Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 1, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 825 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

HENRY I. SIEGAL CO., INC.
Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc . and W . C. Keaton , Former
Mayor of Hohenwald , Tennessee ,' and Amalga-
mated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO.
Case 26-CA-2081
July 1, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND ZAGORIA
On December 29, 1967, Trial Examiner Stanley
N. Ohlbaum issued his Decision in the above-enti-
tled proceeding, finding that Respondents had en-
gaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
they cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, both Respondents
filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting
briefs. The Charging Party filed cross-exceptions to
The Remedy portion of the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion and a supporting brief. Respondent Siegel filed
a motion to strike the cross-exceptions of Charging
Party and Charging Party filed an opposition to
Respondent Siegel's motion to strike.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Act, the National Labor Relations
Board has delegated its powers in connection with
case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the
Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Decision, the exceptions, the briefs,' and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Ex-
aminer, except as modified herein:
We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respon-
dent Siegel, both through its own executives and
through Mayor Keaton,' violated Section 8(a)( 1)
of the Act. We also agree with the Trial Examiner
that Mayor Keaton himself violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by his activities. We wish to make it
quite clear, however, that the violation is attributed
to him solely on the basis of his agency relationship
with Respondent Siegel.
ORDER4
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below and hereby orders that the Respondent,
825
Henry I. Siegel Co ., Inc., and its officers, agents,
successors , and assigns , and Respondent, W. C.
Keaton, former Mayor of Hohenwald, Tennessee,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer 's Recommended Order , as so modified:
Section 1(b) of the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order is hereby deleted in its entirety and
the following substituted:
"b. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
"(1) Respondent Siegel shall post in its factory
in Hohenwald, Tennessee, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix B."' Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 26, after being duly signed by said
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by said Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by said Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
"(2) Respondents, jointly and severally, shall
notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
' The record discloses that Respondent Keaton is no longer Mayor of
Hohenwald , Tennessee , his term of office having expired on or about May
8, 1967 Thus we grant Respondent Keaton 's motion to amend the caption
of this case by inserting after his name and before the phrase "Mayor of
Hohenwald , Tennessee ," the word " Former "
We also amend the Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order to include
Respondent Keaton only as former Mayor of Hohenwald and delete any
reference to his agents and successors
' Assuming arguendo that the Charging Party's cross-exceptions were
timely filed, we find them to he without merit
Cf N L R B v La/a' Butler Apparel C'onipaiii, 392 F 2d 76 (C A 5)
It is our opinion that this case does not warrant the unusual remedy
recommended by the Trial Examiner Accordingly , we will adopt the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order only to the extent it is consistent with the
following modifications Furthermore, we will delete the Trial Examiner's
proposed notice, marked "Appendix B," and substitute a notice which we
believe to constitute a more appropriate remedy for the unfair labor prac-
tices involved In so doing we do not intend to imply that the unfair labor
practices involved are not aggravated , but only that the Recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner is not appropriate
In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, there shall he substituted for the words ".i Decision and
Order " the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforc-
ing an Order "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National
Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate
the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, we hereby notify you that:
172 NLRB No. 88
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT directly or indirectly threaten
any employee with plant shutdown, strikes,
violence, job loss, discharge, reduction of over-
time or of other work opportunities, loss or
jeopardization of existing job benefits, loss of
future employment opportunities through
failure of other industries to locate or remain
in this area, community disruption or disin-
tegration, hazard or danger to family well-be-
ing, or any other economic harm, loss, detri-
ment, disadvantage, reprisal or retaliation, in
the event of unionization or because of other
lawful organizational membership, affiliation,
sympathy, support, assistance or activity, or for
engaging or attempting to engage in the right
to bargain collectively or exercise or attempt
to exercise any other right under the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT directly or indirectly threaten
any employee that union membership is futile
since no advantage or benefit would be derived
therefrom which would not be derived in the
absence thereof.
WE WILL NOT directly or indirectly threaten,
inform, or advise any employee that in the
event of unionization he will no longer be able
to exercise the right to present individual
grievances or complaints to or discuss mutual
problems affecting his employment directly
with his employer
WE WILL NOT directly or indirectly make any
threat or any inducement involving threat or
the withholding of threat of economic harm to
any employee or employee's family, so as to
procure or attempt to procure any employee to
deal with his employer individually instead of
bargaining collectively.
WE WILL NOT directly or indirectly interfere
with, restrain, coerce, or threaten any em-
ployee in the exercise of his right to select,
elect , designate , be represented by, or bargain
collectively through any labor organization of
the employees' choice.
WE WILL NOT directly or indirectly threaten
any employee that he will be better off and
have more to gain by dealing with his employer
individually instead of through a union.
WE WILL NOT directly or indirectly in any
other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
any employee in the exercise of his right to
self-organization; to form, join, or assist any
labor organization; to bargain collectively
through representatives of his own choosing, to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any and all such
activities.
All employees are free to join or not to join
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, or any other union , as employees see fit,
without any threats , interference , restraint , or coer-
cion from us or either of us in any way, shape, or
form.
HENRY I. SIEGEL CO., INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
W. C KEATON, FORMER
MAYOR OF HOHENWALD,
TENNESSEE
Dated By
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
defaced or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 746 Federal Office Building , 167 North
Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38103,
Telephone 534-3171.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
STANLEY N. OHLBAUM, Trial Examiner: This case
was heard before me in the Lewis County, Tennes-
see, Courthouse at Hohenwald, Tennessee, on June
29 and September 11-13, 1967, upon pleadings
consisting of a complaint of General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, issued through the
Board ' s Regional Director for Region 26 on
April 14 and answer of Respondent Siegel (Em-
ployer)dated April 18 and of Respondent Keaton
dated April 20, 1967, arising out of a charge filed
by the above Union on April 14, 1965. Although
the charge lists violations of Section 8(a)(I) and
(5), the complaint is limited to allegations of viola-
tions of Section 8(a)( I) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et
seq. (Act), as will be detailed.
All parties appeared and were represented
throughout by counsel' who have fully availed
themselves of opportunities afforded to present
evidence and contentions, propose findings and
conclusions, and file briefs. Briefs were received
from the parties around November 28, 1967.
'Respondent Ke.iton, an attorney . appeared on his own behalf
HENRY I. SIEGAL CO., INC. 827
The evidence and the parties' contentions having
been carefully considered, upon the entire record2
and my observation of the witnesses I make the fol-
lowing:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
IL JURISDICTION
At all material times, Respondent Henry I. Siegel
Co., Inc. (Siegel or Employer), has been and is a
New York corporation qualified to do business in
the State of Tennessee and having a place of busi-
ness consisting of a factory in Hohenwald, Tennes-
see, where it has been engaged in manufacture of
men's clothing. During the 12-month representative
period immediately preceding issuance of the com-
plaint, said Respondent in the course and conduct
of its said operations received at its Hohenwald
plant, directly from outside of Tennessee, goods
valued at over $50,000, and during the same period
shipped from its said plant, directly to places out-
side of Tennessee, finished products of like value. I
find that at all material times said Respondent has
been and is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
At all material times, Respondent Keaton has
been mayor of Hohenwald, Tennessee, until on or
about May 8, 1967, when his term of office ex-
pired.
At all material times, Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, AFL-CIO (Charging Party or
Union), has been and is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
I find that assertion of jurisdiction in this
proceeding is proper.
III. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Issues
The issues presented are whether Respond-
ent Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act through warning its employees in various
ways of dire consequences (including loss of exist-
ing economic benefits and work, strikes, violence,
plant closure, and community deterioration) as well
as futility of selection of the Union as the em-
ployees' bargaining representative; and whether
Respondent Keaton (mayor of Hohenwald)
participated in and assisted such actions by circu-
lating among employees printed material to that ef-
fect.
B. Background
Hohenwald is a small Tennessee community
whose population is said by its former mayor to
have risen from about 1,700 in 1951 to over 3,100
in 1965, with an increase during that period of in-
dustrially employed from 225 (excluding lumber-
ing) to 1,300 In 1954, a 20-year lease-purchase
agreement had been entered into between Respon-
dent Siegel, the city of Hohenwald, and Lewis
County, Tennessee, involving construction of a fac-
tory building to be occupied by Siegel in Hohen-
wald. Financing for the construction was through
issuance by the city of Hohenwald (40 percent) and
Lewis County (60 percent) of general obligation
bonds ($200,000) and industrial revenue bonds
($100,000) pursuant to 1951 enabling legislation of
the State of Tennessee. The 1954 agreement was
executed by Respondent Keaton on behalf of the
city of Hohenwald and by Respondent Em-
ployer Vice President Sam Siegel (as well as by
a Lewis County official). Undoubtedly the mu-
nicipally subsidized construction of this factory
building for Respondent Siegel had much to do
with the subsequent development of the communi-
ty. At the times here primarily material, since the
beginning of 1965, Respondent Siegel has em-
ployed a sewing machine operator force of approxi-
mately 400, predominatly women, at its Hohenwald
men's clothing factory, which has always been
operated as a nonunion enterprise. It was the ef-
forts to unionize the plant and bargain collectively
with Siegel in early 1965 which culminated in the
present proceedings. Specifically, the campaign to
unionize Siegel's Hohenwald operators finally
resulted in a union recognitional-bargaining request
and an employer refusal to recognize or bargain, in
January 1965. In view of a Union offer of proof
(described below), not objected to by Re-
spondents but rejected by the Trial Examiner for
reasons to be detailed, it is assumed for purposes of
this proceeding that the Union's January 1965
recognitional-bargaining request was a continuing
one and that with respect thereto the Union did in
fact hold unequivocal, unambiguous, and otherwise
valid collective-bargaining representative designa-
tion cards duly signed by precisely 50 percent of
Respondent's Hohenwald plant employees in a con-
ventional production and maintenance unit ap-
propriate' for bargaining purposes.
The election conducted under Board auspices on
April 9, 1965' was lost by the Union by vote of 223
Transcript as corrected by Trial Examiner's November 17, 1967, order
on notice
In his March 9, 1965, Decision and Direction of Election , Regional
Director for Region 26 found such unit appropriate
' The Board Decision (Case 26-RM-179) of June 28, 1966, appears to
he in error in stating this election took place on April 8 , 1965 Decision was
reserved at the instant hearing upon Respondent Employer's objection to
the Charging Party's application (unopposed by General Counsel) to take
official notice of that proceeding and receive in evidence that decision The
objection is hereby overruled and the decision received as Charging Party's
Exh I
828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to 159.5 The Union filed objections to employer
misconduct allegedly affecting the election result.
By its order of June 28, 1966, the Board deter-
mined that, in view of employer preelection
misconduct consisting of actions here at bar alleged
to have constituted unfair labor practices, the elec-
tion should be set aside and reconducted when con-
ditions allow. Notwithstanding the passage of more
than 2-1/2 years since the election and over a year
since the Board decision, no reelection has yet been
held.
Involved in the actions here for consideration are
Respondent's President Jesse S. Siegel , Vice Pre-
sident Sam Siegel - (Jesse's uncle), and Plant
Manager Herbert Honick; as well as Hohenwald's
former Mayor Keaton.
C. Alleged Interference, Restraint , and Coercion
1. March 31 and April 6 actions of Respondent
Employer Vice President Sam Siegel
The complaint alleges that on or about March 31
and April 6, 1965, Respondent Siegel through let-
ters to employees from its vice president, Sam
Siegel , warned employees that selection of the
Union as bargaining representative would be futile,
and would be attended by disruption of community
relations and detriment to community industrial
growth, as well as the probability of strikes,
violence, and loss of work.
It is conceded that Respondent Employer dis-
tributed to all of its employees, in person or by
mail, on March 31 and April 6, 1965, letters of its
Vice President Sam Siegel which form the basis
for these allegations . Respondent, however,
denies that either of the letters says or means
what is alleged in the complaint; defending
on the further ground that the letters were lawful
under Section 8(c) of the Act and in proper exer-
cise of the "free speech" guarantee of the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
It is undisputed that on March 31, 1965, Respon-
dent Employer, through its Vice President Sam
Siegel wrote and distributed in person or by mail to
all of its Hohenwald employees a two-page letter,
on letterhead of H-I-S Sportswear Division of
Henry I. Siegel Co ., Inc., New York Office, 16 East
34th Street, N. Y. The letter (G.C. Exh. 2C), dated
at Bruceton , Tennessee, and addressed "Dear
Friends," states:
For the past eleven years, the Hohenwald plant
has operated in peace and harmony. Friday
morning, April 9, you will have the opportunity
to determine whether or not this will continue.
This is a most serious decision , not only for
you but for your loved ones , relatives and all
members of this community. The vote you cast
in the election to be conducted by the National
Labor Relations Board, may very well decide
the future progress and industrial growth of
this plant.
Therefore, in order for you to make the most
intelligent decision, you must be informed of
all the facts. The purpose of this letter is to
place these facts before you-without preju-
dice-without influence. The decision will be
yours alone.
THESE ARE THE FACTS
[There follows a series of statements purpor-
tedly describing the economic advantages en-
joyed by workers at Respondent Siegel's facto-
ry-including good wages, insurance benefits,
overtime, vacations, and unsurpassed modern
working conditions. ]
THOSE ARE THE FACTS, SIMPLE, CON-
CISE AND CLEAR.
Union organizers cannot present you with any
facts . They can only make promises. Their
promises are entirely irresponsible . Irresponsi-
ble because they are in no position to assure
you that they will be fulfilled . The union itself,
no matter what they promise you CAN NOT
SET PRODUCTION STANDARDS-CAN
NOT CHANGE WORKING CONDITIONS-
CAN NEITHER HIRE NOR FIRE-NOR
MAKE ANY CHANGES WHATSOEVER IN
PLANT OPERATIONS. The union can
guarantee you nothing.
REMEMBER!
ONLY THE COMPANY PROVIDES JOBS.
ONLY THE COMPANY PAYS INSURANCE
BENEFITS.
ONLY THE COMPANY MAKES VACA-
TIONS AND PAID HOLIDAYS POSSIBLE.
What can the union do? They can collect dues,
levy fines and assessments. Control your ac-
tions as an employee. Call strikes.
Look around you in a neighboring community
the results of union agitation are easy to be
seen. Violence-loss of work-disruption of
community relations-destruction of -private
property-a town divided. Do you want this for
Hohenwald? I hope this letter has served its
purpose to acquaint you with the facts so that
you can make an intelligent decision. I urge
you on Friday, April 9th, to vote for continued
& The same Board Decision of June 28, 1966, appears to be in further
error in stating (p 1, fn I) that of the 387 ballots cast, -159 were for. 382
were against , the Union - The Regional Director's June 23, 1965 , Supple-
mental Decision and Direction of Second Election states that, of the 387
ballots cast (of a total of approximately 395 eligibles), 159 were for and
223 against the Union
HENRY I. SIEGAL CO., INC. 829
peace and harmony in this community , to vote
for future progress and industrial growth. This
can be done by simply VOTING NO.
Sincerely yours,
Sam Siegel
It is also undisputed that a week later, on April 6,
1965, 3 days before the election , Respondent Em-
ployer , through its Vice President Sam Siegel, dis-
tributed to all of its Hohenwald employees, in per-
son or by mail, a further two-page letter (G.C. Exh.
2D) on the same letterhead, again addressed to
them as "Dear Friends," pointing out that "The day
of decision is fast approaching " and urging them to
vote since "The importance of your vote can not be
over emphasized." The letter stresses in capitalized
letters that employees can vote against the Union
even if they signed union cards. After indicating
emphatically by underlining that the Union "itself"
cannot " arrange things so that you work less and
get as much or more pay," the letter goes on to say:
One thing is certain with a union comes
dues , fines , and assessments-and the possibili-
ty of strikes-violence and loss of work. The
rest of the rosy picture the union paints is
nothing but empty promises-that they do not
have the power to guarantee.
There is only one realistic way to continue
the past eleven years of progress in this plant.
That is to do what you have been doing. The
spirit of cooperation and harmony that you
have exhibited during this long period has
made the benefits that you receive possible.
In closing , let me repeat you must exercise
your right to vote and by your absence not per-
mit others to exercise it for you . A vote against
the union will assure the continued progress of
the plant and the spirit of cooperation and har-
mony that we have all enjoyed in the past.
Friday morning-you owe it to yourself to
VOTE NO.
It is undisputed that on April 7, 1965, 2 days be-
fore the election , another letter on Respondent Em-
ployer 's letterhead, this time dated at Hohenwald
and signed "Herb" by Siegel Plant Manager Her-
bert Honick, was distributed to all employees in
person or by mail. This letter (G.C. Exh. 2E), after
an introduction to the effect that the writer was im-
pelled to break his silence by his reluctance to "be
letting all of you down" by not speaking out,
dismisses "the wild promises you have received" as
"baloney." It then goes on to state:
I am concerned with the possible loss of a won-
derful privilege that we both enjoy-that of the
two of us sitting down face to face- two free
human beings , and discussing our mutual
problems . You know that now, as in the past,
all it takes to see me is to walk into my office
Problems of all kinds are discussed-personal
ones as well as those relating to work. No one
has ever left my office without knowing that
everything humanly possible would be done to
solve these problems. These problems are
resolved on a personal basis-not by a commit-
tee-not by filling out forms that are passed
around from one person to another to be read
on a certain day of the week.
The relationship, that we both know works,
would end if a union is voted in tomorrow. I
don't think you want this. You can express
your desire for this kind of relationship to con-
tinue by voting NO tomorrow.
Sincerely,
/s/ Herb
Herb Honick
P. S. If by any chance you need transportation
in order to vote Friday call me at the factory
phone number 796-3241 or my home phone
number 796-3203. I will see to it that you get a
ride.
Sincerely yours,
Sam Siegel
2. April 7 action of Respondent Employer Plant
Manager Honick
The complaint also alleges that on or about April
7, 1965, Respondent Siegel through a letter to em-
ployees from its Plant Manager Herbert Honick
warned them that selection of the Union as bargain-
ing representative would result in withdrawal of
personal relationships so as in essence to prevent or
impair effective resolution of employees' problems.
Respondent Siegel 's defenses to these allegations
are the same as those already described relating to
Sam Siegel.
3. April 8 action of Respondent Employer
President Jesse Siegel
The complaint further alleges that on or about
April 8, 1965, Respondent Siegel through a speech
to employees by its President Jesse S. Siegel warned
employees that selection of the Union as their
representative would be futile and would result in
possible loss of existing benefits , in plant closure or
reduction of work opportunities, and in strikes and
violence.
Respondent Siegel's defenses again dispute the
construction placed upon what was said , and affir-
matively set up its right to say what it did in the ex-
ercise of " free speech."
It is undisputed that between about 9 and 10
o'clock in the morning of April 8, 1965 (the day be-
fore the election commencing I1 a.m. on the fol-
830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lowing day6), Respondent's Hohenwald employees
were assembled during working hours at the plant
to listen to a speech by Respondent President Jesse
Siegel, who was introduced by his uncle, Respon-
dent Vice President Sam Siegel. The introductory
(and closing) remarks of Sam Siegel and the main
speech by Jesse Siegel were recorded and are un-
disputed. After an introduction by his uncle Sam,
who recollected his nephew as a dirty-faced
youngster who "always needed a nickel or dime to
buy something, just like your kids need it," and
who rose to the occasion and ultimately through his
own ability became president after his father's
death, Jesse Siegel told the employees (G.C. Exh.
2F):
I am the son of the founder of this company,
Henry I. Siegel. At his death some sixteen
years ago, the responsibilities of running this
business were dropped into my hands. The tri-
als and tribulations that are a natural part of
this or any business often cause me to wonder
if my inheritance was entirely a good thing. By
and large the past sixteen years have been
gratifying.
The Hohenwald plant holds a special place in
my business career. For it marks the first new
factory that was opened during my administra-
tion. I had many doubts ten years ago that I
would be able to successfully begin a new ven-
ture. The success, that has been achieved in
Hohenwald quite frankly gave me the con-
fidence I needed to go further in the expansion
of this business. Hohenwald, then, marks a real
milestone in my business career. I finally felt
that I could continue in my father's footsteps.
I sincerely feel that if I can convince you of the
rightness of my views-then the future success
of Hohenwald will be assured.
All I ask of you is to hear me out. Consider
carefully what I have to say and then make
your own independent decision. Free of in-
fluence-free of prejudice.
A wise man once said the only way we can
learn what the future will bring is to study the
past. A careful analysis of the history and
development of this plant is the best means of
predicting its future.
More than a decade ago this plant was opened.
It was in many ways a cooperative venture
between the people of Hohenwald and Lewis
County and the Siegel Company. Your elected
city and county officials agreed to raise the
money to build the factory through a bond
issue and the Siegel company agreed to sign a
lease guaranteeing the payment of these bonds.
We also agreed to provide employment to the
fullest extent. Right from the beginning, then-
the opening of the Hohenwald plant was a kind
of partnership between the people of this com-
munity, you included, and the Henry I. Siegel
Company. It is not necessary to point out that
no union had anything whatsoever to do with
the inception of this new industry in Hohen-
wald. No union put up any of the money, no
union provided any of the employment. In fact,
they were not on the scene at all.
[Siegel then reviewed in detail the progress of
the Company "from an initial force of fifty to
the present staff of more than four hundred,"
the growth of earnings, the continuous employ-
ment, the employees' insurance coverages, and
the total absence of union credit for any of the
foregoing.]
People are asking what will happen to the in-
surance plans they now have if the union is
voted in? That is an unanswerable question. It
will be a subject for negotiation. No one, union
organizers included, can tell you now what the
results will be, however I can tell you that the
plan you now have will continue if the union is
not voted in.
[Siegel again referred to existing plant
benefits-"fob security and seniority rights"
and "vacation benefits ," with a reminder of an
upcoming September base pay increase and
additional paid holiday.]
In the same way that this plant was a coopera-
tive venture from the beginning- in all fairness
I must vigorously proclaim that all the benefits
I have enumerated could not have materialized
without your cooperation .... Truly- the spirit
of industriousness, cooperation and harmoni-
ous action that you have so willingly evidenced
since the start of this plant , have made it possi-
ble for these benefits to occur . Actually you
alone have made all of this happen. I am con-
fident that as long as this spirit continues the
future progress of this plant is assured.
I have spent some time now going over the
benefits you have . Let us examine the promises
the union so brazenly makes.
This combination of less work and more
"The rule cnumciated by the Board in Peerless Phnood C'ooipum, 107
NLRB 427, forbids, upon penalty of setting an election aside, a preelection
speech within 24 hours of a Board-conducted election Sam Siegel's closing
remarks (G C. Exh 2F) indicate these speeches were concluded at "ten
o'clock." The Siegels' preelection speeches were thus delivered approxi-
mately 25 hours prior to the election
HENRY I. SIEGAL CO., INC. 831
money is at the heart of the union promise. I
sometimes wonder if they think you have no
intelligence at all, if they take you to be so
foolish as to believe that they have the power
to make this come true , when all the evidence
tells an entirely different story.
Let's suppose that their wild promise could be
realized-what would it mean. In our highly
competitive industry , the ability to manufacture
goods competitively is of prime importance if a
plant is to operate successfully . There are hun-
dreds of pants manufacturers throughout the
country who would immediately be in a posi-
tion to cut into your work . This kind of ir-
responsible promise reveals the short sighted-
ness and shallow nature of the union's interest
in the future progress of our plant . They feel
you understand so little about the true situa-
tion that you will grab the bait without noticing
the hook in it. In my opinion , if such a promise
could come true it might well be the beginning
of the end of the progress of the Hohenwald
plant.
In the final analysis it is the company 's respon-
sibility to it's-employees to make certain that
they are getting every possible advantage-in
forms of higher wages- insurance and other
fringe benefits that are consistant with the con-
tinuing competitive position of the plant....
People are asking , "if the union is not voted in
will engineers be back ?" The answer to that
question is simple. That engineering job is over
and they will not be back . However, I do not
mean to imply that your company will not con-
tinue to seek out ways of improving production
in the future ... I feel proud of the fact that
the latest engineering program was able to
raise earnings in this plant from 15 to 20%.
The company gained additional production.
You got more money. The business was more
competitive . The position of the company in
the industry improved . Everyone benefited.
Union organizers tell you that they are a
responsible union-not a bunch of hoodlums.
They tell you that they are a peaceful union.
They do not tell the whole story . Less than six
months ago this same union was engaged in a
violent strike in another part of the state.' Not
many years ago this union was involved in a
protracted strike in a nearby community, Mt.
Pleasant ." The result of both these strikes was
that the plants closed and were later sold to
other companies. In our own history with the
union in 1946-a long , violent, and destructive
strike took place in our Dickson plant.9
You have only to look around you in your
neighboring community , to see the destructive
forces of unionism . I am told that that city is
torn with strife, violence- law breaking-
hostility between neighbors and loss of work
are paralyzing the community . There is no
reason for this to happen in Hohenwald.
This is an important decision which you will be
making and you owe it to yourself, your family
and the community to consider carefully what
is best for you. Will you disturb the peace and
harmony of this plant for the irresponsible
promises of the union and the doubtful
privilege of paying dues? Will you turn over
the right to act and think for yourself in
exchange for control over all your actions as
an employee of this plant ? Will you risk strikes
and violence to satisfy a union whose primary
interest is to feather its own next [ sic]? The
answer should be obvious!
You have heard my views. I appreciate the at-
tention and courtesy that you have so kindly
afforded me. I am certain that if you consider
carefully what I have had to say the rightness
of my opinion will become clear.
However the decision tomorrow will be yours.
That is the way it ought to be . Because you are
the factory . It is your future and you can make
it what you will.
[Siegel assures the employees their decision
will be "respected by the company " and urges
them to vote and then " return to work in a
spirit of good neighborliness."]
In conclusion let me extend my good wishes to
you all-and let me urge you one more time to
reject the union tomorrow and continue the
progress of this plant and community. VOTE
NO. Thank you very much.
Jesse Siegel's uncle, Sam Siegel, thereupon pointed
out to the assembled employees that "It is ten
o'clock now and as you know it's April 8th and I
would appreciate it very much to turn the machines
on one at a time. Don't turn them on at one time
because the fuses will blow . Just one at a time start
turning them on and let's go back to work and good
luck. Thank you."
4. April 1 and 8 actions of Mayor Keaton
The complaint additionally alleges that on or
about April l and 8 , 1965, Respondent Siegel
through distribution of a newspaper editorial (April
I) and a newspaper advertisement (April 8) to its
employees by its agent Respondent Keaton warned
its employees that selection of the Union as their
' No data have been supplied here regarding this
" No data have been supplied here regarding this
" A resume of Board cases involving, among others, Siegel's Dickson,
Tennessee, plant may he found in Table I. infra
832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining representative would be futile and would
result in possible loss of existing benefits, reduction
in overtime work, plant closure, strikes, violence,
and loss of employment opportunities through
failure of other industries to locate in the area.
Respondents' defenses are again the same, except
that, additionally, Keaton's agency and Siegel's
responsibility for his actions are denied.
Called by General Counsel as a witness, William
Capelle Keaton, Sr., testified that he was mayor of
Hohenwald from 1951 to May 1967. It would seem,
according to testimony of Keaton which I credit,
that some 20 years ago, when he relocated in
Hohenwald to start an insurance agency and prac-
tice law, industry being almost totally lacking in the
area, he with others set about to attract industry to
the community. Accordingly, a civic club was
founded in 1946 or 1947, with himself as its first
secretary. A country club was also formed, of
which he likewise was a charter member and at
various times (including the present) president. In
1951 he was elected mayor of Hohenwald on an in-
dustrialization platform-"That was the only reason
I ran." Thereafter he was reelected and held office
as mayor for 16 years without opposition. To
launch the industrialization program, he designed
and circulated throughout the United States a
brochure to attract industries to locate in Lewis
County. In these endeavors he was assisted by an
informal local industrial development group. As a
result of these efforts under his leadership, around
1954, for the first time in Tennessee history indus-
trial bonds pledging the credit of local government
were authorized and floated to finance or subsidize
private industrial construction. This was accom-
plished with participation by two local banks, with
a portion of the bond issue subsequently retired and
acquired by the State of Tennessee. At or about the
same time (1954), Mayor Keaton was approached
by Respondent Siegel concerning the possibilities of
similarly municipally financed plant construction of
a factory employing 300-400 workers. Ensuing
negotiations apparently resulted in Siegel's assump-
tion of obligations relating to the existing plant,
which was to be enlarged to suit Siegel's specifica-
tions, through a further municipal bond issue,
which appears to have been authorized by local
vote following a campaign in which Mayor Keaton
enlisted public support. A portion of the interest
service cost of the first industrial bond issue of
$200,000 was defrayed by the city and county.
Also testifying as General Counsel's witness, Cur-
tis M. Barrow, the current secretary of Lewis Coun-
ty Civic Club, described that club as "similar to the
Chamber of Commerce," agreeing that "for practi-
cal purposes ... the membership ... consists of the
businessmen in or near Hohenwald ... including
the Henry I. Siegel Company.""' The club's expen-
ses are defrayed by dues of its members (1 18 in
1965) as well as a horse show. Consistent with
Mayor Keaton's testimony as to its purpose, the
civic club appears to have maintained interest in
local industrial development along approved lines.
Thus, its minutes for February 25, 1963, show that
Mayor Keaton reported to the club" meeting on
various matters, including a new hospital, expanded
water system, and also a meeting that night to
stimulate an "increase in the industrial bond"; 12
further (G.C. Exh. 3):
Mayor Keaton announced that there would
[be] a hearing of National Labor Relations
Board on March 14.1L All business men were
encouraged and urged to stand up against the
union .12 It is the only way we can attract indus-
try. It is the problem of the people of Lewis
county and the city of Hohenwald.12 If the peo-
ple don't stand to gether we are through
because we do not have location or resources
to attract industry. 12 Industry is worried about
organized labor and will not go where it is or-
ganized. Bob Beaver [?]. Reported that if plans
went through the plant would be increased
109,000 sq. ft. and there would be from 80 to
160 more employees. This would give an in-
crease in male jobs. The least take home pay per
employee is $1.43 per hour. The plant average
for the last 6 Wks was $1.61 per hour. The
labor for the plant is excellent, but experience
is needed.
In his testimony, Mayor Keaton acknowledged
that at civic club meetings he has voiced opposition
to union activity in Hohenwald and Lewis County
because "I did not think they needed it," since
"about the only asset we have here" is "fine people
here who are native born people, who are trainable
.. As far as fighting for these people here, I'll
fight for them tomorrow and from now on to see
that they are treated fairly. I didn't think that we
needed anybody else to come in and see to their
welfare...." Although he at first denied knowledge
of a unionizing campaign at the Siegel plant, he
shortly thereafter conceded that he knew a union
was trying to gain entry there "as soon as the plant
came here."" He and Respondent Vice President
Sam Siegel are friends-"I have visited in his home
for years and Mr. Siegel has visited in my home on
"' Although Barrow stated that "anyone can belong" who pays dues,
Mayor Keaton later conceded that the percentage of workingmen members
"would he very small" and he named none Respondent Vice President
Sam Siegel and Plant Manager Herbert Honick are members
" Cnic Club Secretary Barross explained that the Mayor of Hohenwald
(who is also a member of the club) "has regularly attended" the club's
meetings and as a regular feature reports on civic developments and
progress
" Mayor Keaton explained that this particular industrial bond was for
the building of Lewis Products Company
" Sam Siegel's laconic comment on this subject was, "The Amalgamated
Clothing were engaged in organizing the Siegel Company for the last 20
years " According to Union West Tennessee Director Clearon A Smith,
the organizing campaign at the Siegel Hohenwald plant commenced
around September 1962
HENRY I. SIEGAL CO., INC.
many occasions." Sam Siegel also conceded that "It
is well known ... in the community that (I] and he
[Mayor Keaton] are good friends." According to
Siegel, he visits or speaks to Mayor Keaton most of
the time when he comes to Hohenwald, perhaps
averaging monthly, from his residence and office in
Bruceton. Following the Board-conducted union
election on April 9, Mayor Keaton repaired to the
Siegel plant at Sam Siegel's invitation to supply ad-
ditional police patrols "in case there was any van-
dalism, or anything around there."
In March 1965, shortly before the April 9 union
election at Siegel's Hohenwald factory, Siegel Vice
President Sam Siegel-according to his testimony-
readily supplied Mayor Keaton, at the latter's
request, with the names and addresses of Siegel's
factory employees." According to Siegel, he
neither inquired nor did Keaton indicate the pur-
pose of the list; in Siegel's words:
I didn't even think about it .... We are ac-
customed with city officials asking different
things of the company to help them out to get
industry .... He [Mayor Keaton] wants to
prove the point that we have so many people
working and so many men would be available
to go to work.
The weekly Lewis County Herald is the only locally
published newspaper in Lewis County. At all times
here material its editor (and, apparently, also
owner) was and is Hulon O. Dunn, Mayor Keaton's
nephew, whom Keaton was instrumental in relocat-
ing in Hohenwald and acquiring the newspaper.
Knowing (according to Keaton's testimony) that
Dunn's views were, the same as Keaton' s, anti-
union , Keaton suggested to Dunn that "it would be
well if he would comment about the coming elec-
tion at the Siegel plant." Dunn did so in an editorial
in the April 1, 1965, issue, which-utilizing the list
of employees received from Sam Siegel-Keaton
distributed by mail to all Siegel employees. This
editorial, thus distributed to those employees,
states:
Remember when Hohenwald was a one-horse
town with gravel streets, homes heated with
wood, average income was $400.00 per family
a year, upon graduation from high school or
college young people had to seek employment
out of the county and even out of the state?
Why? Simply because there was no employ-
ment to be had in Lewis County.
But things have changed in the last few years.
Now industry is here, the standard of living has
risen to its highest point in the history of the
county.
Why did industry come to Hohenwald?
Because there was a bountiful labor supply,
and because people in Lewis County were in-
" It is noted that, according to the Board's June 28, 1966, decision, a
similar request by the Union for a voters' eligibility list was refused by
833
terested in seeing Hohenwald a better place to
live, because some people in Lewis County
wanted home folks to be able to find employ-
ment in Lewis County, and because some peo-
ple in Lewis County did a heck of a lot of work
and a good job selling Lewis County to indus-
trial heads. These are but a few of the reasons
we are now living "higher on the hog" and our
young people can find jobs when they become
of job age.
Now there are outsiders who have no interest
in Lewis County, except the money that can be
derived from industrial employees, who are
seeking to unionize employees at the Henry I.
Siegel Company. We understand the Amalga-
mated Clothing Workers of America are to
hold an election in April.
We fail to see how a union can benefit em-
ployees of the Henry I Siegel Company, which
pays among top salaries in the clothing indus-
try, and has a $1 million annual payroll in
Lewis County.
WE BELIEVE a vote for the union would
jeopardize the future industrial expansion of
Lewis County.
WE BELIEVE you will not have as many dol-
lars in your possession at the end of the year if
the plant here is organized.
We believe you will not work as much over-
time, as you now enjoy.
WE BELIEVE your fringe benefits will be no
better, if as good, if your plant is organized.
WE BELIEVE there's a chance violence could
erupt if the plant is organized, as has been the
case in numerous other places in the state, and
when it is over, we believe friendships, man's
most important and cherished earthly posses-
sion would never be the same.
WE BELIEVE very few people in Hohenwald
believe in this kind of actions.
WE BELIEVE, if you will think straight, rely
solely on your own judgment, you will know
you have nothing to gain by organizing the
Henry I Siegel Company.
* * * *
FREE COPY
If you are one of the people this week that
Siegel, resulting in a union objection to the election which was sub-
sequently sustained by the Regional Director
354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt 1 - 54
834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
receives a free copy of the Herald, whether
you are a resident of the County or work in the
county, we urge you to examine it carefully
and we would also invite you to become a
weekly subscriber if you find it interesting.
Thereafter Mayor Keaton, according to his
testimony, personally designed and prepared the
copy for,15 and inserted and personally paid for, a
full double-page notice or advertisement which ap-
peared in the Lewis County Herald of April 8, 1965
(curiously, one side of the advertisement-upper
left corner-bears the date April 1), the day before
the election. Further according to Mayor Keaton's
testimony, he also at his own personal expense had
this issue of the newspaper mailed to all Siegel em-
ployees;' and, still further, at his own personal ex-
pense, he "employed some boys" to distribute co-
pies of this double-page spread not only in the au-
tomobiles in the Siegel plant parking lot-including
those of executives there-but also in "cars all over
town" and in "the rest of the plants and on the
streets uptown" as well as probably in residences.
Mayor Keaton avers he has never in any way been
reimbursed, and that he does not expect reimburse-
ment," for any of these alleged out-of-pocket ex-
penses, estimated by him at $300 which he claims
to have paid to his newspaperman nephew.
This double-page standard-size newspaper spread
(G.C. Exh. 2B) is contained within an overall heavy
black border and is headed, in large dark print,
with three columns underneath also in large dark
print:
HOHENWALD, LEWIS COUNTY, TENNES-
SEE, U. S. A.
Yesterday Today Tomorrow.
At the bottom it is subscribed, "W. C. KEATON,
Mayor."
The Yesterday column is apparently intended as
an accurate review of the past. The first entry is
"1941-'John Just Left Town for Dee-troit."' The
ensuing items refer to 1951, 1958, and 1964, show-
ing, among other things, an increase in industrial
employment (lumbering apparently excluded only
for year 1951) from 225 to 1,300, population from
1,700 to 3,134 (March 1965 for this item), retail
businesses from 75 to 135," and rise in per capita
income from $679 to $2,200.
The Today column, presumably intended as a
fractual overview of the existing situation-it starts
out by stating, "We hope to point out facts-NOT
FICTION"-is subheaded in heavy print: "Today
Hohenwald stands at the crossroads. What cross-
roads?" After pointing out that the column's author
(the mayor) may through this expression be
"lay[ing] ourselves, our families, and our property
open to physical attack, and distruction [sic] ...
but-if this be true then such is our destiny , .."
and implying that Hohenwald will continue to
prosper "if all things are equal," Mayor Keaton's
Today column goes on to state:
Let's get down to brass tacks, get our heads
out of the sand, be honest with ourselves, think
about the future and the welfare of Not Only
Ourselves But Of Our Children and Our
Neighbors Children.
What Do We Stand To Gain if the Henry I.
Seigel Co. plant is organized?
Do the workers in the two plants of the Seigel
Co. which are organized receive better wages,
better insurance plans and fringe benefits,
more regular work, more overtime, more take
home pay than the Hohenwald plant?
Why don't we do some honest checking and
find out. I don't believe those workers are in as
good a position as are ours.
If nothing then is to be gained, what do our
workers stand to lose?
(1) $10,000 to $15,000 per year in union
dues.
(2) Possibly reduction in wages to those of the
union.
(3) Possibly reduction of Insurance plans to
those of the union.
(4) Liberty and freedom.
Can any union guarantee any improvement for
our workers?
Certainly not-only promises.
Could the Company close the plant?
Certainly, see the Supreme Court ruling of last
week.
Do we want strife in Our Town such as we read
about (not in New York or Chicago) in our
neighboring towns? Why not talk to some of
the people in Lawrenceburg where neighbor
no longer speak to neighbor and neighbor may
have his barn burned.
" Keaton insisted that not only did he personally prepare the copy, but
also the photographed "cuts" from other papers, including one dealing
with the Supreme Court' s Darlington case decision , which he allegedly
had on hand in a personal clippings file In response to questions by coun-
sel for Respondent Siegel, Keaton denied that Siegel had any prior knowl-
edge as to the content of this notice or advertisement Keaton also
testified that he was unable to "recall any conversation with them [t e ,
Sam Siegel and Hontck] that I was wntmg an article to be published in
the paper " Sam Siegel and Houck denied knowledge of it, as well as of
the April I editorial , before appearing in the paper . Keaton also testified
that when he was at the Siegel plant office on the day following the April
8 notice- that is, on April 9, election day - comment there in the office,
probably by Sam Siegel , "certainly wasn 't unfavorable."
"' There were thus some 800 mailings (i e , 400 of the April I issue and
400 of the April 8 issue) to employees
" Sam Siegel testified, with regard to whether he had asked Keaton the
cost or who had paid for it, "I don't recall asking him that question -
" "During the period 1958 to 1963 retail sales increased 199 per cent
The next largest increase of any county in the state was 83 per cent -
HENRY I . SIEGAL CO., INC. 835
Do you honestly believe union organizers are
here from all over because they have friends or
relatives here they want help?
Could it be they are only here because it is
their means of earning a living, a business with
them, a way of life, to collect dues to pay their
salaries? Or are they here because they love us
so much they want to help us-Do you
Honestly Believe This?
I sincerely believe our people will consider all
sides of the matter and when this is done will
say to the Outsiders-Go home, we are capa-
ble of seeing after our own affairs.
Sincerely,
W. C. KEATON, Mayor
The Tomorrow column of Mayor Keaton's dou-
ble-page spread is headed by a dark "?" followed
by the words, "is Hohenwald next for this?" The
column, consisting of news clippings and photo-
graphs, is apparently designed to portray an accu-
rate official mayoral prognostication of things to
come in Hohenwald in the event of the unionization
of the Siegel plant. The news clippings and photo-
graphs comprising this column provide in illuminat-
ing insight to their author's look into the future.
Eight clippings are headed as follows: "Police
Probe Plant Shooting"; "Violence Marks Picket
Line at Lawrenceburg"; "Non-Striker's Home
Struck By Blasts"; "Dynamite Blast Shakes Oneida
Plant"; "Violence Flares At Hickory Mill Plant in
Wayne"; -10 Dynamite Sticks Found in Woman's
Car";" "15 Pickets Held in Miner's Death"; and
"Right to Close Up Upheld By Court." Underneath
the last-described clipping is a part of the heading
of another article, the rest of the heading and the
article being torn away; for some reason only the
first few words of the heading have not been torn
away but are reproduced as part of the Tomorrow
column-the words are "400 Killed In-." In addi-
tion to the foregoing there is a photograph of a man
traversing a scene of devastation, with the following
underneath the picture: "A 22-year old Murray
Ohio worker walks through the ruins of a barn that
was destroyed by fire Tuesday night near Hen-
ryville, Glen Cummings, shown above, checks `tin
and ashes,' the only remains of the barn and its
contents of hay and corn which were completely
destroyed by the fire. The barn was owned by
Glen's father, John `Sammy' Cummings who
crossed picket lines at the bicycle plant less than a
week ago. Within hours of the time the barn
burned, a car belonging to another non-union
worker was riddled [?] by shotgun blasts in the
same area." The remaining item appears to be part
of a legend to a photograph which is not shown,
referring, so far as legible, to "Tires ... slashed
after members of Teamsters Local 327 began
picketing .... A later report from Lawrenceburg
was that the tires had been removed from the au-
tomobile and burned and the automobile set up on
blocks." A reading of the other clippings indicates
that five of them (including the quoted two) refer
to Murray-Ohio bicycle plant or a Teamsters union;
and that eight of the nine clippings refer to violence
including shooting homicide, dynamiting, shotgun
blasting of plant and nonstriker's home and au-
tomobile, arson, heaving of bricks through
windshields, and tire slashing. Finally, Mayor
Keaton's Tomorrow column contains a partial news
clipping concerning the Supreme Court's decision
in the Darlington case. The clipping is headed,
"Right To Close Up Upheld By Court." The partial
clipping points out that when that company went
out of business "500 people in the town of about
6,000 population lost their jobs."
As to the foregoing, as already indicated,
Respondent Siegel Vice President Sam Siegel and
its Hohenwald Plant Manager Honick denied
knowledge of either the April I editorial or the
April 8 notice in advance of their publication, as
well as the mailing of the April I editorial, although
some 400 copies were mailed. As already stated,
Mayor Keaton denied prior knowledge on the part
of Siegel as to the content of the April 8 notice, and
that he was unable to "recall any conversation
with them [i.e., Sam Siegel and Honick] that I was
writing an article to be published in the paper."
However, both Siegel and Honick conceded they
read the April 1 editorial-Honick on April 1 or 2
when he received the newspaper in the mail; and
also at least Honick the April 8 "article," notice, or
advertisement on April 8 (the day before the elec-
tion), when it was left in the cars parked in Respon-
dent Siegel's plant parking lot.20 Sam Siegel and
Honick conceded that at no time in any way did
either of them, or anybody else on Respondent
Siegel's behalf, disavow or disassociate or attempt
to disavow or disassociate Respondent Siegel from
the April 1 or April 8 publications or their distribu-
p1 Mayor Keaton testified that Respondent Siegel's operators are
predominantly women
' Siegel Plant Manger Honick testified unequivocally that he found a
copy of the Keaton double-page spread in his car at the plant on April 8
and also noticed others in other cars there. Sam Siegal 's testimony on the
same subject as observed by me appeared to be far from candid He first
testified tha t he saw the double-page spread "after the election " Then,
asked whether a copy had not been left in his car on April 8, the day before
the election, his response was, "I don't think I was here in my car " He then
testified he "thinks" he was at the plant at least in the morning of the day
before the election but "doubts" he was there in the afternoon His next
testimony was that "I don't recall being here that afternoon or not I am not
too sure " Asked whether as general manager he did not know that hand-
bills had been left in every car in the plant parking lot, his answer was, "I
don't live here " Finally, however , he conceded that he was still at the plant
in the afternoon and that "probably " he "knew the contents of the adver-
tisement li e , G C Exh 2BJ before iIJ left Hohenwald that day, April the
8th Itlhat afternoon "
836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions; each stating that he was not requested to do
so, and Honick testifying with respect to the April 8
double-page spread handbilling of each car in the
Siegel parking lot, that he "felt that his [i.e.,
Mayor Keaton's] name being on it would identify
whoever put it in."
5. Concluding findings and rationale
At the outset, it is noted that the Board has in ef-
fect already had before it the conduct here involved
and has stated its views thereon, including Respon-
dent Siegel's accountability for Mayor Keaton's ac-
tions. No useful purpose would be served through
regurgitation here of those views which are clearly
presented in the Board's June 28, 1966, decision.
Contrary to Respondent Siegel's insistence, they
should not be disregarded.21 Moreover, this case is
remarkably like another case involving Respondent
Siegel recently decided by the Board, wherein the
Board expressed similar sentiments; viz, Henry 1.
Siegel, Inc., 165 NLRB 493. The record made in
the instant case before the Trial Examiner on the
scene would independently of the Board's prior
decisions impel the same result.
In cases of this type, the nature of the employee
population, in terms of the milieu within which it
functions, should not be ignored. There is a relativi-
ty even to threats. What to one type of employee in
one location would be a potent threat (e.g., display
of firearms to a New York City garment worker)
might be weak compared to another kind of threat
to another kind of employee in another kind of en-
vironment (e.g., threat of job loss and of social and
community ostracism, voiced concurrently by em-
ployer, mayor, and newspaper, in a small communi-
ty where job opportunities are very scarce, but dis-
play of firearms is not particularly fearsome) An
overhead gossamer may in the gnat's eye be a
sword of Damocles. As the Trial Examiner ob-
served, Hohenwald is a small Tennessee communi-
ty22 in a semirural setting. It would be surprising in-
deed if a combination of employer, economic, com-
munity, social, and local govermental pressures
could there be ignored with impunity or by other
than the lionhearted at risk of economic isolation
and social ostracism if not worse. The total effect of
a joinder of such pressures upon the factory popu-
lation here involved may be minimized only at the
cost of muting reality.
It is the effect of Respondents' pronouncements,
taken at a reasonable running view, upon the per-
sons at whom beamed, rather than their post facto
Y' It is recogm7ed in this connection that the te.1t of whether misconduct
is sufficient to constitute an unfair labor practice or whether it merely
merits setting aside an election is not precisely identical, cf General Shoe
Corporation, 77 NLRB 124, 126-127, Industrial Steel Products Compa ns,
Inc , 143 NLRB 336, 347, Plapsl ool Manufacturing Compam, 140 NLRB
1417, 1419, Dal-Tes Optical Compam, Inc , 137 NLRB 1782, 1786-87
However , here the Board has explicated in detail its basic views with
regard to the actions involved. Although the outcome of the election case
does not mandate the decision in this unfair labor practices case , it does
vacuumistic troy weighing to a punctilio by others,
which must govern. It is thus doubtful that the Em-
ployer's factory hands would react to the subtle se-
mantical trabeculations deftly tooled into these
communications, with the sophisticated sensitivity
of savants of labor law. Omnipresent lurking reali-
ties of industrial relations life, known to the Board
through daily exercise of its administrative steward-
ship over the Act, teach forcefully that what in
sterile ivorytower ratiocination might represent
borderline utterances arguably privileged by the
seeming categorical imperatives of precedential
generalizations, would on factory floor constitute
loaded threats of job loss stabbing at economic sur-
vival of self and family. "What to an outsider will
be no more than the vigorous presentation of a con-
viction, to an employee may be the manifestation of
a determination which it is not safe to thwart."
N.L.R.B. v. Federbush Company, Inc., 121 F.2d
954, 957 (C.A. 2).
There is no true necessity here to engage in
eclectic dissection of Respondents' communica-
tions phrase by phrase, so as to filet the impermissi-
ble from the permissible. As is common in cases of
this type, the communications include some words,
phrases, and sentences which in isolation are in no
way improper because clear in meaning and
privileged in thrust. However, as it is further usual
in such cases, there is also a skillful interlarding of
threats and half-threats veiled in differing degrees
of transparency. There is also much of the tricky
language of ambiguity, some subtle and some less
so. As is known to all trained at the bar, such
Janus-headed communication serves the useful
double purpose of, on the one hand, traducing
those at whom aimed and, on the other hand-that
real purpose having been accomplished-being of
sufficiently ambiguous entendre to be susceptible of
deft argumentative minimization when subjected to
regulatory agency or court scrutiny, as being al-
legedly no more than the crude communicative en-
deavor of unschooled innocence misconstrued by
overzealous law enforcement officials. But even
apart from undertaking a comprehensive substan-
tive analysis of the language itself from the point of
view of those upon whom it was actually used, a
fair standard is that he who has unleashed the
murky overtones of double entendre, in preference
to simple words sterile of threat, should be held ac-
countable therefor-somewhat as is an insurer who
markets an ambiguous form-since it is he who
chose to present it in that way and who utilized it to
his advantage. Cf N.L.R.B. v. Miller-Charles and
not follow that the views expressed by the Board in the former should
not in the latter be accorded the weight they deserve
22 As pointed out in the Board 's June 28, 1966, Decision setting.iside the
election " According to the U S Bureau of Census, the population of
Hohenwald as of 1960 was 2,191 and the population of Lewis County I in
which Hohenwald is locatedi was 6,249 According to the Employer, 108
of its employees live in Hohenwald and had street addresses, 209 had rural
route addresses in Lewis County, and 83 lived in adjacent counties
( Board Decision on Review , June 28, 1966, Case 26-RM-179, fn 2 )
HENRY I. SIEGAL CO., INC.
Company, 341 F 2d 870, 874 (C.A. 2). We have
long since been taught that "A word is not a
crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of
a living thought and may vary greatly in color and
content according to the circumstances and the
time in which it is used"(Holmes, J , in Tonne v.
Eisner, 245 U.S. 418, 425) and that "Words are
not pebbles in alien juxtaposition, they have only a
communal existence, and not only does the mean-
ing of each interpenetrate the other, but all in their
aggregate take their purport from the setting in
which they are used, of which the relation between
the speaker and the hearer is perhaps the most im-
portant part."(Learned Hand, J., in N.L.R.B. v.
Federbush Co., Inc., supra at 957.)
"Proof positive" that statements in a given con-
text actually coerced employees is unessential to
establish violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act It
is sufficient "even though the statements may not
be directly coercive, if they could be reasonably so
construed by the employees" (N.L.R.B. v. Electric
Steam Radiator Corporation, 321 F.2d 733, 736
(C.A. 6); see also Wausau Steel Corporation v.
N.L.R.B., 377 F.2d 369, 372 (C.A. 7), N L.R.B. V.
Ford Brothers, 170 F 2d 735, 738 (C.A. 6), or if
"the words used ... in vacuo, may have been in-
nocent, in the context ... in which the words were
spoken they can reasonably be regarded as
ominous" (Local 901, Intl. Brotherhood of Team-
sters v. Compton, 291 F 2d 793, 797 (C.A. 1). As
recently expressed by Mr Justice Harlan for a
unanimus Court, such utterances , including what is
pointedly left unsaid but suggested to the imagina-
tion of even the unimaginative, carry "the sug-
gestion of a fist inside the velvet glove. Employees
are not likely to miss the inference that the source
of benefits now conferred is also the source from
which future benefits must flow and which may dry
up if it is not obliged." (N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts
Co., 375 U.S. 405, 409.) Respondents' election eve
pronouncements expressly and by that implication
which all recognize to be no less clear than expres-
sion tolled for employees the ominous note that, if
they desired to bargain collectively (as the Act
guarantees them the right to do), they would im-
peril their existing benefits and advantages and
jeopardize those which would otherwise be
forthcoming in the future Employees were painted
a reign of terror and violence in the event of
unionization , with strikes, income slashed and
eliminated, and plant closed in a community
destroyed. It was indicated that the best employees
could look forward to from collective bargaining
was payment of dues and tribute to the union, at
the loss of existing and future benefits, privileges,
and liberty, and that it would be futile for them to
attempt to bargain collectively. It was also in-
dicated to employees (by Plant Manager Honick)
that-contrary to law (cf., e.g., N L.R.B. v. Graber
837
Mfg. Co., Inc., 382 F.2d 990 (C.A. 7)-unioniza-
tion would bring a loss of employees' statutorily
protected right to present their own greivances to
management . In totality, Respondents ' preelection
pronouncements, in their 9-day preelection blitz-
krieg, were no less than a potent threat of a new era
disastrous to the employees' aspirations if not their
very continued economic existence, in the event
they were so unintelligent and foolhardy as to seek
to avail themselves of their statutory right to bar-
gain collectively. "[T]he desire of employees to
unionize is directly proportional to the advantages
thought to be obtained from such action." Radio
Officers' Union v. N.L.R.B., 347 U.S. 17, 46.
"There is no more effective way to dissuade em-
ployees from voting for a collective-bargaining
representative than to tell them that their votes for
such a representative will avail them nothing." The
Trane Co, 137 NLRB 1506, 1510. See also
N.L.R.B. v. Electric City Dyeing Co, 178 F 2d 980,
981 (C.A. 3); N.L.R.B. v. Gate City Cotton Mills,
167 F 2d 647, 648-649 (C.A. 5).
Subjecting, as we are required, Respondents'
pronouncements, in their prevailing contextual en-
velope, to the indicated Board and judicial assays, it
is apparent that the pronouncements here unfairly
hobbled the employees' freedom of choice, thereby
interfering with, restraining , and coercing them in
the statutorily guaranteed security of the exercise
of their right to bargain collectively instead of "bar-
gaining" individually as their Employer insistently
made it clear they should continue to do at their
peril. This Respondent Siegel accomplished by for-
cefully and unmistakably equating collective bar-
gaining with such dread spectres as economic
retrogression , violence, plant closure, and job
loss-in short , disaster and ruin . Potent as this was,
stabbing at the vitals of the continued welfare if not
survival of employees and their families, the Em-
ployer's threat was superfatted by Mayor Keaton's
dovetailing activities-with the Employer's
knowledge, cooperative acquiescence, and ex-
ploitative approbation and ratification-which
added the powerful aura of official sanction2.1 to
private coercion . Under the special circumstances
in this particular community , Respondents' con-
joined , time-integrated activities toward a common
end constituted a synchronized continuum or high-
pressure amalgam of threats and coercion which, in
terms of the practical realities of the situation, are
neither susceptible of nor require unblending one
from the other . Although Siegel 's described activi-
ties themselves violated Section 8(a)(1), Keaton's
paralleling contributions-toward Siegel 's ends-
made them worse . In small communities like
Hohenwald , there is a well-understood natural con-
fluence of the rivulets of private ( e.g., economic
and social ), semiofficial, and official opinion-mold-
ing power structures which determine the com-
" Perhaps particularly in a communit ) of the sue of Hohenwald, the
ma) or in a direct sense constitutes the Image of las% and order
838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pelling direction of the mainstream of the commu-
nity. There is clearly discernible here a remarkable
sameness in the nature of the warnings beamed at
the employees by the Siegel executives and Mayor
Keaton in their joint venture to stop collective bar-
gaining from coming to Hohenwald. By their con-
joined activities and pressures they placed a fear-
some price tag upon the employees' mere naked ex-
ercise of a right which the Act was specifically
designed to guarantee-namely, the right to bargain
collectively instead of individually-free from such
coercive restraint. A right is not free if its exercise
must be attended with the necessity of braving the
crossfire of such threats. None but the foolhardy
will treat a warning of job loss by one having the
power to make it come true as other than a threat
of job loss for the exercise of the "right" to
unionize. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. W. C. Nabors Company,
196 F.2d 272, 276 (C.A. 5); N.L.R.B. v. Eastern
Die Co., 340 F.2d 607 (C.A. 1), cert. denied 381
U.S. 951 "Language may serve to enlighten a
hearer, though it also betrays the speaker's feelings
and desires; but the light it sheds will be in some
degree clouded, if the hearer is in his power."
N.L.R.B. v. Federbush Company, Inc., 121 F.2d
954, 957 (C.A. 2).
The answer to Respondents' contention that their
utterances are invulnerable to question because of
Section 8(c) of the Act and the First Amendment
to the Constitution is simple. Section 8(c) expressly
excepts from privileged "free speech" any "expres-
sion contain[ing] ... threat of reprisal or force or
promise of benefit", and it has long since been
emphasized by prime authority that the First
Amendment is similarly bounded, cf. N.L.R.B. v.
United Steelworkers of America, CIO, 357 U.S. 357,
362, N.L.R.B. v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 314
U.S. 469, 477, 478. Furthermore, "Even though
such statements may be expressive of opinion only,
if their reasonable tendency is coercive in effect,
they are violative of Section 8(a)(1)." N.L.R.B. v.
Kingsford Motor Car Co., 313 F.2d 826, 832 (C.A.
6).
It is accordingly found that, substantially as al-
leged in the complaint, Respondent Siegel, both
through its own executives and through Mayor
Keaton," interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7, in violation of Section 8(a)(1), of the
Act. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B., 371 F.2d 740 (C.A.D.C.),
enfg. Hamburg Shirt Corporation, 156 NLRB 511;
Colson Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 347 F.2d 128, 137
(C.A. 8), cert. denied 382 U.S. 904, enfg. 148
NLRB 827; N.L.R.B. v. Bibb Mfg. Co., 188 F.2d
825, 826-827 (C.A. 5); Henry I. Siegel, Inc., 165
NLRB 493; Dean Industries, Inc., and Howard Staf-
ford, Mayor of Pontotoc, Mississippi, 162 NLRB
1078; Henry 1. Siegel Co., Inc., 26-RM-179, 62
LRRM 1629; Universal Manufacturing Corporation
of Mississippi, 156 NLRB 1459; Thunderbird Hotel,
Inc., 152 NLRB 1416; Henry 1. Siegel Co., Inc., 148
NLRB 1192; Utica-Herbrand Tool Division of Kel-
sey-Hayes Company, 145 NLRB 1717, 1719-20.
Insofar as Mayor Keaton himself is concerned, it
is found that by his described actions he also vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, both as partici-
pant in Respondent Siegel's described violations, as
Siegel's instrumentality and agent within the broad
statutory definition (Act, Sec. 2(13) and 2(2) ), and
also as an individual actor. In the latter regard, it is
apparent that public officials, local or other, are not
exempt from the requirement of obedience to law,
including the National Labor Relations Act. To
begin with, such individuals are not excluded from
the Act's definitions of "person" or "employer"
(Act, Sec. 2(1) and (2)), the latter expressly in-
cluding "any person acting as an agent of an em-
ployer" (id., Sec. 2(2)). The Board has had occa-
sion to hold, in comparable situations, that public
officials who fail to comply with the Act will be
found to be in violation thereof. Dean Industries,
Inc., and Howard Stafford, Mayor of Pontotoc, Mis-
sissippi, 162 NLRB Thunderbird Hotel, Inc., 152
NLRB 1416.
It is contended that Mayor Keaton was merely
expressing his own views. Mayor Keaton is, of
course, entitled to his own views. But, if their ac-
tivation in conjunction with an employer's concur-
rent coercive restraints upon employees clashes
with legal requirements, he gains no immunity by
=' I c , in view of (I ) the close integration of Siegel's acts with Keaton's
as indicated herein and in the Board's June 28, 1966, decision in Case
26-RM-179, (2) Respondent Siegel's knowledge and exploitation of and
its total failure to disavow or disassociate itself in any way from Keaton's
described activities, including Keaton's use of its list of employees' names
and address (freely furnished by Siegel) and Keaton's use of its plant park-
ing lot premises for the described handbilling purposes, (3) the broad
definition of "agency" in Section 2(13) of the Act, which the circum-
stances indicate Keaton here satisfies, (4) the factors adverted to uifra, as
indicia of the joint and overlapping economic nature of the endeavor on
the part of both Respondents Although, as already stated, Respondent
Siegel would be held in violation here even without considering Keaton's
acts sties, it should he emph.isi7ed that to permit Siegel under the described
circumstances to have the ad'..intage of Keaton's activities while hiding be-
hind his official skirts could serve to undermine and emasculate the Act by
substituting for the national industrial relations policy intended thereby a
fragmented policy for every municipality and its local supporter
throughout the nation The result would he encouragement to proliferation
of islands of lawless separatism from which, as privileged sanctuaries,
economic warfare could be waged with impunity against law-abiding com-
munities which do not hold themselves out to employers is havens of
unionfree operations with bountiful labor supply Such a result would he
totally at odds with the policies and purposes of the Act as explicitly
declared by Congress in its preamble Under the total circumstances
shown. %sewed without excessive naivete, Siegel's plea that it was the mere
innocent "beneficiary" of Keaton's self-propelled antiunion hostility is re-
jected in fact and in law Cf Nash v Florida Industrial Cununnsuw, 389
U S 235,239-240
HENRY I . SIEGAL CO., INC. 839
reason of his mayoral office;15 nor does the em-
ployer who reaps the advantage of the resulting
symbiotic amalgam with its own violative activities
unattended by any attempt at disassociation or dis-
avowal, by later insisting that they were no more
than a coincidence of viewpoints. Otherwise,
Mayor Keaton (as well as the mayor of every city,
town, village, and hamlet in America) could over-
ride, and through him any employer could over-
come, the Federal will. In this way, the Congres-
sional policies enunciated for all in the Act, as well
as other statutes, could be frustrated. It is insisted
by Respondents that Mayor Keaton did not act on
behalf of the Employer here, but acted on his own.
Under the Act, no beribboned instrument of attorn-
ment is required to affix liability for violation upon
actor or beneficiary. The Act expressly provides
(Sec. 2(13)) and it has repeatedly been pointed out
that common law tests of agency need not be ful-
filled in these cases." It may nevertheless be ob-
served that, even under technical common law
rules, agency through ratification, knowledgeable
acceptance or retention of the fruits of the alleged
agent's act, or though failure to disavow are firmly
recognized.L7 And where, unlike here, a degree of
doubt were to be engendered because of the em-
ployer's indignant protestation of absolute in-
nocence of association with the activities of well-in-
tentioned and politically powerful civic-minded
friends, a pattern of seeming behavorial parallelism
in which the employer has, mayhap also innocently,
been previously enmeshed28-a matter of official
knowledge to the Board in execution of its statutory
responsibilities-perhaps ought not to be over-
looked. The mantle of innocence may become mot-
tled by age spots.
The circumstances clearly indicate that the ef-
forts to stop unionization of the Siegel Hohenwald
plant constituted a joint endeavor in which Respon-
dent Keaton actively participated with Respondent
Siegel. In so concluding, effect has been given
among other circumstances to the following: the
preeminent role of Keaton in procuring Siegel to
locate a factory in Hohenwald in a context of
Keaton's strong views about plentiful labor supply
untainted by unionism-i.e., exercise of rights to
bargain collectively as guaranteed by Federal law;
the financial stake of the City of Hohenwald arising
out of its obligations on the Siegel factory industrial
construction bonds, to eliminate any cloud on the
horizon to Siegel's continuation of its factory in
Hohenwald, such as might be presented by its
unionization; the size and closely knit nature of
Hohenwald as a community; the social ties29
between Siegel executives and Keaton; Keaton's ac-
tivist role in trying to prevent the Siegel plant from
becoming unionized, including his procuring his
nephew newspaper owner to write an editorial on
the subject in the only local newspaper, and also
Keaton's alleged purchase at his own expense of a
double-page advertisement warning Siegel em-
ployees against unionization; Siegel's furnishing of
lists of names and addresses of its employees util-
ized for the purpose of Keaton's mailing to Siegel's
employees of Keaton's nephew's antiunion
newspaper editorial30 as well as of Keaton's double-
page spread; Keaton's personal organization of the
handbilling of automobiles in Siegel's factory park-
ing lot, with knowledge thereof on the part of
Siegel's executives; the remarkable sameness of the
warnings and arguments concurrently beamed at
the employees by Siegel and by Keaton; Siegel's
" In a classic early case, As/fibs v White, 2 Ld Raym 938, 92 Engl Rep
126 (1703), it was stated
The single question in this case is, whether if a free burgess of a cor-
poration, is ho has an undoubted right to give his vote in the election of
a burgess to serve in parliament, he refused and hinder'd to give it by
the officer , if an action on the case will lie against such officer . I
im of opinion, that this action on the case is .fi proper action My
brother Powell indeed thinks, that an action upon the case is not main-
tainable, because here is no hurt or damage to the plaintiff, but surely
every injury imports a damage, though it does not cost the party one
farthing , and it is impossible to prove the contrary, for a damage is not
merely pecuniary, but an injury imports a damage, when .i man is
thereby hindered of his right So if a man give another a cuff on
the ear, though it cost him nothing , no not so much as a little
diachylon, yet he shall have his action, for it is a personal injury So
here in the principle case, the plaintiff is obstructed of his right, and
shall therefore have his action And it is no objection to say, that it will
occasion multiplicity of ,fictions, for if men will multiply injuries, ac-
tions must be multiplied too, for every main that is injured ought to
have his recompense the gist of the action is, that the plaintiff hav-
ing a right to stand for the place, and it being difficult to determine
who had a majority, he had therefore a right to demand a poll, and the
defendant by denying it was liable to an action If publick officers will
infringe men 's rights, they ought to pay greater damages than other
men, to deter and hinder other officers from the like offenses
:" E g , Anialganmted Clothoig Worker% of A,iienca, Al'L-CIO v
NLRB ,317F2d740,744(CADC ), Colson Corporationv NLRB,
347 F 2d 128, 136-137 (C A 8), cert denied 382 U S 904, N L R B v
Arlansas-Louisiana Gas Conipxim, 333 F 2d 790. 795-796 (C A 8). Henri
1 Siegel, Jim , 165 NLRB 493, Dean Didustrie %, lire . and Hon ard Stafford,
Mayor of Poritoto . Mississippi . 162 NLRB 1078 "It is true of a union as of
an employer that it may he responsible for acts which it has not expressly
authorized or which might not he attributable to it on strict application of
the rules of respwndeat superior International Asxxiation of Matluntits v
Labor Board , 31 1 U S 72, 80, Hein z Co v Labor Board , 31 1 U S 514 "
Mill Wagon Drivers Union v Meadon moor Dairies , Inc , 312 U S 287, 295
Restatement (Second ) Agent s. ch 4 See also Ainalganiaied C lotlong
Worlers ofAnn•rica, AFL-CIO v N L R B, 371 F 2d 740, 744 (C A D C ).
Intertspe Company v N L R B , 371 F 2d 787, 788 (C A 4), Coon Cor-
poration v NIL R B , 347 F 2d 128, 137 (C A 8), cert denied 382 U S
904, Henrv I Siegel, In c u , 165 NLRB 493
See Table 1, infra
Mayor Keaton testified that he is friendly with Sam Siegel and that "I
have visited in his home for years and Mr Siegel has visited in my home on
many occasions
35As noted in the Board's June 28, 1966, Decision on Review of the Re-
gional Director's June 23 , 1965, determination setting aside the April 9
election ( Case 26-RM-179 ), one of the Union 's objections to the election
(upheld by the Regional Director ) was Siegel 's refusal to accede to the
Union's request for the names and addresses of eligible voters
840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
knowledge of Keaton's preelection antiunion activi-
ties" and failure in any way, publicly or privately,
toward its employees or otherwise, to disavow or
disassociate itself therefrom. Under the circum-
stances, while in general otherwise favorably im-
pressed with the testimonial demeanor of Mayor
Keaton, I found unconvincing and therefore cannot
credit his testimony to the effect that he undertook
and carried out his activities designed to defeat
unionization of the Siegel Hohenwald plant purely
on his own initiative and at his personal expense,
without request of or so much as mentioning it to
Siegel. Resolving credibility on this aspect, in the
light of the record as a whole, I find, to the con-
trary, that the Siegel-Keaton activities to halt
unionization of the Siegel plant in Hohenwald con-
stituted in integrated plan, effort, and enterprise.
It is accordingly found that Respondent Keaton
individually, as well as an agent of Respondent
Siegel within the statutory definition, by his
described actions and participation in Respondent
Siegel's unlawful activities, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed under Section 7, in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)( I ), of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and the entire
record, I state the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all material times , Respondent Henry I.
Siegel Co., Inc., has been and is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. At all material times, Respondent W. C.
Keaton has been an agent of Respondent Siegel
within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act and
an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
3. At all material times, Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, has been and is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
4. Assertion of jurisdiction in this proceeding is
proper.
5. By their conduct set forth in section III which
has been found to constitute unfair labor practices,
Respondents and each of them have interfered
with, restrained, and coerced employees in the ex-
ercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act,
thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act.32
THE REMEDY
We move now to the question of remedy.
At the conclusion of General Counsel 's case, the
Charging Party (Union ) sought permission to
present proof of its representation strength in the
bargaining unit, relating to its recognitional-bar-
gaining request which Respondent Siegel had
refused . This application was opposed by Respon-
dent Siegel ( as well as by General Counsel) upon
the ground that after investigation General Counsel
had declined to include in his complaint here an al-
legation of violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act,
notwithstanding a union charge to that effect. The
Union made it clear that it sought no amendment
or expansion of the complaint , which is limited to
allegations of violation of Section 8(a)(1 ). I
granted the Union's application for the reason that
the Board has issued bargaining orders based upon
8(a)( 1) violation , in absence of any 8 (a)(5) viola-
tion or allegation and even in absence of a bargain-
ing request , where circumstances warrant in the
presence of a union majority and flagrant unfair
labor practices . 33 However , in view of the extensive,
prolonged litigation on this aspect of the case sug-
gested by the Employer 's indication that it would
individually contest the Union's representation
designation cards ( said to grossly total approxi-
mately 300 in the bargaining unit of approximately
400), I granted Respondents and General Counsel
time to apply to the Board for leave to appeal from
this ruling . Subject to the Board 's ruling and possi-
ble necessity for continuing the hearing on this
aspect (i.e., union representation strength ) alone,
all parties rested. Respondent Siegel, but not Gen-
eral Counsel , thereupon petitioned the Board for
leave to appeal from this ruling . By its order of July
17, 1967, the Board denied leave to appeal , without
prejudice . Thereafter, prompted by desire to avoid,
or at least to bring within reasonable limits,
what otherwise loomed as a monumental litigation
involving hundreds of union cards, on July 26,
1967, 1 issued an order setting the case for further
hearing , requiring statements of the parties' posi-
" Upon testimonial demeanor observations and the record as a whole, I
reject Sam Siegel's unpersuasive suggestions that he was unaware of what
Mayor Keaton was doing Keaton's own testimony indicates the opposite,
including his receipt of the list of employees' names and addresses from
Sam Siegel, utilized for his preelection antiunion propagandvmg of the em-
ployees, although, in response to questioning by Siegel's counsel, Keaton
indicated he could not "recall" being asked or telling the purpose for the
list Mayor Keaton testified, however, that Siegel "knew that I needed it for
a purpose in connection with trying to secure industry, ' and he conceded
that Siegel "knew that [11 would use it the right way "A similar list of eligi-
ble voters had been refused by Siegel to the Union, resulting in a union ob-
jection to the election which the Regional Director sustained
" For Additional Conclusions of Law 6 and 7, see the section entitled
"The Remedy "
"See, cg JC!'emu'iCo v NLRB, 384F2d479(CA 10), tVaamu
Steel Coi poiaii nt v N L R B , 377 F 2d 369, 373-374 (C A 7), Ututed
Steeluor/em of Anietua, 41-L-CI0 1 Nottlmest Engineering Contpani I v
N L R B, 376 F 2d 770, 772-773 (C A D.C ); N L R.B v Delight
Ba/eii, Inc , 353 F 2d 344, 347 (C A 6), Cohon Coipoiation v N L R B ,
347 F 2d 128 (C A 8), cert denied 382 U S 904, Local,Vo 152, aff/n in-
!etnational Brotherhood of leanntem, C7tauffrun, lVan•dou+enie,i and Hel-
per of 4merita [A met it an Compies iec/ Stye! Corporation I v .V L R B , 343
F 2d 107 (C A D C ), Piaiechi Aot iaft Corporation .. N L R B , 280 F 2d
575 (C A 3), cert denied 364 U S 933, Summit Moung Corporation v
N.L.R.B., 260 F 2d 894, 900 (C A. 3); N L R B v Caldarera, 209 F 2d
265, 268-269 (C A 8), D. H. Holmes Co v N L R B, 179 F.2d 876
(C.A 5), enfg order 81 NLRB 753, 756 Cf. N L R.B v Flomatic
Corporation, 347 F 2d 74 (C A 2)
HENRY I. SIEGAL CO., INC. 841
tions, and regulating the future course of the hear-
ing. This order among other things required the
Union to furnish to the Employer a photocopy of
each of the union representation designation cards
relied on, the Employer thereupon to state its
defenses thereto. Although the Union complied
with this order, Respondent Siegel sought leave to
appeal to the Board therefrom. By its order of Au-
gust 22, 1967, the Board denied leave to appeal.
Respondent Siegel thereupon complied with the
order. Undoubtedly an extremely substantial
amount of trial time was saved in this way, since the
issues were thereby clearly identified and narrowed
and the labors of the ensuing hearing relatively
sharply delineated.'' The hearing was accordingly
resumed, limited to the issues raised by the parties'
disclosed positions in the voluminous but informa-
tive documents exchanged in compliance with the
July 26, 1967, order. Early in the resumed hearing,
a substantial issue presented itself as to the identi-
ties and numbers of employees within the bargain-
ing unit on various dates covering a period of
several months (i.e., from the date of the Union's
January 18, 1965, bargaining request to the April 9,
1965, election) In response to the Union's sub-
pena, the Employer produced voluminous records
bearing on this issue. Consistent with the practice
initiated by me in the July 26, 1967, order, I
suspended the hearing so as to afford reasonable
opportunity for study of the subpenaed records,
upon the basis of which on September 13, 1967, I
orally directed a further exchange of position state-
ments of the parties as a preliminary to continuing
the hearing. By September 27, 1967, letter from
union counsel, I was informed that the Union was
unable to establish a majority but that at one point
it held representation authorization cards of
precisely 50 percent (197 of 394) of the unit em-
ployees, and requesting leave thus to establish the
extent of its reprepresentation strength, even
though short of an absolute arithmetical majority,
at a resumed hearing, on the theory that but for
Respondents' unfair labor practices it would have
attained a majority. By application dated October
6,35 General Counsel moved for an order closing
the hearing in view of the Union's conceded inabili-
ty to establish a numerical majority, which in the
General Counsel's view precluded a bargaining
order remedy. After the case was removed by me
from the calendar sine die on October 16, 1967,
union counsel filed a voluminous offer of proof, of-
fering primarily to establish that it held valid union
representation designation cards from as many as
50 percent of the employees in the appropriate bar-
gaining unit, as indicated above. No objection was
received to the proposed offer of proof. My further
order of October 23 closed the hearing record, with
leave to all parties to propose findings of fact and
conclusions of law and to submit briefs 36
Upon receipt of the concession from union coun-
sel that it is unable to establish that it held union
representation designation cards from a majority of
employees in the bargaining unit at any time
material herein, I closed the hearing record because
I agree with General Counsel's position in its mo-
tion of October 6, 1967, which is hereby granted,
that such a majority is a precondition to a bargain-
ing order. The Board has so held, expressly reject-
ing the contention here advanced by the Union that
it is entitled to a bargaining order since, but for the
Employer's unfair labor practices, it would have at-
tained a majority. See J. P. Stevens and Co., Inc.,
163 NLRB 217, 218; Scott's, Inc., 159 NLRB 1795,
1806-07, enfd. as modified 383 F.2d 230, 234
(C.A.D.C.); J. P Stevens and Co., Inc., 157 NLRB
869, 877, enfd. as modified 380 F.2d 292 (C.A. 2);
H. W. Elson Bottling Company, 155 NLRB 714,
715-716, enfd. as modified 379 F.2d 223 (C A. 6);
Tennsco Corp., 141 NLRB 296, 299, enforcement
denied 339 F.2d 396 (C.A. 6). It is noted that in
Henry 1. Siegel, Inc., 165 NLRB 493, the Union
controlled a majority. Cf. Bigelow v RKO Radio
Pictures, Inc., 327 U.S. 251, 264-266; Franks Bros.
Company v. N.L.R.B., 321 U.S. 702, 704-706; J.P.
Stevens & Co., Inc. v. NL.R.B., 380 F.2d 292,
303-304 (C.A. 2); Bannon Mills, Inc, 146 NLRB
611, 614; Bok, The Regulation of Campaign Tactics
in Representation Elections Under the National
Labor Relations Act, 78 Harv. L. Rev. 38, 138-139
& n 274 (1964). It cannot be denied that where an
employer has prevented a technical union majority
with the union at the very threshold, in a large unit,
absence of an effective remedy would seem to en-
courage employers to violate the Act, cf. Local
Union No. 2, United Association of Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry
of the U.S. and Canada (Astrone Plumbing & Heat-
ing Corp.), 152 NLRB 1093, 1114, enfd as
modified 360 F 2d 428 (C.A. 2), citing N.L.R.B. v.
Seven-Up Bottling Co., 344 U.S. 344 Any revision
of Board policy on this matter must come from the
Board in a case and under circumstances that it
deems appropriate, cf Iowa Beef Packers, Inc., 144
NLRB 615, 616, and cases cited fn. 2; Insurance
Agents' International Union, AFL-CIO (The Pru-
dential Insurance Company of America), 119 NLRB
768, 773, Ranco, Inc., 109 NLRB 998, 1009-10,
fn. 8 1 accordingly decline to accept the Union's
" "Administrative hearings, like court hearings, should concern the real
issues between the parties " Harvey Aluminum (Inc) v N.L R B , 335
F.2d 749, 758 (C A. 8) Cf Gardner, Shrinking the Big Case, 16 ABA
Ad L. Rev 5 (1963)
" Received by me on October 10, prior to which I had on October 9
written counsel requesting the definitive statements of position contem-
plated by my September 13 order
"' All documents filed or received from counsel as %%ell as copies of the
Trial Examiner's orders and communications to counsel, not heretofore
marked in esidence at the hearing, base in accordance nnith the prosisions
of my order of October 23, 1967, and the Charging Party's application,
which is hereby granted, been identified, marked, and incorporated into
the hearing record as exhibits, or as proffered and rejected exhibits, in ac-
cordance with a list hereto annexed as "Appendix A " I Not published I
842 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
offer of proof pertaining to these union cards and
deny its application for a bargaining order In so
holding, it is assumed for purposes of this proceed-
ing as tendered by the Union's offer of proof, that
its January 18, 1965, recognitional-bargaining de-
mand upon Siegel was a continuing demand until
the date of the April 9, 1965, election, and that at
some time during the intervening period the Union
held unambiguous, unequivocal, and valid
representation designation cards from 50 percent
(i e., 197 of 394) of Siegel's Hohenwald employees
in an appropriate bargaining unit.
In accordance with the foregoing and upon the
entire record, I state the following:
ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
6. 37 At all material times, the following has been
and is a unit of employees at Respondent Siegel's
Hohenwald, Tennessee, plant, appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining: All production and
maintenance employees at the Hohenwald, Tennes-
see, plant of Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc., including
quality samplers, stock and service personnel, plant
clerical employees, janitors, watchmen and machin-
ists, but excluding office clerical employees, guards,
foreladies and other supervisors as defined in the
Act.
7. In view of the fact (conceded by the Union)
that the Union has not, on or subsequent to its
January 18, 1965, request of Respondent Siegel
for recognition as the bargaining representative of
said Respondent's employees in the above ap-
propriate bargaining unit, represented an arithmeti-
cal majority of said employees, the Union is not en-
titled to a bargaining order herein, nothwithstand-
ing:
a. The Union's representation in the week end-
ing April 10, 1965, of 197 out of 394 or 50 percent
of the employees in said appropriate bargaining
unit;"
b. The nature and extent of unfair labor prac-
tices, as found herein, and Respondent Siegel's
previous history of unfair labor practices, and the
other circumstances detailed herein; and
c. That the Union would have attained such
majority representation status3 8 except for Respon-
dent Siegel 's unfair labor practices as found herein.
Although as indicated above, under controlling
Board law the Union is not entitled to a bargaining
order here upon the proof proffered, it does not fol-
low that the Union should be afforded no relief
other than the usual notice posting , which it persua-
sively urges would provide it no redress for wrongs
suffered and would be largely ineffectual here. The
question of remedy under the indicated circum-
stances therefore commands consideration , and it is
to that question we now address ourselves.
Respondent Siegel is no stranger to the Board. It
has had a long history before the Board. We are
told that in fashioning an appropriate remedy, we
may properly consider such a history. N.L.R.B. v.
Seven-Up Bottling Co , 344 U.S. 344, 348-349;
Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union No 728, aff/w
International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Overnite
Transport Co.) v. N.L.R.B., 332 F.2d 693, 695, 697
(C.A. 5), cert denied 379 U.S. 913; Local 138,-In-
ternational Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-
CIO (J. J. Hagerty, Inc.) v. N.L.R.B., 321 F.2d
130, 138 (C.A. 2); N.L.R.B. v. Springfield Building
and Construction Trades Council (Leo Spear Con-
struction Co.), 262 F.2d 494, 489-499 (C.A. 1),
cited with approval in N.L.R.B. v. Ochoa Fertilizer
Corp., 368 U.S. 322, Jaffe, The Judicial Enforce-
ment of Administrative Orders, 76 Harv. L. Rev.
865, 892 (1963).
Siegel 's history with the Board is shown in Table
1.
Section 10 ( c) of the Act empowers the Board to
order violators "to cease and desist from such un-
fair labor practice , and to take such affirmative ac-
tion including reinstatement of employees with or
without back pay, as will effectuate the policies of
this Act ." Test of this statutory authority has drawn
from our highest Court the characterization that it
"charges the Board with the task of devising [ef-
fective] remedies ." N.L.R.B. v. Seven - Up Bottling
Co, 344 U.S 344, 346.(19
We are constantly adjured by higher authority to
design effective remedies '40 as shown , obedience to
the Act's mandates requires no less.
" Numbered in continuation of Conclusions of Law set forth in said sec-
tion, ugna
" Not established or found factually herein, but merely assumed in view
of my rejection as matter of law (for reasons explicated in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy," supra) of the Union's offer of proof
to this effect
'" Further experience appears amply to have borne out the concern of
the statutory authors (voiced regarding another instance of need for effec-
tual remedy for violation of the Act) "Experience has demonstrated
that the Board has not been able in some instances to correct unfair
labor practices until after substantial injury has been done Since the
Board's orders are not self-enforcing, it has sometimes been possible for
persons violating the act to accomplish their unlawful objective before
being placed under any legal restraint and thereby to make it impossible or
not feasible to restore or preserve the status quo pending litigation " (S
Rep No 105, 80th Cong , l st Sess 8, 27 (1947) )
40See, e g , Fibreboard Paper Products Corp v N L R.B , 379 U.S 203,
215-217, N L R B v Lrie Resistor Corp, 373 U S 221, 236, N L R B v
Seven-Up Bottling Co , 344 U S 344, 346-349, Virgaua F.les iris & Poster
Co v N L R B, 319 U S 533, 539-540, Phelps Dodge Corp v N L R B,
313 U S 177, 188, 194, 198 The Board's Chairman has accorded continu-
ing recognition to this need See, c g , McCulloch, A /ale of I uo Cities or
Lae in Aumn, 1962 Proceedings of American Bar Association Section of
Labor Relations Law, 14, 25, in which the Chairman spoke of the necessity
for designing remedies "that will give more protection to the rights of self-
organvatnon, discourage unfair labor practices by unions and employers,
and encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining "There
are additional considerations here "The fact that the )second) election is
still to be held adds strength to the view that the policies of the Act would
require an appropriate Board order to offset, insofar as such an order could
do so, the effect of such unfair labor practices" United Steehior/,ess of
America, AFL-CIO f Wagner Industrial Produ, is Co, Inc ) v N L R B , 386
F 2d 981, 983 (C A D C , Oct 24, 1967) "Certainly it is not one of the
purposes of the election provisions I of the Act) to supply an employer with
a procedural device by which he may secure the time necessary to defeat
efforts toward organization being made by a union " Joy Silk Mills v
N L.R.B, 185 F.2d 732 ,741 (C A.D C ), cert denied 341 U S 914
HENRY I. SIEGAL CO., INC. 843
Inasmuch as Respondents have been found to
have violated the Act as indicated, I shall of course
recommend the conventional posting-of-notice
remedy. However, in view of the repetitive pattern
of the acts involved (cf., e.g., Henry 1. Siegel, Inc.,
165 NLRB 493, the Employer's history with the
Board (Table I), and the overall situation here in-
volved-including the large number of employees
in the unit, the substantial union representation
showing proferred, and the unfeasibility of holding
a new election for a long period of time since the
last election (April 1965) which was aborted
through Respondents' misconduct affecting the out-
come-I am persuaded of the merit of the Union's
contention that a garden-variety notice posting here
would not suffice to erase the effects of that
misconduct or to promote the policies and purposes
of the Act. I shall accordingly recommend that
Respondents be required to take certain additional
actions under the circumstances; viz, (1) that the
notice be posted for 6 months; (2) that the notice
be mailed to each employee, to counter the
mailings to the employees of the various offending
preelection communications from Respondents'41 (3)
that the notice be published in the Lewis County
Herald, to counter the offending preelection publi-
cation therein and handbilling and mailing
thereof;42 (4) that in the event Respondent Siegel
within 6 months at its expense assembles and ad-
dresses its employees regarding unionization or at-
tempted exercise of any right under the Act, said
Respondent shall provide like facilities for the same
purpose to the Union, at the latter's request;43 (5)
that the Union shall for a period of 6 months be
provided with reasonable access to and use of
Respondent Siegel's Hohenwald plant bulletin
boards for lawful union purposes;44 and (6) that
Respondent Siegel shall for a period of 6 months
keep the Union supplied, at the latter's request,
with the names and residence addresses of all em-
ployees in the bargaining unit here found ap-
propriate.45,46 Also, in view of the circumstances
here present, including this Employer's history with
the Board, I shall include the recommendation that
it be required to cease and desist from infringing in
any other manner upon the rights of employees
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and conclusions of law and upon the entire record,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I recom-
mend that it be ordered that:
1. Respondent Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc., its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, and Respon-
dent W C. Keaton, Mayor of Hohenwald, and his
agents and successors, shall:
a. Cease and desist from:
(1) Directly or indirectly threatening any em-
ployee with plant shutdown, strikes, violence, job
loss, discharge, reduction of overtime and other
work opportunities, loss or jeopardization of exist-
ing job benefits, loss of future employment oppor-
tunities through failure of other industries to locate
or remain in the area, community disruption and
disintegration, hazard to family well being, or other
economic harm, loss, detriment, disadvantage,
reprisal, or retaliation, in the event of unionization
or because of union or other lawful organizational
membership, affiliation, sympathy, support,
assistance, or activity, or for engaging or attempting
to engage in the right to bargain collectively or ex-
ercise or attempt to exercise any other right under
the Act.
(2) Directly or indirectly threatening any em-
ployee that union membership will be' futile since
no advantage or benefit would be derived
therefrom which would not be derived in the
absence thereof.
(3) Directly or indirectly threatening , informing,
or advising any employee that in the event of
'i Cf International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO v N L R B (Scott 's, Inc ), 383 F 2d 230 , 232 (C A D C ),
NLRB v H W Elson Bottling Co, 379 F 2d 223, 225 (C A 6), J. P.
Stevens and Co, Inc, 167 NLRB 258, 264-265, J P Stevens and Co, Inc.,
1167 NLRB 266 , 270-271, Marlene Industries Corp, 166 NLRB 703,
705-706 , J P Stevens and Co, Inc., 157 NLRB 869 , 881, enfd as modified
380 F 2d 292 (C A 2),cert denied 389 U S 1005.
az Cf Dean Industries, it and Hon aril Stafford, Ma, or of Pontotoc, Mis-
sissippi, 162 NLRB 1078N, Porto Mills, Inc., 149 NLRB 1454, 1473
"Cf International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO v N L R B (Scott's, Inc ), 383 F 2d 230, 232 (C A D C ),
N L R B v H W Ehon Bottling Co, 379 F 2d 223, 225 (C A 6), Mont-
gomery Ward & Co v. N L.R.B , 339 F.2d 889,894 (C.A. 6). In this con-
nection, it is found that in view of the rural and semirural nature of the area
in which Respondent Employer's Hohenwald plant is located, and the con-
figuration and wide geographical dispersion of residence addresses of unit
employees, as well as the nature and extent of the employment turnover,
provision of such reasonable access and facilities is essential, will tend in
part to undo the effects of Respondents' unfair labor practices, and will
promote the purposes and policies of the Act
"Cf N L R B v H W Elson Bottling Co, 379 F 2d 223, 225 (C A 6)
J P Stevens and Co, list , 167 NLRB 258, 264-265, J P Stevens and Co
Inc , 167 NLRB 266, 270-271, Marlene industries Corp , 166 NLRB 703
705-706, of J P Stei ens & Co , Isa v N L R B , 380 F 2d 292, 305 (C A
2) I find that in view of the rural and semirural nature of the area in which
Respondent Employer's Hohenwald plant is located, and the configuration
and wide geographical dispersion of residence addresses of unit employees,
as well as the nature and extent of the employment turnover, provision of
such reasonable access and facilities is essential, will tend in part to undo
the effects of Respondents' unfair labor practices, and will promote the
purposes and policies of the Act.
"Cf J P Stevens and Co , list , 167 NLRB 258, 264-265, Marlene ht-
dustries Corp , 166 NLRB 703, 705-706, 1 find that in view of the rural and
semirural nature of the area in which Respondent Employer's Hohenwald
plant is located, and the configuration and wide geographical dispersion of
residence addresses of unit employees, as well as the nature and extent of
the employment turnover, provision of such data is reasonable and essen-
tial under all of the circumstances of this case, will tend in part to undo the
effects of Respondents' unfair labor practices, and will promote the pur-
poses and policies of the Act
"' In view of the potential propriety of requiring reimbursement to the
Union of its organving expenses (cf Burger, J , in Local 57, International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO v N L R B (Garsi on Corp ),
374 F .2d 295 , 304, fn 22 (C.A D.C ), cert denied 387 U S 942 ), 1 have
given consideration to but rejected such a remedy here , since it has neither
been requested nor would the showing made , including the Employer's his-
tory before the Board (Table 1). appear to warrant it
844 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unionization he will no longer be able to exercise
the right to present individual grievances or com-
plaints to or discuss mutual problems affecting his
employment directly with his employer.
(4) Directly or indirectly making any threat or
any inducement involving threat or the withholding
of threat of economic harm , to any employee or
employee's family, so as to procure or attempt to
procure any employee to deal with Respondent
Siegel individually instead of bargaining collective-
ly.
(5) Directly or indirectly interfering with,
restraining, coercing , or threatening any employee
in the exercise of his right to select , elect,
designate , be represented by, and bargain collec-
tively through , any labor organization of the em-
ployees' choice.
(6) Interfering in any other manner with, or
restraining or coercing , any employee in the exer-
cise of his right to self-organization ; to form, join,
or assist any labor organization ; to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of his own choosing;
to engage in concerted activities of his own choos-
ing; to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection ; or to refrain from any and all such ac-
tivities.
b. Take the following affirmative actions neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(I) Respondent Siegel shall post in its factory in
Hohenwald , Tennessee, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix B."47 [Board 's Appendix
substituted for Trial Examiner 's Appendix .] Copies
of said notice , on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 26, after being duly signed by
said Respondents ' authorized representative, shall
be posted by said Respondents immediately upon
receipt thereof , and be maintained by them for 6
consecutive months thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps
shall be taken by said Respondents to insure that
said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(2) Respondents , jointly and severally, shall
cause to be mailed , postpaid , within 30 days from
the date hereof," to each employee of Respondent
Siegel at his or her residence address, a full and
exact copy of the notice attached hereto marked
"Appendix B ."44 [Board 's Appendix substituted for
Trial Examiner 's Appendix. ]
(3) Respondents, jointly and severally, shall
cause to be published in the Lewis County Herald
within 30 days from the date hereof,"" at their sole
cost and expense, a copy of the attached notice
marked "Appendix B.",'i [Board's Appendix sub-
stituted for Trial Examiner's Appendix.] and shall
further, at their sole cost and expense, cause a copy
thereof to be mailed postpaid to each and every
Hohenwald, Tennessee, plant employee of Respon-
dent Siegel. Said copy so published shall be ar-
ranged as a full double-page spread in format sub-
stantially the same as or reasonably comparable to
that utilized for the announcement printed and dis-
tributed as a double-page spread over the signature
or name of Respondent Keaton in said newspaper's
issue of April 8, 1965.
(4) In the event that Respondent Siegel at any
time or times within 6 months from the date
hereof" assembles and addresses its Hohenwald
plant employees concerning any aspect of said em-
ployees' protected concerted activities or their ac-
tual or attempted exercise , participation in, or as-
sertion of any right secured by the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, said Respondent shall
within a reasonable time or times after each such
assemblage , on an equivalent basis , upon demand
of the Union, provide like facilities and time , at said
Respondent's expense , to the Union and its
representatives , for the Union's organizational pur-
poses.
(5) Respondent Siegel shall for a period of 6
months from the date hereof" provide to the Union
and its representatives, for lawful union purposes,
reasonable access to and use of its Hohenwald,
Tennessee, plant bulletin boards and all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
(6) Respondent Siegel shall for a period of 6
months from the date hereof"4 furnish in writing to
the Union, at the Union's request, the names and
residence addresses of each and every employee in
the bargaining unit and said Respondent's Hohen-
wald, Tennessee, plant here found appropriate for
collective-bargaining purposes.
(7) Respondents, jointly and severally, shall
notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from receipt of this Decision, what steps have
been taken to comply therewith."
2. The application of the Charging Party, Amal-
gamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
for a bargaining order herein is hereby denied.
" In the csent that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the cords "a Decision and Order" shall he substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner' in the notice In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals the words a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall he substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
` This period shall automatically he deemed extended nuttau, mutun-
dn, to commence from the date of any Board adoptive order or court en-
forcement decree
41 See fn 47
"See fn 48
" Sec fn 47
"See fn 48
See fn 48
" See fn 48
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read ''Respondents jointly and
severally, shall notify s.ud Regional Director, in writing within It) days
from the date of this Order, chat steps h.ne been taken to comply
herewith "
Table 1 - Respondent Siegel's History with the Board
Chrono. Dates or Locales NLRB Charging Act Secs. & NLRB Case Court Cita Comments
Ref. No . Periods Case Party Issues Involved Citations, Lions
of Acts Decisions, & Decisions,
Involved Orders & Decrees
Dec . 1942 Dickson, C-2682 Amal. 8(1) & (3); 52 NLRB 810 Mayor of Dickson agreed
Jan. 1943 Tenn. Clothing Siegel locked (1943);dis- to provide Siegel rent-
Wkrs. out Ees. & missed on free plant for 5 yrs.
closed plant TX's finding Title to property acquired
for U activi- for lack of by public trusteeship
ties; refused substantial & 1,500 persons pledged
to reinstate credible ev- 6% of earnings to sink-
locked-out Ees; idence ing fund to amortize
threatened Ees underlying mortgage.
with arrest, When agreed payments not
plant closure, forthcoming & possessory
& changed work proceedings instituted
conditions; & against Siegel to regain
incited commu- possession of plant,
nity business- Siegel purchased under-
men & others to lying mortgage & rented
oppose plant premises from trusteeship.
unionism.
Involves local
authorities
aligned in in-
terest with
Sie e
2 Jan. 1943 Dickson, R-4772 Amal. Siegel refused 47 NLRB 74 1. Siege sDickson pint
enn. Clothing to recognize (1943); elec- (700 employees) closed
Wkrs. or bargain with tion ordered down at time of hearing.
U. within 30 2. Siegel did not attend
days. hearing.
3. Siegel refused to
produce subpenaed payroll
records.
Chrono.
Ref. No.
Dates or
Periods
of Acts
Involved
Locales LRB
ase
Charging
Party
Act Secs. &
!Issues Involved
^
NLRB Case
Citations,
Decisions, &
Orders
Court Cita-
tions,
Decisions,
& Decrees
Comments
3 Oct. 1947 Fulton, -RC-9 Amal. Siegel refused 76 NLRB 976
Ky. Clothing to recognize or (1948); elec
Wkrs. bargain with U. tion ordered
Siegel defended within 30
on ground it was days.
negotiating renew-
al agreement with
United Garment
Wkrs., Loc. 319.
4 Sep. 1961 (1) Dick- 26-CA- IAmal. 8(a)(1)&(5); 1. 140 NLRB 1. 324 F.
June 1964 son, Tenn
1
1179 !Clothing Siegel refused to 1292 (1963); ; 2d 228
and (2) Wkrs. incorporate wage dismissed on (C.A. 2,
Fulton, incentive into ground wage 11963); re-
Ky. collective- incentive versed &
bargaining agree- factor in remanded.
ment after agree- effect incor- iBd. deter- !
ing to it. porated into mination
collective that wage
agreement. incentive
l2. On remand, factor in
147 NLRB 594 tcorporated !
(1964); Siegelinto con-
violated 8(a) 'tract, not
(1) & (5) by !supported
failing to by record,
incorporate !thus estab-
wage incentivelishing
factor into violation
collective 'by Siegel
agreement; no of 8(a)(1)
aiver by U. & (5). Re-
manded to
W. to pass
on question
of waiver.
00
Chrono.
Ref. No.
Dates or
Periods
of Acts
Involved
Locales LRB
Case
Charging
Party
Act Secs. &
Issues Involved
NLRB Case
Citations,
Decisions, &
Orders
Court Cita -
tions,
Decisions,
& Decrees
Comments
2. 340 F.2d
309 (C.A. 2,
1965); enfd.
5, 6, Apr.-Oct. 1) Bruce- 26-CA- Amal. a 1 ; at 143 NLRB 382 328 F.2d 25 3 cases, consoli-
and 7 1962 ton, Tenn., 1371 Clothing Bruceton plant, (1963); as (C.A. 2, dated for hearing,
(2) Treze- 6-CA- Wkrs. Siegel procured to Bruceton 1964); enfd. involving 3 differ-
vant, 1256 Ees' affidavits plant, Siegel ent Siegel plants.
Tenn. , & filed with NLRB held in vio-
(3) Glea- 6-CA- in interference lation except
son, Tenn. 1304 with NLRB in as to speech,
processes, coer- surveillance,
cively interroga-1 & one an-
ted Ees, conveyed stance of
impression of alleged threat
surveillance, As to Treze-
threatened Ees vant & Glea-
with reprisals & son plants,
job loss, & made dismissed.
unlawful speech
to Ees. At Treze-
vant plant,U seek
I to reopen settled
ULP charges be-
cause of Siegel's
violations at
Bruceton plant.
At Gleason plant,
Siegel conveyed
impression of
surveillance over
Ees' U activities.
00
00
.01
00
Chrono. Dates or Locales NLRB Charging Act Secs. & NLRB Case oust Cita- Comments
Ref. No. Periods Case Party Issues Involved Citations, tions,
of Acts Decisions, & Decisions,
Involved Orders Decrees
8 Aug. 1963 New York, 2-CA- Amal. 8(a)(1) & (5); 153 NLRB 1448 Sequel to chrono-
. Y. 9736 Clothing Siegel refused to (1965); dis- logical reference
(Dickson, Wkrs. incorporate wage missed (re- 4, supra.
Tenn., & incentive provisio versing TX;
ulton , in 1963 collective decision by
Ky.) agreement, althougl full Bd.).
agreed to. Siegel
claims waiver by U.
9 May 1963 Bruceton, 6:RM- Amal. Siegel engaged in 148 NLRB 1192 Local official &
enn. 146 Clothing preelection miscon (1964); Charge businessmen were
Wkrs. duct affecting sustained, allegedly active
results of Ed'. e- election set in campaigning
lection. side, new against U.
lection or-
Involves local eyed. Although Rd. did
official & business not reach this
men aligned on side aspect of case,
of Siegel. Chairman McCulloch
would also have
sustained this
objection to
election.
10 Mar .-Apr. Hohenwald, 26-RM- Amal. Siegel engaged in 26-RM=179 1. Election held
1965 enn. 179 Clothing preelection miscon- 1966), 62 4/9/65. Bd. dee-
Wkrs. duct affecting LRRM 1629; ision setting
results of Bd. Charges sus- aside election &
election. tained, elec- ordering new elec
tion set a- Lion held when
Involves local side, & new conditions permit,
uthorities aligned election or- 6/28/66. No new
I n side of Siegel. dered election yet been
L_
held.
Chrono.
Ref. No.
Dates or
Periods
of Acts
Involved
Locales NLRB
Case
Charging
Party
Act Secs. &
Issues Involved
NLRB Case
Citations,
Decisions,
Orders
Court Cita-
tions,
Decisions,
& Decrees
Comments 1
2. Bd. held Siegel
also responsible
for coordinated
anti -U activities
of mayor.
3. Same conduct
as involved in in-
11 Mar. -Apr. Hohen- 26-CA- Amal. 8(a)(1); eco-
1965 wald,
Tenn.
I
20b1 Clothing
Wkrs.
nomic threats
of plant closure,
job loss, jeop-
ardy to existing
benefits, com-
munity disinte-
gration, etc. , in
event of unioni-
zation.
Involves local
authorities a-
ligned on side of
Sie ;el.
12 & 13 1 May-Jul. Eloy, ; 28-CA- Aural. 8(a)(1) & (5);
1965 & Ariz. 1251-& Clothing' Siegel engaged
Feb. 196 28-RC- Wkrs. in preelection
1326 1 misconduct af-
fecting results
of Bd . election,
involving threats
of reprisal and
plant closure or
, aconversion
speech, and refusa^ because of
165 NLRB 493 Appeals by
(1967 ); char g-I U in C.A.
s sustained , I D.C. &e
without reach- Siegel in
ing issue of C.A. 2
legality of consoli-
speech; Siegel dated in
held responsi- C.A.D.C.
ble for actions by 9/27/67
of local peopl C.A. 2
order.
stant case. 1
Cn
zInstant case.
Eloy, Ariz.
(pop. 5400)
Eloy Develop-
ment Corp. sold
stock, purchased
land, construct-
ed plant, &
leased it to
Siegel. Upon
attempts to
unionize, EDC
^ qo
00
00
Chrono. Dates or Locales NLRB Charging, Act Secs. &
Ref. No. Periods Case Party Issues Involved
of Acts
Involved
.to bargain with
U.
NLRB Case ourt Cita-
Citations, ions,
Decisions, & ecisions,
Orders Decrees
close relation-
ship, "overlap
of financial
interests,"
& failure to
disavow paral-
lel activities;
bargaining order
Comments
O
O
group extremely
active in anti-U
activity , also
Z
town newspaper--
O
involving publi- Z
cation of double -
rpage newspaper
ad & handbilling
in Siegel OC
Involves local
citizens' com-
mittee aligned
with Siegel.
issued, in
view of U
majority,
notwithstand-
ing U loss of
7/2/65 elec-
tion as result
of Siegel's
misconduct.
parking lot &
elsewhere.