president, would "have nothing
to do with the running of the Company." On May 30, the day before
the election , Forelady Bessie Dunn told Estelle Wolfenbarger, a sub-
ordinate, that she, Dunn, "wasn't in favor of no union."
After the ballots had been counted on the day of the election, Alma
Crigger, a forelady, put her head out of a plant window, clapped her
hands, and shouted at certain adherents of the Union who were passing,
"Good old Goodall, good old Goodall." The day after the election,
Forelady Tucker told a group of subordinates that if she were Pearl
Carmichael, who had acted as an observer on behalf of the Union at the
election, she would be ashamed "to stick [her] head back in here." In
the course of the discussion, Tucker stated that "all the unions are fit
for is to stir up trouble and strikes" and advertised to "what they did"
at a knitting mill in Knoxville where there had been a strike.
The respondent contends that foremen and foreladies are minor super-
visory employees whose isolated statements are nothing more than the
utterance of individual views, unauthorized by the respondent. Inasmuch
as all these supervisory employees have authority to recommend hire,
discharge and promotion of employees, and supervise from 8 to 45 em-
ployees.12 we find that to the employees the statements of such super-
visors reflected the views of management and that their statements are
therefore attributable to the respondent.13 We further find that, by such
12 Chick Horner, foreman in the coat shop , supervises about 44 employees ; Grace Tucker,
about 30 fitters in the pants department , B Dunn , about 45 employees operating machines in
the coat shop.
13 We do not agree with the view of our dissenting colleague that the coercive statements
of Foreman Horner constitute unauthorized statements of individual views, not attributable to
the respondent because made to only 3 or 4 of the respondent 's more than 900 employees. It
is common experience that knowledge of such expressions is likely to spread generally among
the employees, being given special impetus by their coercive nature. Such expressions were
furthermore part of a pattern of anti-union statements which included other expressions both
by Horner and by four other supervisors
696966-46-18
260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conduct, which included threats of economic reprisal, the respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise df
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
3. Circulation of anti-union publications
Since at least November 1943, there has been available for distribution
each week in the watchman's shanty at the respondent's plant gate a
large stack of copies of "Progressive Labor," a weekly publication.
In a previous decision,14 the Board described "Progressive Labor" as
follows :
A reading of copies of "Progressive Labor" shows that it is not
a "newspaper" in the usual sense of the term. Its articles and
"news" items are devoted in large part consistently to attacks on
labor unions and union activities in the vicinity of Knoxville * * *
Copies of "Progressive Labor," which were issued during May 1944 and
which were introduced in evidence in the instant case, show that "Pro-
gressive Labor" is still devoted to attacks on labor unions and union
activities. Particularly relevant to the instant proceeding are attacks upon
Sidney Hillman, general president of the Union. In the issue of "Pro-
gressive Labor" dated May 12, Hillman is characterized as "a Russian
Communist." And in an editorial appearing in the May 26 issue, en-
titled "Sidney and Joseph," Hillman is attacked in a similar fashion.
The Trial Examiner found that although there is no direct evidence
as to how stacks of "Progressive Labor" were placed inside the plant
premises each week, the continued presence of this publication and the
absence of any explanation thereof by the respondent show that the
respondent was aware of such presence and of the content of the pub-
lication, that the respondent approved its content, and that the employees
understood that such was the case.
In its supporting brief, referred to above, the respondent argues that,
inasmuch as the Committee had engaged the services of the editor and
publisher of "Progressive Labor," the Committee, rather than the re-
spondent, was responsible for the presence of the publication on the
respondent's premises. However, according to the uncontradicted testi-
mony of employee Hester Rollins, which we credit, the publication has
been available on the respondent's premises since at least November
1943, several months before the Committee was formed.
Under the circumstances, we adopt the Trial Exainmer's findings
that the respondent was aware of the presence of "Progressive Labor"
on its premises and of the content of the publication; that it approved
its content ; and that the employees undersl ood that such was the case.
In view of the respondent's whole course of unlawful conduct consisting,
14 Matter of Standard Kn,tting Mills, Inc., 48 N. L. R. B. 148.
GOODALL COMPANY 1261
as heretofore found, of coercive statements by supervisory employees,
the approval of the Committee's activities, and, as hereinafter found, of
President Ward's statements on the day before the election and his be-
lated announcement of War Labor Board approval of a vacation plan,
we find that, by making available on its premises for circulation the anti-
union publication "Progressive Labor," the respondent interfered with,
restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
4. Ward's speech of May 30; distribution by the respondent
of printed literature
On May 26, 1944, there was attached to the employees' pay checks
the following printed slip:
Everybody Should Vote at the Labor Board Election
The Labor Board has ordered a Union election next Wednes-
day, May 31st.
Do not say you are not going to vote or that you are not going
to have anything to do with the election. The Labor Board and
Courts say that the result of the election will be determined by a
majority of votes cast. So we recommend and urge you to vote.
Anybody favoring a Union and anybody against a Union will be
hurting the cause by not voting You should not stay away from
the polls - go there and vote You will not be embarrassed or
heckled. The Labor Board representative will fully protect you
against harm or embarrassment.
The Company does not want the Union but you employees have
the legal right to vote for or against the Union and have a Union
and none of you will be coerced, discharged or discriminated against
if you vote for or against a Union.
GOODALL COMPANY.
At about 1 :20 p. in. on May 30, the day before the election, the re-
spondent assembled the employees in the plant during working hours.
They then were addressed by Elmer Ward, president of the respondent,
for about an hour.15 In the course of his address, Ward named Sidney
Hillman, general president of the Union, Jacob Potofsky, general secre-
tary-treasurer of the Union, and other officials of the Union, and stated
that they were Communists and foreigners. Ward said that he was
afraid of these men and that he believed that the employees would also
be afraid of them if they knew them. He said that Reverend Charles
Webber, who had been engaged in organizing the employees, had put
pressure on employees to sign union cards, that he did not think it was
"Ward's speech was delivered through a public address system, which had been installed
for this purpose.
262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
right for a "man of the cloth" to use such tactics, and that employees
who had signed union cards did not have to vote for the Union in the
election. Ward urged the employees to vote in the election, stating that,
if an employee failed to vote, this would result in two votes for the
Union and none for the respondent. He informed the employees of
the respondent's profits and losses during the past several years and
stated that, in fixing piece rates, the respondent had exceeded the limits
of the Little Steel formula. He told the employees that the respondent
intended to build a sanitary and modern plant after the war was over,
and that the employees would then be working 6-hour shifts. He in-
formed the employees that the application to the National War Labor
Board for permission to grant vacations with pay had been approved.16
Ward stated that the respondent always had taken care of its old em-
ployees and that he wished to assure the new employees that they would
be accorded the same treatment. He mentioned that aged employees
had not been laid off, and illustrated this statement by reference to a
female employee, 65 years old, having 15 years' service with the re-
spondent, who had told him that she was well satisfied with her job and
was about to retire. Ward added that at the plant of the Hall-Tate
Manufacturing Company, which had been organized, the old employees
had been discharged. Ward also told the employees that if they were
represented by a union, it would cause confusion among the employees,
since they no longer could discuss their grievance with representatives of
management, but instead the "Union will have to do your talking." Ward
asked whether the employees wanted "such people" to speak for them.
He said that he did not. He added that "we have always tried to settle
our grievances with each other" ; that he had selected the best foremen
that he could find; and that, in the event that the employees could not
satisfactorily adjust their grievances with them, they should let him know.
Ward said that the Union could raise its dues from one or two dollars
a month, "as it had done in Cincinnati," and asked whether the employees
wished to have 24 dollars deducted each year from their pay in addition
to other deductions. Ward also stated that no one knew what happened
to the money which the Union collected in dues, fines, and assessments.
As stated above, Ward praised Wilhite, chairman of the Committee,
for the "good work" that she had been doing. In the course of his
speech, Ward stated that, although the respondent did not "want the
Union," the employees were free to vote as they chose in the election,
and that none would be discharged or otherwise discriminated against
because of union adherence.
According to the uncontradicted testimony of Wilma Smith, which we
credit, as did the Trial Examiner, after Ward's speech, several employees
11 As set forth below, although the respondent had been notified of such approval on or
about April 28, the employees were not informed of this until Ward's speech on May 30.
GOODALL COMPANY 263
who previously had signed union cards approached her and stated that
she "could take the cards back."
Immediately after Ward's speech, the respondent distributed to each
employee at his place of work the following printed leaflet:
IMPORTANT
PLEASE READ
(1) 1 am sending you this personal message so everybody- will
know my views : It is not the purpose of this message to coerce
or scare you or lead you to believe that you will be discharged or
discriminated against, if you vote for the union. You have a full
right to have and vote for a union. You are free to vote as you
please and have a union if you want it. This message is only to bring
you our views and some thoughts we think you ought to have.
(2) The Labor Board has ordered a Union election tomorrow, at
which you will be entitled to vote whether the Union will represent
you as the exclusive bargaining agent in your dealing with myself
and the management of your respective shops.
(3) Nobody will be discharged, discriminated against, or hurt,
because they do join the Union, and nobody will be discharged, dis-
criminated against, or hurt because they do not join the Union.
(4) If the Union wins the election, anybody can join the Union,
but nobody is required to join or pay dues, and nobody will lose
their job if they do not join. We employ our people on their merit
and not because they are Union or Non-Union, and will continue
to do so.
(5) We have been asked if we want the Union. Our answer is
that we do not want the Union, but you have a right to a Union,
if you want it and vote it.
(6) Figure out for yourself what is best for you, and what you
are going to get out of the Union.
(7) If you go into the Union they have got you, but what have
you got?
(8) The Union will charge you dues. We think you ought to
consider whether it is necessary for you to pay some outsider every
month for the privilege of working at Goodall's or whether a Union
can and will do more for you than we are doing.
(9) You should ask yourself why it is that total strangers sud-
denly become interested in your welfare. Who are they?
(10) Remember, that if the Union carries the election it will rep-
resent you in all of your dealings with us and the question for you to
decide is whether or not they can do a better job for you than we
have done, or will do, and whether or not what they would do for
you, is worth the dues you will be required to pay the Union.
264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(11) This election brings us to the forks of the road . It decides
whether you want to deal with me and my managers as you have,
or let the Union be your exclusive agent.
(12) One thing for you to remember is you are asked to vote :
"Do you desire to be represented by the Amalgamated Cloth-
ing Workers of America affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations, C. I. O. f
If you do, that means you step out of the picture and will have
no dealing with the Company-it will be SIDNEY HILLMAN and
the C. I. O.-do you think that will be good?
(13) These are questions you should think about, and talk over
at home.
(14) The matter is coming up for a decision and when it is all
over, we do not want any questions left open as to how all of us
feel. Let's make this election really represent the choice of every
one.
(15) Remember that unless you vote, your failure to do so may
bring about a result that you would not like to have. It takes one
vote more than half of all those voting to decide, so we earnestly
urge you to vote.
(16) A failure to vote is almost the same as a vote against what
you want.
(17) The election will be by SECRET BALLOT like our
County and State election. There will be a private booth where you
can mark your ballot and NOBODY CAN SEE YOU MARK
IT AND NOBODY WILL EVER KNOW HOW YOU VOTED
UNLESS YOU TELL.
(18) If you want the Union, mark X under YES, and if you
do not want the Union, mark X under NO on the ballot.
(19) If you cannot read, or are in doubt about marking your
ballot you can tell the Labor Board Representative, confidentially,
and he will show you where to mark the ballot.
(20) The Labor Board and courts say that the result of the elec-
tion will be determined by a majority of the votes cast and not a
majority of those entitled to vote. If you do not vote, it is the same
as letting someone else vote on who will represent you in your
dealings with the company about your job and wages. Do not stay
away from the polls. Go there and vote. Anybody favoring a Union
and anybody against a Union will be hurting their cause by not
voting. I urge you to vote.
(21) Even though you have signed a Union Card, you are not
required to vote for the Union. You can vote "NO" against the
Union, as anyone can change his or her mind.
ELMER L. WARD.
GOODALL COMPANY 265
When Forelady Grace Tucker handed a copy of the leaflet to employee
Juanita Hearst, she asked what it was. Tucker told Hearst to read it,
and admonished, "You had better do what that says."
5. Belated announcement of War Labor Board approval
of vacations with pay
Before 1944, the respondent had not granted vacations with pay to its
hourly paid employees. Early in April 1944, the respondent submitted
to a Regional Board of the National War Labor Board an application
for approval of a proposal "to grant to each of the hourly-paid employees
at its Roanoke, Alabama, and Knoxville, Tennessee, plants who has,
at the date of the vacation period in July or August of 1944 and succeed-
ing years, completed six months of service satisfactory to the Company,
vacation pay equal to forty hours at the straight time hourly rate of
such employee." The respondent concurrently filed similar applications
with another Regional Board concerning the employees of the respond-
ent's four other plants. By letter dated April 6, 1944, the respondent
notified its supervisory employees that such application was pending.
The text of the letter is as follows :
An application is pending before the War Labor Board to permit
your company to pay production employees in all its plants a vaca-
tion with pay this summer. As soon as the War Labor Boards acts
favorably on our application, we will give you the details of this
plan.
On April 12, the day following the hearing on the Union's petition
in Case No. 10-R-1143, a copy of this letter was posted on a bulletin
board in the Knoxville plant, and employees in the pants department
were informed by Forelady Tucker of the proposal to grant vacations
with pay. Although the Regional War Labor Board notified the re-
spondent by letter, dated April 28, 1944, that it approved the vacation
plan with certain modifications, the employees were not informed of this
until May 30, the day before the election , when President Ward an-
nounced it in his speech to the assembled employees.
The respondent argued orally before the Board that it could not have
announced the approval on or about April 28, 1944, because at that time
the War Labor Board had only approved a modified vacation plan, and
that the final approval was not given until sometime in June 1944, at
which time the respondent took steps to inform its employees accordingly.
We are not impressed by such argument inasmuch as there is no show-
ing that the respondent had any information on May 30, 1944, the day
before the election, which it did not have on or about April 28, more
than a month before the election.
In agreement with the Trial Examiner, we find that the timing of
Ward's announcement of the vacation plan on the day before the election
266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was calculated to influence the employees to reject the Union in the
election and that the respondent thereby interfered with the right of its
employees to self-organization, in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
6. Conclusions
The foregoing findings establish that for a considerable period of time,
preceding and attending the election of May 31, 1944, the respondent
engaged in a campaign designed to prevent its employees from choosing
the Union as their bargaining representative.
The respondent asserts that its conduct was privileged under the First
Amendment to the Constitution. In agreement with the Trial Examiner,
we are of the opinion that the respondent exceeded the limits of free
expression protected by the constitutional guaranty. As stated above, the
respondent's supervisory employees inquired as to the union activity of
the employees, made disparaging remarks about the Union, and threatened
withdrawal of employee privileges should the Union successfully or-
ganize the plant. As the Trial Examiner pointed out, the intended effect
of the use of such labels as "Communists," "foreigner," "total strangers,"
"racketeers," "grafters," and similar appellations is revealed by Ward's
warning that the employees would fear the Union's leaders if they knew
then. Of similar nature were Ward's oral and printed statements con-
cerning union dues, and Foreman Ho: ner's statement to Douglas in
May that the "Union never held up to what they said they would." The
opprobrious description of the Union and its leaders is significant when
considered in the light of the respondent's attendant conduct. The clear
implication of the respondent's arguments, illustrations, and actions was
that the choice of union representation not only was futile and unneces-
sary, but that it in fact would lead to withholding or diminution of
economic benefits.17 Thus, in May, Foreman Horner questioned Douglas
concerning her union activity and told her that the Union could not
secure higher wages and that the respondent was paying "ceiling prices."
In his speech on May 30, Ward played upon this theme, stating that
the respondent had exceeded the limits of the Little Steel formula in
fixing piece rates. In addition, Ward held forth the prospect of a new
plant and of 6-hour shifts following the termination of the war. He con-
trasted the respondent's indulgent treatment of aged employees with
that accorded to the aged employees at another plant in Knoxville which
had been organized. The latter employees, stated Ward, had been dis-
charged. The intimation that the respondent's employees would suffer
similar consequences as a result of union organization is evident. Ward's
announcement in his speech of May 30 that the National War Labor
Board had approved the grant of vacations with pay represented to the
11 See, for example, Peter I. Schweitzer, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 144 F. (2d) 520 (App. D. C.).
GOODALL COMPANY 267
employees a present and concrete example of employer indulgence which
tended to forestall the Union.
Less subtle than Ward's statements, though no more unmistakable in
their import, were certain statements of other supervisory employees.
Foreman Horner told Douglas in January that when "the Union gets in,"
the employees no longer would be given passes to the lunch room. In
April, Horner asked Rollins if she still was active on behalf of the Union
and, following an affirmative answer, warned Rollins that she had "better
lay off the Union." On or about May 1, Horner told Gregg that when
the employees "got a Union" they could not come to work late. When
the printed anti-union statement of May 30 was distributed to employees,
Forelady Tucker warned Hearst that she "had better do what that says "
The afore-mentioned admonitions of supervisory employees either ex-
pressly or by inference carried the threat of retaliation for employee
selection of the Union as bargaining representative. As indicated above,
it is not true, contrary to the respondent's contention, that the state-
ments concerning the Union and its leaders in President Ward's speech
on May 30, or those in "Progressive Labor" and the Committee's leaf-
lets, which, as we have found, had the respondent's approval, were
necessary to counteract statements against the respondent made by the
Union in its circulars.
Neither can we agree with the respondent that its statements, oral
and written, that the employees were free to choose their bargaining
representative and that there would be no discriminatory reprisals,
neutralized the respondent's conduct as a whole, consisting as it did, in
addition to coercive statements of supervisory employees, of the dis-
tribution of "Progressive Labor," the aid to, and approval of, the
Committee and its activities, President Ward's speech and other state-
ments to the employees on the day before the election, and Ward's
belated announcement of War Labor Board approval of the respond-
ent's vacation plan.
In view of the foregoing, we, like the Trial Examiner, find that,
by the entire course of conduct outlined above, the respondent inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
We also find that the conduct of the respondent antedating the elec-
tion precluded a free choice by the employees in the election of repre-
sentatives for the purposes of collective bargaining, as required by the
Act. We therefore sustain the Union's objections to the election, over-
rule the respondent's exceptions to the Regional Director's Report on
Objections, and set aside the election of May 31, 1944.15 In view of
the length of time which has elapsed since the election, we shall dis-
18 See , for example , Matter of W,re Rope Corporation of America, Inc., 62 N . L. R. B. 380.
268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
miss the petition for an investigation and certification of representa-
tives, without prejudice to the right of the Union to file a new petition,
if it so desires.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, oc-
curring in connection with the operations of the respondent described
in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices which violated Section 8 (1) of the Act, we shall, in agreement
with the Trial Examiner , order it to cease and desist therefrom and
to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, is a labor or-
ganization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the respondent , Goodall Company, Knoxville, Ten-
nessee , and its officers, agents, successors , and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their membership in or ac-
tivities on behalf of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO,
or any other labor organization;
GOODALL COMPANY 269
(b) Threatening employees with loss of employment benefits as a
penalty for the exercise of the right to self-organization;
(c) Interfering in any other manner with the self-organizational
rights of its employees.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its plants at Knoxville, Tennessee, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director of the Tenth Region, shall, after being
duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for
sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the election of May 31,
1944, among the employees of Goodall Company at its plants in Knox-
ville, Tennessee, be, and it hereby is, set aside, and that the petition for
investigation and certification of representatives in Case No. 10-R-1143
be, and it hereby is, dismissed, without prejudice.
MR. jGERARD D. REILLY, dissenting :
The sole issue presented in the case is whether or not respondent's
conduct was violative of Section 8 (1) of the Act and did not constitute
merely the exercise by respondent of its rights protected by the First
Amendment to the Constitution. Since the right to the exercise of free
speech is a right without which workers cannot attain full freedom of
association and self-organization, and since the character of freedom
is such that it must be afforded all in order to be available to any, the
duty of the Board in administering the Act so as to accomplish its pur-
pose entails also the obligation to weigh carefully the evidence upon
which it bases its conclusions with respect to this issue.
I am of the opinion that an analysis of the relevant evidence in the
record fails to support the findings of the Trial Examiner which are
the basis of the Decision and Order subscribed to by the majority.
The activities of the Committee were clearly of a character which,
if performed by an employer or upon the instigation of an employer,
constitute a violation of the Act.19 The Trial Examiner finds that
ie For example , the suggestion contained in the Committee circular of May 26, 1944, to the
effect that respondent would move its plant to a distant location in the event the Union won the
coming election . See McLain Fire Brick Co. v. N. L. R. B., 128 F. (2d) 393 (C. C. A 3).
270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent "aided and approved" the conduct of the Committee in so
opposing the Union. This finding is based upon the fact that Ward,
respondent's president, in a speech delivered on the day preceding the
election , praised Wilhite, the chairman of the Committee, for the "good
work" she had been doing ; and that the Committee had circulated a pe-
tition among respondent's employees during working hours in the plant,
but that respondent had not taken action to prevent it although 2 of
its supervisory employees were aware of the circulation of the petition.
Obviously, Ward's mere approval of Wilhite's "good work" cannot be
considered to be outside the privilege of the First Amendment to the
Constitution unless it can reasonably be said to constitute a ratification
of the statements made by Wilhite and the Committee during their anti-
union campaign. However, Ward, in the same speech in which he praised
Wilhite's "good work," stated:
Nobody will be discharged, discriminated against, or hurt, because
they do join the Union, and nobody will be discharged, discrim-
inated against, or hurt because they do not join the Union. * * *
We have been asked if we want the Union. Our answer is that we
do not want the Union, but you have a right to a Union, if you
want it and vote it.
Accordingly, there is no warrant to make the inference necessary in
order to sustain the finding. Similarly, it is not reasonable to attach rele-
vancy to the fact that the Committee circulated a petition on respondent's
property during working hours. Such activity standing alone has never
been found to constitute a violation of the Act, and normally becomes
relevant only when it is shown that similar privileges were denied
others.20 Here there was no such denial made the Union.
Two statements made by a supervisory employee of respondent appear
to possess coercive character.21 However, such isolated statements by
one supervisor to 3 or 4 of more than 900 non-supervisory employees
obviously comprise unauthorized utterances of individual views incon-
sistent with respondent's pronounced and established policy. As such,
they cannot reasonably be said to render coercive respondent' s entire
course of conduct otherwise not subject to censure.22
Ward's speech of May 30, 1944, seems a clear attempt to persuade
employees to remain aloof or disassociate themselves from the Union.
As I stated in my opinion in the Agar Packing & Provision Company
case,23 prior to the Decision in the Virginia Electric & Power Company
20 See N. L. R. B. v Fairmont Creamery Co., 143 F. (2d) 668 (C C. A. 10).
21 In January 1944, foreman Horner stated, "When the Union gets in Goodall Company,
there won't be any such thing as a lunch room pass," and, again, in April, he told a union
adherent that she had "better lay off the Union."
22 See N. L. R. B. v. Clinton Woolen Manufacturing Co., 141 F. (2d) 753 (C. C. A. 6);
Utah Copper Co. v. N. L. R. B., 139 F. (2d) 788 (C. C. A. 10).
22 58 N . L. R. B. 738.
GOODALL COMPANY 271
case,24 I had always assumed, along with the other members of the
Board, that the law required an employer to maintain a neutral attitude
towards labor organizations pending representation elections. However,
the law now seems settled that an employer's statements hostile to a
labor organization are expressions of opinion protected by the First
Amendment25 unless such statements are shown to be a necessary part
of a general scheme which places an unlawful restraint upon the free
choice of the Workers.28
The Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report recognizes these funda-
mental principles. However, his application of them, adopted by the
majority opinion is extremely questionable. The only acts cited in the
intermediate report which could be said to possess the character of
illegal interference or coercion are (1) the statement of the Committee,
cited above, (2) the statements of foreman Horner, and (3) respond-
ent's announcement, on the eve of the election, that the National War
Labor Board had approved the grant of vacations with pay.27 As noted
above, I do not believe that the evidence supporting the finding that
the activities of the Committee were binding upon respondent is sub-
stantial,28 or that the remarks by foreman Horner were sufficient to
render respondent's entire course of conduct coercive. With respect to
the announcement of the grant of paid vacations, the Trial Examiner
does not find that either respondent's application to the Regional Board
of the National War Labor Board for approval of the vacation plan
early in April, 1944, or his announcement of the application on April
12th was motivated by anti-union consideration ; his conclusion that
respondent's announcement of the War Labor Board's approval consti-
tuted interference, restraint, and coercion of the employees is based solely
upon the fact that respondent could have made the announcement as
early as April 28, 1944, but withheld it until the eve of the election.
This conclusion disregards the fact that the War Labor Board had
approved only a modified vacation plan, and that respondent had ap-
pealed its modification. Under these circumstances it would appear rea-
26 N. L. R. B. v. Virginia Electric & Power Co , 314 U S 469.
Y° See N. L. R B. v. American Tube Bending Co, 134 F (2d) 993 (C C A 2), 1943, cert.
den 320 U. S. 768.
26 See N. L R B. v. Trojan Powder Co, 135 F (2d) 337 (C C. A 3), 1943, cert. den.
320 U S 768
27 See Matter of Bear Brand Hosiery Co , 40 N. L R B. 323, enf'd 131 F. (2d) 731
(C C A 7); N. L. R. B. v. Jones Foundry & Machine Co, 123 F (2d) 552 (C. C. A. 7);
cf. Peter J. Schweitzer, Inc v. N L R B , 144 F (2d) 520 (App. D. C.).
78 See N. L R B. v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co, 306 U. S 292, where the Court
said, "Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla , and must do more than create a suspicion
of the existence of the face to be established , . . and it must be enough to justify, if the
trial were to a jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the conclusion sought to be drawn from
it is one of fact for the jury ." See Pennsylvania R Co v Chamberlain , 288 U. S 333, where,
in a personal injury case , the Court held that there was nothing for the jury to decide where all
the evidence points to one conclusion of fact and the finding as to the opposite conclusion could
be supported only by inference.
272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sonable for respondent to withhold any announcement until the War
Labor Board acted upon the appeal. However, since the War Labor
Board did not act upon the appeal to its modified approval of the plan
prior to the election, respondent was compelled, at the time of its speech
on the eve of the election, either to continue to withhold announcement
of the War Labor Board's modified approval-thus lending weight to
the Union's argument to the employees that its designation as employee
representative was necessary in order to secure certain benefits-or to
announce the modified approval of the plan in order to support respond-
ent's privileged argument that the designation of the Union would not
benefit the employees. That the respondent chose the latter alternative
seems, under all the circumstances, not an overt act which could be said
to give its expressions of anti-union sentiment the character of interfer-
ence, restraint, or coercion. The grant of vacations with pay was not
conditioned upon the defeat of the Union in the election, nor was there
any indication that the grant of vacations would be withdrawn in the
event the Union won the election.29 Further, the announcement here
did no more than answer certain claims made by the Union in the elec-
tion campaign. Thus, the Union, in one of its circulars distributed before
the election (Respondent's Exhibit No. 1-B), stated in part:
You Always Need A Union ! * * * Question : Can a union help
workers get an increase? Answer : More so than ever. Increases
are permissable, but getting them has become a complicated and
technical job. Without union help, you will find it most difficult to
secure an increase from your employer or even to get an increase
approved by the War Labor Board.
Another circular (Respondent's Exhibit No. 1-L) reads in part:
Wake up Goodall Workers. * * * Liebovitz Factory Is Organized
* * * All workers there with SIX MONTHS SENIORITY are
now to get one week's vacation with pay. Those with FIVE YEARS
SENIORITY are to receive two weeks vacation with pay! "Don't
you think?" IT'S TIME the GOODALL WORKERS received
some of these BENEFITS-benefits that come with an Amalga-
mated Union CONTRACT? * * *
Another circular (Respondent's Exhibit 1-N) states:
* * * 1. Could the Goodall Company have given us vacations with
pay long before now? 2. (Sic.) Yes! The War Labor Board would
have given permission months ago if the Company had asked. * * *
2. Why did the Company wait until April 12th to announce a ?
plan for vacations with pay? 2. Because the Company officials found
29 It should be noted that in Matter of Continental Oil Company, 58 N L. R. B. 169, Matter
of Seneca Knitting Mills, Inc , 59 N L R B 754, and Matter of Owens-Illinois Glass Company,
60 N. L R B 1015; the announcement of wage increases or vacation plans had the character
of interference principally in that they gave undue advantage to one of the two or more unions
who participated in the elections held subsequent to the announcements.
GOODALL COMPANY 273
out the day before (April 11th) at the Hearing that a majority of
us had joined the Union !30 * * * 4. Do you really think the Com-
pany will give us a paid vacation? 4. Not unless a majority of of
vote for the Union in the coming election ! * * *
The conclusion, therefore, that the totality of respondent's speeches
and statements was an act of restraint and coercion can not be sustained.
As said by the Supreme Court in Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88:
"In the circumstances of our times the dissemination of information con-
cerning the facts of a labor dispute must be regarded as within that
area of free discussion that is guaranteed by the Constitution."
I am of the opinion that the finding of my colleagues that respondent
has violated Section 8 (1) of the Act is erroneous. Accordingly, I would
dismiss the complaint and the Union's objections to the elections.31
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of they, National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
We will not interrogate our employees concerning their mem-
bership in or activities on behalf of Amalgamated Clothing Work-
ers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization.
We will not threaten our employees with loss of employment
benefits as a penalty for the exercise of the right to join or assist
a labor organization or to engage in concerted activities for their
mutual aid or protection.
We will not interfere in any other manner with the self-organiza-
tional rights of our employees. All our employees are free to become
or remain members of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
CIO, or any other labor organization.
GOODALL COMPANY,
Employer.
By ...............................
(Representative) (Title)
Dated .........................
This notice must remain po Led for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
so It is noted that the hearing did not elicit evidence that the Union represented a majority.
The Union submitted 445 application cards dated between September 1943 and March 1944.
There were approximately 945 employees in the appropriate unit, and apparently the cards
were not checked against respondent's pay roll
'i Altnough the employer had committed no unfair labor practices in Matter of Continental
Oil Co, supra, and the Board set aside the election because of the approval by the National War
Labor Board of a wage increase , the instant case is otherwise distinguishable See footnote 11,
supra