Playskool Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 16, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1562 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

1562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Playskool Manufacturing Company and United Fur-
niture Workers of America , AFL-CIO. Cases
13-CA-7996, 13-RM-888, and 13-RC-1 1219
August 16, 1968
DECISION, ORDER , AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
by the Trial Examiner It is the Board 's established policy not to overrule a
Trial Examiner 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear pre-
ponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions
were incorrect We find no such basis for disturbing the Trial Examiner's
credibility findings in this case Standard Dr% Wall Products, Inc , 91 NLRB
544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3)
' The Trial Examiner recommended that the Board remand Cases
13-RM-888 and 13-RC-1 1219 to the Regional Director with instructions
to deny all the objections and to certify the results of the election con-
ducted pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election However, since
the entire proceeding is before us , we modify the Trial Examiner 's recom-
mendation and hereby overrule the objections and certify the results of the
election
On April 29, 1968, Trial Examiner Arthur E.
Reyman issued his Decision in this proceeding,
finding that Respondent had not engaged in certain
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and
recommending that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision. Thereafter, the Charging Party
and General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
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 orders that the complaint be, and it
hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
votes in Cases 13-RM-888 and 13-RC-11219 has
not been cast for the United Furniture Workers of
America , AFL-CIO , and that said labor organiza-
tion is not the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
' The General Counsel has excepted to certain credibility findings made
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
ARTHUR E. REYMAN, Trial Examiner: On
December 1, 1967,' the General Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, on behalf of the
Board, by the Regional Director for Region 13,
pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act,
and the Board's Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as
amended, Section 102.15, issued a complaint alleg-
ing that Playskool Manufacturing Company, herein
sometimes called the Respondent, the Company, or
the Employer, by certain acts set forth in the com-
plaint, "did engage in, and is engaging in" unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.2 Thereto-
fore, United Furniture Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, had on August 15 filed a charge, and on
September 25, an amended charge, asserting in
substance that the Company "has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a), subsections 1, 3, and 5 of the
Act."
Before the filing of the charge, the amended
charge, and the issuance of the complaint, the
' Unless specifically noted, dates hereinafter mentioned are for the year
1967
' The relevant provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended ( 61 Stat 136, 73 Stat 519, 29 U S C , Sec 151, el ceq ), are as
follows
RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES
Sec 7 Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mu-
tual aid or protection , and shall also have the right to refrain from any
or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be af-
fected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3)
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Sec 8(a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer-
( I ) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in section 7.
(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage
membership in any labor organization
172 NLRB No. 177
PLAYSKOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY
Company as an employer, on July 24 and the Union
on July 26, had filed petitions with the Regional
Director, to determine whether the employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit described as: "All
production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's plant at 1750 North Lawndale Avenue,
Chicago, Illinois , excluding office clerical em-
ployees, technical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act," desired the Union as their representative for
the purposes of collective bargaining, all of which
resulted in a secret ballot election conducted on
September 14, in which 117 votes were cast for the
Union and 182 cast against that labor organization.
Cases 13-RM-888 and 13-RC-11219. On
December 5, the Regional Director for Region 13
issued a Supplemental Decision, Order Further
Consolidating Cases and Direction of Hearing. In
his Supplemental Decision, the Regional Director
noted that timely objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election had been filed by the
Union-Petitioner. In his Supplemental Decision, the
Regional Director passed upon certain of the objec-
tions. The complaint in Case 13-CA-7996 having
been issued on December 1, the Regional Director,
in his Order, noted that because certain of the ob-
jections are "substantially similar to the issues set
forth in the complaint and because the issues raise
substantial and material factual questions concern-
ing conduct affecting the results of the election,"
provided for a hearing to be held to resolve the is-
sues raised by the objections not disposed of by
him, "and that such hearing be consolidated with
the hearing in Case 13-CA-7996 and held before a
Trial Examiner."
Accordingly, I have before me for consideration
that part of Objection 5 and Objections 1, 6, 7, 8,
the Objections 2, 3, and 4 of the Petitioner-Union
having been overruled in their entirety and those
portions of Objection 5 which are not also in issue
in Case 13-CA-7996 having been overruled in
Cases 13-RM-888 and 13-RC-11219.
Pursuant to notice of hearing, issued with the
complaint in 13-CA-7996, as subsequently en-
larged by appropriate order, these consolidated
cases came on to be heard before me at Chicago, Il-
linois , on February 12, 1968, the hearing being
closed on the following day.
At the hearing each party was represented by
counsel, was afforded full opportunity to call, ex-
amine , and cross-examine witnesses, to present
evidence relevant to the issues, to engage in oral ar-
gument if desired, and to file briefs. Briefs have
been submitted on behalf of the General Counsel
and the Respondent Company and have been care-
fully considered. The Union tendered in support of
its objections the evidence presented by counsel for
the General Counsel in support of the complaint.
From my observation of the witnesses, and upon
the whole record herein, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
1563
Playskool Manufacturing Company is, and has
been at all times material herein, a corporation ex-
isting by virtue of, and authorized to do business
by, the laws of the State of Illinois. At all such
times, the Respondent has maintained its principal
office and place of business at 3720 North Kedzie
Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, and has at all such times
maintained a plant at 1750 North Lawndale
Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, where it is now, and at
all times material herein has been, engaged in the
manufacture, distribution, and sale of toys and re-
lated goods. During the year immediately preceding
the issuance of the complaint herein, a representa-
tive period, the Respondent, in the course and con-
duct of its business operations, caused goods valued
in excess of $500,000 to be delivered from points
within the State of Illinois directly to points outside
the State of Illinois.
Respondent is now, and at all times material
herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Furniture Workers of America,
AFL-CIO , is, and at all times material herein has
been , a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE (ALLEGED) UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
STATEMENT OF THE CASES
In Case 13-CA-7996 the General Counsel as-
serts that the Company violated Section 8 ( a)(1) of
the Act by interfering with , restraining , and coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
them by Section 7, and that further the Company
violated Section 8(a)(1) and ( 3) by discharging
employee Rosie Lee Redmond because she had
supported and assisted the Union and had engaged
in other concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion . In Cases 13-RM-888 and 13-RC-11219, after
objections filed by the Union, the Regional
Director has disposed of some of the issues framed
by these objections but finding, however, the allega-
tions in other objections to be substantially
similar to those set forth in the complaint in
I3-CA-7996; and, therefore , because the objec-
tions not disposed of by the Regional Director raise
substantial and material factual questions , the Re-
gional Director by appropriate order has con-
solidated the unfair labor practice case with the
representation cases for hearing before a Trial Ex-
aminer.
1564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent Company in its answer denies
all allegations , and moves that the amended com-
plaint be dismissed in its entirety and the open ob-
jections be overruled.
Counsel for the General Counsel in his brief has
correctly stated the questions to be answered by the
resolution of the facts shown : ( 1) Whether Rosie
Lee Redmond was discriminatorily discharged on
August 11 , the first day she wore a union button;
(2) whether the Respondent 's supervisors unlaw-
fully threatened , interrogated, and made promises
to employees in connection with the Union's or-
ganizational effort at the Lawndale plant ; and (3) if
either or both of the foregoing questions are an-
swered in the affirmative , whether such conduct
was sufficient to warrant the setting aside of the
election held on September 14.
The objections filed by the Union to alleged con-
duct affecting the results of the election held on
September 14, which have been disposed of by the
Regional Director adversely to the Union should be
noticed at this point so that the issues which I shall
now attempt to resolve will show the facts set forth
in support of the objections . These are, in sub-
stance , that after July 24 ( the date of the filing of
the Employer 's petition in the representation case),
after July 26 (the date of the filing of the union
petition ), and after August 24 (the date of the filing
of the Decision and Direction of Election in Cases
13-RC-11219 and 13-RM-888 ), " the employer by
its agents and supervisors unilaterally granted wage
increases to numerous employees eligible to vote in
said election , and in some instances two wage in-
creases , in order to influence the voting in said
election "; that the Employer by its agents and su-
pervisors distributed literature by mail and by hand
to employees eligible to vote in said election which
restrained and coerced said employees in that said
literature contained promise of benefit and threat
of reprisal depending upon whether said employees
selected the Union as a bargaining agent and in that
said literature also contained material false and
misleading statements; and that on or about August
22, the Employer by its agents and supervisors
changed the format of its pay stub in order to in-
fluence the result of said election by including
thereon items not theretofore shown, thereby lead-
ing employees to believe that further deductions in
amounts unknown and unshown might be made
from their pay if the Union was selected as collec-
tive-bargaining agent in said election . The Regional
Director also found that the Union-Petitioner,
'The General Counsel , in support of his position concerning the hostility
of the Company and its strong opposition to the Union 's organizational ef-
forts, relies on Plus sl ool Manufacturing Co . 140 NLRB 1417 In that case,
the Trial Examiner issued his Recommended order on October 9, 1962, he
in that case having been concerned pnncipally with incidents which had
occurred mostly during the month of March 1962 Although there may be
"though requested , has submitted no evidence in
support of that portion of this Objection which al-
leges that the Employer flooded the work area with
coercive posters on the morning of the election."
These issues having been resolved by the Regional
Director adversely to the Union , and finally de-
cided under proper procedure as provided by the
applicable rules of the Board , it is clear that they
may not be relitigated before me. Delta Drilling
Company ( Local 826 , International Union of
Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO), 169 NLRB 617.
Except for one incident during the first week in
July, the evidence presented here concerns conduct
engaged in between the time of the filing of the
Employer 's petition on July 24 , and the date of the
election , September 14. It follows that all of the
conduct with which we are here concerned was in
the "critical period" for objectional conduct affect-
ing the results of the election.'
The Discharge of Rosie Lee Redmond
On August 2, Rosie Lee Redmond was inter-
viewed by Foreman Ken Angel and was put to work
by him on the following day in the Boring Room, to
engage in operations performed there involving the
drilling of holes with drill presses in wood parts of
certain toys manufactured by the Company. It ap-
pears that the job assigned to her was a compara-
tively simple one, involving the repetitive operation
of a drill press . At the time Redmond reported for
work , Angel showed her the premises , advising her
where to hang up her coat , where the drinking
fountain was, and the location of the washroom. He
explained the use of job tickets and how work
records were kept. He asked her if she had ever
operated a machine; she replied that she had
operated a molding machine . She was assigned by
him to a 17-inch drill press used for boring screw
holes in the wooden base of a toy designated No.
340, the operation being performed by taking the
base out of a box on one side of the press , placing it
on the press, pushing a foot pedal , removing it from
the machine , and then placing it in a box on the
other side of the machine . According to Angel, he
considered Redmond to be a very poor operator on
the first day of her employment and that, although
he attempted to help her on two or three occasions
by stopping her press to show her the proper way to
place the pieces in the press , and operating the
press himself, her work continued to be unsatisfac-
some minuscule weight to be attached to the fact that the Company here,
the Respondent there , was found to have engaged in objectionable con-
duct, nevertheless the facts there are so remote from the present that I at-
tach little, if any, weight to the mere fact that there was a case heard in
1962, decided by the Board in 1963, or to the facts found then
PLAYSKOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1565
tory.4 On the morning after she started work (that
is, Friday, August 4), Redmond operated a fully au-
tomatic 17-inch drill press boring holes in a "plain
house" for toy No. 511, this operation being per-
formed by stacking parts in the hopper of the press,
about three at a time. The press then automatically
bores the holes, and the finished pieces drop into a
box on the floor. The hopper on the machine holds
about 50 pieces. According to Angel, Redmond put
the parts in the hopper in a haphazard way, causing
the press to jam . He testified that he stopped the
press , straightened the parts in the hopper, and
again instructed her concerning the proper opera-
tion of the press . In substance , according to Angel,
Redmond was incompetent on each of the two
machines.
The testimony of Redmond is to opposite effect.
She said that Angel told her that she was learning
and catching on very fast, which statement Angel
denied having made . Angel did say that he did not
criticize Redmond for poor performance and never
explained to her that she was not making standard
rates , but did explain that it was his custom never
to criticize employees or threaten them concerning
poor performance but, on the other hand, instruct
them on better ways to do their jobs, which he did
in the case of Redmond.
On that Friday afternoon, August 4, Stanley Zak,
foreman of the sticker room, informed Angel that
he required a helper in his department whereupon
Angel assigned Redmond to work there. On Satur-
day, August 5, Redmond was returned to and work
in the boring room. Either on that Saturday or on
the following Monday, Angel asked Foreman
Schultz of the mill room whether he had work
which Redmond could perform, because she was
not "making rates" in the boring room, and Schultz
replied that he could use her as a helper on a trim
saw, a job which required the helper to stack pieces
of wood for the operator of the saw. On Monday,
August 7, An*el instructed Redmond in the mill
room concerning the job, which she did, first help-
ing employee Swetka and then employee Menard,
until the afternoon of Friday, August 11, when she
returned to the boring room. Redmond was
discharged on August 11.
Employee John Menard and Redmond each
testified in effect that on the morning of the day
that Redmond was discharged, Foreman Angel,
while walking through the department where
Menard and Redmond were working together, saw
Redmond wearing a union button reading "We
Want a Raise , We Need a Raise , We Demand a
Raise , UFWA, AFL-CIO," a celluloid button some
2 inches in diameter with black lettered words on a
white background ; each testified in effect that
Angel said: "What are you wearing the button for,
you are a new girl?" They said that within a half
hour , Redmond was separated from Menard (who
was also wearing a similar button ) and Redmond
testified to the effect that on that afternoon, Angel
discharged her saying : " Playskool did not need my
services any longer but my work was satisfactory."
Angel testified that on August 9 or 10, he had
spoken separately with Foreman Schultz and Plant
Superintendent Eugene Wohler ; in his conversation
with Schultz , he asked about Redmond's per-
formance in the mill room , and Schultz told him
that she was doing very badly; and in his conversa-
tion with Wohler, he said that Redmond 's rates
were down on all jobs to which she had been as-
signed , she did not seem to care about the work,
and recommended that she be terminated . Wohler
corroborated the testimony of Angel . He approved
Angel 's recommendation and notified the "person-
nel girl " of the decision who made a notation on
Redmond 's personnel card "work unsatisfactory,"
and signed Wohler 's name to the card.
The testimony of Redmond further is to the ef-
fect that on Wednesday , August 9, or Thursday,
August 10 , she was distributing union authorization
cards to employees Catherine Soto and Ernestine
Webb in the lunchroom at the plant , where the
three of them were sitting at a table when they ob-
served Angel sitting at another table nearby. Ac-
cording to their testimony , Webb saw Angel drink-
ing coffee and looking in their direction and told
Redmond to put the card she was holding under the
table ; that Redmond put the card under a magazine
cover , placed it on the tabletop , and passed it to
Webb who immediately put the card in her purse.
Redmond testified that other persons were sitting at
the same table as Angel and others were elsewhere
in the lunchroom-that Angel said nothing to her
about the cards . Angel in his testimony disputed
Redmond 's testimony , saying that he did not see
her passing out cards and he was not in the
lunchroom when the incident allegedly occurred.
Angel testified that he customarily took his lunch at
his desk and was very seldom in the lunchroom.
Menard testified that he had seen Angel in the
lunchroom some five times during the last year,
four during the lunch period , and that Angel
usually has his lunch in the lunchroom . It may be
noted here that Menard does not himself take his
lunch in the lunchroom and failed to answer
' The Company maintains in its records certain job tickets which show
the names of employees , the job numbers assigned, hours of work , and vari-
ances over and under efficiency standard (See Resp Exhs 4-14 ) What
seems to me to be an inordinate amount of time was spent at the hearing in
connection with the job tickets used by the Company and the uses to which
they are put and the information to be derived therefrom An examination
of such a ticket would show the operating employee's clock number and
name, the number of the job order, the name and the number of the part in-
volved , a description of the operation performed on the part , date on which
the job is performed , number of hours which the employee spent on the
job, and the number of parts completed during that time Their usefulness
was first made apparent in connection with the testimony of Rosie Lee
Redmond's tickets, in connection with her understanding of what her job
was supposed to be and what her performance was expected to be-the
standards to be met by her in performance of a particular job Having once
opened the door as to this one employee, it seemed incumbent upon me to
allow other comparisions in connection with the work of other employees
1566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
satisfactorily how he knew that Angel usually ate in
the lunchroom.
With respect to the wearing of the union button,
Redmond also testified that on the morning of
Friday , August 11, she began to wear a union but-
ton; that about 11 o'clock that morning, Angel
asked her the question above noted-"What are
you wearing the button for, you are a new girl."
Although Menard corroborated the testimony of
Redmond , Angel testified that he did not notice
Redmond wearing a union button , that he did not
make the statement attributed to him or any state-
ment whatsoever to Redmond concerning union
buttons , and that he had had no conversation with
her while she was working in the mill room with
Menard.
From all that may be gleaned from the somewhat
conflicting testimony of the witnesses , Redmond
was reassigned to the boring room late in the morn-
ing of August 11, and for the rest of the day drilled
holes for headlights on toy trucks, and about 3:45
or 4 p . m. paychecks were distributed by Angel to
the employees in the boring room and, as he
handed Redmond her check , he told her that she
was discharged . According to Angel , he told her
that her workmanship was very poor , that she was
not making rates on any job to which she had been
assigned , and that the Company would have to let
her go . As above noted Redmond said that Angel
said: "Playskool did not need my services any
longer but my work was satisfactory ." Redmond
said at first that Angel said nothing more to her nor
did she say anything to him but again she said that
she had inquired whether she was fired and Angel
had said "Yes. "5
Referring again to the testimony of Redmond
concerning her instructions as to the work to be
performed by her , received from Angel, it seems
clear enough that he instructed her on her first day
at work how to fill out job tickets and the purpose
in so doing . Taking into account the apparent
(other than real) language barrier evident during
her direct examination and cross -examination, her
testimony concerning the tickets was confusing and
evasive . An examination of her tickets discloses, in
support of the contention of the Respondent, that
during the comparably short term of her employ-
ment , she at no time achieved standard per-
formance and, accepting the testimony of Angel, as
I do, her work performance was unsatisfactory from
management point of view . If the only question in-
volved in her case was whether the Company had
proper cause to discharge for unsatisfactory per-
formance, I should have no trouble in finding that
the work was unsatisfactory, and her discharge was
justified . However , since the question of implied
threats , interrogation , and coercion has been raised
'After the discharge of Redmond , she went to the office of the Plant Su-
perintendent Henry Mosbacher on Monday , August 14 , to discuss her
discharge , accompanied by, she first said. Union Organizer Angelello, later
identified as a "friend " and not Angelello Mosbacher said he would look
in her case as in the case of other employees, I
choose to discuss the whole of the testimony re-
garding alleged 8(a)( 1) violations of the Act.
The Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations
On or about June 26 , when the organizational
campaign of the Union was in progress , a "Petition
to Playskool Mfg. Co ." signed by some 70 em-
ployees following a signature line "Playskool Work-
ers Organizing Committee ," was distributed. The
petition referred to the Company 's sales record, its
growth and prosperity , its profits , and then , having
pointed out that many of the employees who had
signed this petition had received no wage increase
"last month ," and for those of them who did
receive an increase it was far too small , they there-
fore requested an immediate 15-cent -an-hour in-
crease in pay and also requested that the Company
pay in full the cost of hospital and surgical in-
surance , pay sick benefits each week "when we are
off sick ," an automatic wage increase when the cost
of living "goes up," and time-and-one-half wages
after 8 hours of work . The names of employees
Carlo Romando and Eleanor Romando were shown
among the many signatures.
Just prior to the election of September 14, the
Company distributed to its employees three letters,
one dated September 11, one dated September 12,
and the last dated September 13. Each letter was
written in the English and Spanish languages, since
a number of Spanish -speaking people were em-
ployed at the Lawndale plant . A copy of each of
the letters as they appeared in the English language
are attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C and
made a part hereof.
The General Counsel asserts that the letters on
their face and their dissemination to the employees
on the eve of election show not only the Company's
strong opposition to the union campaign by what he
calls "vigorously antiunion literature ," but, when
taken in connection with statements allegedly made
by firstline supervisors to employees ( which I shall
mention below ), go beyond the bounds of proper
statement of company position and in themselves
contain coercive statements intended to interfere
with and threaten impliedly those employees who
were thinking about voting in favor of the Union as
their collective-bargaining representative . In regard
to the September 1 1 letter, the General Counsel
emphasizes the following statements : "All benefits,
including those now in effect are bargainable. All
are on the table for trading . They can be traded
down as well as up and one benefit can be traded
for another ." The September 12 letter is objected
to as coercive because it contains the following
statement: "Unions are founded on the principle
into the matter and call her but, according to her testimony , she heard
nothing more from Mosbacher The parties have agreed that a letter from
Playskool informing Miss Redmond that she was dismissed because of un-
satisfactory work was mailed to her on August 14
PLAYSKOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY
that any employer is an enemy ... the Union de-
mands for its members complete allegiance to the
Union, and to what the Union wants, regardless of
the real interest of the employees or to the em-
ployer." The following extract of the letter of Sep-
tember 13 is pointed to by the General Counsel:
"Vote No Union for No Strike-No dues-No
strike losses-No fines-No fees-No assess-
ments."
According to the testimony of certain witnesses
presented by the General Counsel, Eleanor Roman-
do, one of the signers of the June petition was ap-
proached by Supervisor Marvin Findler who at that
time said to her: "I'd think it over about the Union
and two people would be involved ... you want to
jeopardize your house, too?" Mrs. Romando and
her husband, who had signed the petition above
referred to, had worked for the Company for
something over 14 years.
According to Romando, Findler, while distribut-
ing handbills to the employees which had been
given to him for distribution, said: "You better
think it over jeopardizing yourself and you have it
right here in black and white,"6 the implication
being that Findler was indicating that an employee
who voted "Yes" would suffer strike losses and
other loss of benefits. According to Mrs. Romando,
Findler also said that if the Union called a strike
over the failure of the Company to meet its de-
mands, it could mean that there would be two
checks not coming in to her family; and that Find-
ler concluded by saying: "I'd have to think it over
about the future if that's all it meant to me, getting
in with the Union .... Two people were involved."
Mrs. Romando, a night-shift employee, testified
further that the next morning, the day of the elec-
tion, while she was at home, she received a
telephone call from Findler, the latter saying in ef-
fect that she had better think it over, that she was
jeopardizing her future, again mentioned the fact
that the Romando family had both breadwinners
employed at the Lawndale plant, that if both of
them were out it would jeopardize both of them,
and that he (Findler) did not see why they could
not get along on the wages they presently were
earning . Mrs. Romando testified that when she
replied that she still thought the wages were too
low, Findler told her: "Well, you do the right
thing." Findler testified that he recalled a very
short conversation of not more than 5 minutes with
Mrs. Findler. He testified:
Well, I did most of the talking, and I said that if
this Union got in and if the Company didn't
meet the Union demands, there could be a
strike, and there would be no paychecks com-
ing in and that's about all the conversation
there was.
" The handbills referred to were company handbills which presented un-
favorable predictions concerning strike losses should an employee vote for
the Union, and a possibility of such an employee being called out on strike,
1567
He denied making a telephone call to Mrs. Roman-
do, denied telling her that she had better think it
over, that she was jeopardizing her future, and de-
nied that he told he that he had said that he did not
see why "you can't get along on the wages as is."
Dorothy Gates, an employee of about 2 years'
standing, testified that on a day about 2 or 3 weeks
before the election Supervisor Gene Rose, as she
was passing him during the course of her work, said
that he would be glad when the Union got in, and
that someone would be subject to a rude awaken-
ing. This testimony of Mrs. Gates is unrefuted.
Camelo Pagan, employed by the Company for
approximately 2 years, testified that about 4 or 5
days before the election his supervisor, Bill
Leopold, about 2 o'clock in the afternoon, "told
me the Union no good because the Union win, he
cut it to 40 hours," meaning that his working time
would be cut to 40 hours, I assume; Pagan said he
was working about 45 hours per week at that time
and, further, that during the course of the conversa-
tion Leopold asked him if he had signed a paper for
the Union, to which he replied "No."
According to the testimony of employee Rafael
Santiago, Supervisor Frank Dutcher, on Thursday,
September 7, remarked to him that he did not
know why the people did not stay on the third floor
" .. he want the Union, because in here he give
him overtime, he gives some raises, he give good
opportunity for everybody ... I don't know why the
people down stairs wants the Union because maybe
the Union's no good. This place give overtime, they
give raises." Santiago testified further to a conver-
sation he had with Supervisor Schultz, about the
first week in July, in which Schultz told him that
the Company gave a nickel raise every year and
gave a lot of overtime and did not push anyone, to
which Santiago replied that " . . . the nickel raise is
no money. I need union. That's all."
Francisco Borges, employed by the Company for
something over 11 years, testified that during the
first week in July he was engaged in a conversation
with Supervisor Frank Dutcher, on the third floor
of the plant sometime before the noon hour, during
the course of which Dutcher told him that he knew
he belonged to the Union; that he could go "any
side you like"; and that Borges replied that he lived
in a free country. Borges also testified to a conver-
sation between him and Supervisor Porfiro Bermu-
dez on the Monday before the election, during the
course of which, he said, Bermudez' remarks in-
cluded one to the effect that: "We can make a deal
with all Puerto Rican and all Mexican to tell the
boss what we could get for all every year"; and that
it was indicated by Bermudez that the Company
would grant benefits without the necessity for
Borges to belong to a union. Borges also said that
and another handbill pointing out the advantages of voting "No" at the
election to ensure no strikes, no dues, and so on
1568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bermudez told him that he was at the Lawndale
plant to make a schedule and that the Company
was going to cut hours of work to 40 hours if the
Union got in . According to Borges he was at that
time working 50 hours a week.
Counsel for the General Counsel correctly states
that if he has proved a threat to cut employees'
overtime if the Union won the election it was un-
lawful interference ; that an offer to bargain in-
dividually with Spanish -speaking employees was an
interference with their rights to bargain collective-
ly; and that the questioning of Redmond by Angel
concerning the wearing of a union button and what
he chooses to call "subtle interference " in the way
of comment by supervisors with an intent to inter-
fere with the rights of employees and other innuen-
dos which I have tried to accurately summarize
above , constitute violations of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act . If his argument can be sustained by the
facts , then he is entitled to an order such as he
requests , requiring the Respondent in the unfair
labor practice case to cease and desist from inter-
ference, intimidation and coercion of employees,
and a remand to the Regional Director by the
Board to conduct a new election.
After hearing and observing the witnesses , close-
ly studying the record and exhibits of the case, and
considering the argument contained within the
briefs of counsel , I am not convinced that the
General Counsel has proved his case by a prepon-
derance of the evidence . There are too many seri-
ous questions of credibility and too much require-
ment for strong inference to be drawn , placed upon
other inferences, to permit me to recommend a
cease -and-desist order in the unfair labor practice
case. The testimony of all witnesses , including those
whose testimony I neither accept nor refer to, has
been considered , and in evaluating the testimony of
each witness I have relied most strongly and specifi-
cally upon his or her demeanor and will make my
findings accordingly . Apart from considerations of
demeanor , I have taken into account inconsisten-
cies and conflicting evidence , so that my failure to
meticulously detail each of these is not to be
deemed a failure on my part to have fully con-
sidered each one of these factors in reaching my ul-
timate conclusions.'
The cold stenographic transcript herein reflects
that many of the witnesses were not too adapt in
the expression of their views ; nevertheless, I am
convinced that each one understood the import of
the questions put to him or her and was well aware
of the import of their answers . I make this comment
in connection with the very serious questions of
credibility which have arisen in this case.
I do not credit the important parts of the
testimony of Rosie Lee Redmond . Her explanations
of the circumstances under which she was notified
of her discharge by Angel , together with her re-
ported activities in the solicitation of a union
authorization card or some union authorization
cards in the presence of Angel , are unbelievable,
particularly in regard to the so -called corroboration
of her testimony by Menard . I -think the lunchroom
episode was inflated beyond reason , even assuming
that Angel was in the lunchroom at the time
Redmond and two other employees were engaged
in a discussion concerning the signing of union
authorization cards . Standing by itself, and even
conceding that it happened , the coincidental wear-
ing of union buttons by Redmond and Menard at a
time when they were working together on the same
machine proves nothing , since the testimony of
other witnesses reflects that union buttons had been
worn by other employees in the plant for some
time . I discredit the testimony of both Redmond
and Menard . Then too , the unsatisfactory work of
Redmond during the short period of time she was
employed , the efforts of Angel to find an ap-
propriate place for her to work , and any other cir-
cumstance surrounding her employment conclu-
sively show that she was discharged for cause and
that her interest in the Union was not taken into
consideration by company management when the
decision was made to discharge her.
The testimony of Findler is more consistent with
fact than the testimony of Mrs . Romando ; even as-
suming , arguendo that the substance of the conver-
sations between Findler and Mrs . Romando was as
reported , and I believe in fact that any remarks
exchanged between the two were in the nature of
conversation between acquaintances of rather long
standing , and that although Findler did express a
view as to what would happen if a strike occurred
in the future , that he was merely engaging in casual
conversation.
No weight can be accorded the comment of Su-
pervisor Rose to employee Gates . Her grievance
against Rose is obvious from the record in that, ac-
cording to her, Rose refused to grant her time off at
some previous time before the alleged comment of
Rose to her concerning a "rude awakening " and, as
she expressed it, " ... I was pretty upset about it
and I wanted days off and this didn 't-he didn't
agree on." Gates' memory was good only in respect
to the one remark made to her in passing.
The comments of Supervisor Dutcher obviously
were not intended as threats concerning anything
having to do with the Union, nor did Santiago say
that Dutcher said anything further than to comment
that he did not know why the people wanted a
union . The testimony of Santiago concerning his
conversation with Supervisor Schultz amounts to
the fact only that if the reported conversation is
true Schultz told Santiago that the Company gave a
nickel raise every year and Santiago told Schultz
that the nickel raise was not enough.
7 Bishop and Malco , Inc a dlbla Walker's, 159 N LRB 1159, 1161
PLAYSKOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1569
Burges , a close frient of Bermudez, testified more
from imagination than memory, in my opinion; and
his conversation with Dutcher, even if it occurred,
would not either by itself or in connection with the
testimony of all the other witnesses above-men-
tioned, constitute interference, interrogation, or
coercion in respect to union matters.
The General Counsel, in order to demonstrate
animus or hostility on the part of the Company
toward the Union, relies on the Board case above
mentioned heard in the year 1962 (140 NLRB
1417) and upon the literature distributed to the
employees just prior to the election of September
14. It may not be assumed, in respect to the 1962
case, that the Employer's hostility was there, boil-
ing, latent , and unnoticed from that time until the
filing of the charge in the instant unfair labor prac-
tice case.
It is apparent that since no direct evidence was
available to the General Counsel to establish the
Respondent's hostility toward the Union and
motivation for the firing of Redmond, he necessari-
ly has had to rely on indirect or circumstantial
evidence. His indirect and circumstantial evidence,
however, must fail because it rests solely on sur-
mise, suspicion, or innuendo. In Appalachian Elec-
tric Power Co. v. N.L.R.B. , 93 F.2d 985, 989 (C.A.
4), substantial evidence was there defined as
"evidence furnishing a substantial basis of fact from
which the fact in issue can reasonably be inferred;
and the test is not satisfied by evidence which
merely creates a suspicion or which amounts to
more than a scintilla or which gives equal support
to any inconsistent inferences." Credibility
generally may be resolved by impeachment, sub-
stantial contradiction, or uncontroverted facts, and
in many instances by objective observation of the
witness' aimed to result in findings based on "con-
sistent and inherent probabilities of testimony."
Universal Camera Corporation v. N.L.R.B. , 340
U.S. 474, 496. There " is no reason for refusing to
accept everything a witness says, because you do
not believe all of it; nothing is more common in all
kinds of judicial proceedings than to believe some
and not all." N.L.R.B. v. Universal Camera Cor-
poration, 179 F.2d 749, 754 (C.A. 2), reversed on
other grounds 340 U.S. 474. Accord: N.L.R.B. v.
West Point Mfg. Co. (Lanett Mill), 245 F.2d 783,
785 (C.A. 5); N.L.R.B. v. United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local #517,
AFL [Gil Wyner Construction Co.],, 230 F.2d 256,
259 (C.A. 1). Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Griggs Equipment,
Inc., 307 F.2d 275, 278 (C.A. 5); and see Shattuck
Denn Mining Corporation v. N.L.R.B. , 362 F.2d
466, 470 (C.A. 9), wherein the court stated:
Nor is the trier of fact-here the trial ex-
aminer-required to be any more naif than is
the judge. If he finds that the stative motive for
a discharge is false, he certainly can infer that
there is another motive. More than that, he can
infer that the motive is one that the employer
desires to conceal-an unlawful motive-at
least where, as in this case, the surrounding
facts tend to reinforce that inference.
The letters of September 6, 11, and 12, dis-
tributed by management to its employees, I find to
be expressions of views, arguments, or opinions and
therefore fall within the privilege of Section 8(c) of
the Act.' The extracts relied upon by the General
Counsel to show threats or promises of benefits are
taken from context and in themselves, while obvi-
ously appealing to the employees to vote against
the Union, do not abridge the privilege of Section
8(c).
In Dixie Cup, Division of American Can Company,
157 NLRB 167, 168-169, the Board wrote in part:
The Trial Examiner also found that the
Respondent's preelection notice of March 1,
its letter of June 3, and its speeches of June 10
and 11 to the assembled employees were no
more than expressions of views, arguments, or
opinions and therefore fell within the privilege
of Section 8(c) of the Act. Accordingly, he
found no violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act and recommended dismissal of the com-
plaint. While we agree with the Trial Examiner
that the letter and speeches were privileged
under Section 8(c), we do not agree that the
paragraph in its March 1 notice warning em-
ployees "that if a Union were to get in here, it
would not work to your benefit, but in the long
run, would itself operate to your serious harm"
was similarly privileged. It is true that no other
elements of the Respondent's letter and speech
are found to have violated the Act, but given a
course of conduct on the part of the Respon-
dent which narrowly treads the dividing line
between right and wrong, we are not prepared
to say that in this instance the language of the
notice did not step over the line into the for-
bidden area....
See also pp. 208-209, ibid. , quoting from Bok The
Regulation of Campaign Tactics In Representation
Elections Under the National Labor Relations Act,
78 Harvard Law Rev. No.1, November 1964, p. 38.
Concluding Findings
I find and conclude that the discharge of Rosie
Lee Redmond was for cause and was not motivated
by her interest in or activities on behalf of the
Union. Therefore, the complaint as amended in
Case 13-CA-7996 should be dismissed.
The objections to the result of the election, filed
by the Union-Petitioner in Case 13-RC-11219 and
Case 13-RM-888, Nos. 1, 6, 7, and 8, should be
" Sec 8 ( c) provides as follows
The expressing of any views, argument , or opinion , or the dissemina-
tion thereof, whether in written , printed, graphic, or visual form, shall
not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of
the provisions in this Act, if such expression contains no threat of
reprisal or force or promise of benefit
1570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
overruled , and those cases remanded to the Re-
gional Director for appropriate action certifying the
results of the election conducted under his supervi-
sion on September 14, 1967.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
whole record of the case and the preponderance of
the evidence , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Playskool Mfg. Co . is now , and at all times
material herein has been , an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. United Furniture Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Playskool Mfg. Co., the Respondent in Case
13-CA-7996, has not engaged in and is not engag-
ing in unfair labor practices as alleged in the com-
plaint.
4. Cases 13-RM-888 and 13-RC-11219, should
be remanded to the Regional Director for Region
13 with instruction to deny the objections to con-
duct affecting the results of the election conducted
under his supervision on September 14, 1967, and
for his certification of the results of that election
according to the results as found by him in his Sup-
plemental Decision and Order Further Consolidat-
ing Cases entered by him on December 5, 1967.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that an Order herein be en-
tered by the Board , dismissing the complaint as
amended in Case 13-CA-7996 in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Board
enter an Order in Cases 13-RC-11219 and
13-RM-888, remanding those cases to the Re-
gional Director for Region 13 with instructions to
deny all of the objections to the result of the elec-
tion conducted by him on September 14, 1967, and
further to certify the results of that election as re-
ported by him in his Supplemental Decision, Order
Further Consolidating Cases and Direction of Hear-
ing entered December 5, 1967.
APPENDIX
September 6, 1967
After almost four years of trying, the Furniture
Workers Union organizers have again obtained
enough signed authorization cards to have an
election. The National Labor, Relations Board
has notified us that one of its agents will con-
duct a secret ballot election here at the plant
on Thursday, September 14, 1967. Details as
to voting hours and the location of voting
booths will be posted on our bulletin boards at
a later date.
Many of you who have been steadily employed
by Playskool for a number of years will re-
member that the Union always claims to
represent a majority of the employees. But
each time we have had an election you and
your co-workers have proved this to be false by
voting NO.
A signed union card is not a vote for the
Union, and a signed union card does not
require the one who signed it to vote for the
Union when the election is held. We realize
that individuals sign union cards for many
reasons which have nothing to do with wanting
a union to represent them . Sometimes the card
is signed just to get the one who is pestering
the person off his back. Some cards are signed
because of intimidation, or because phony
promises or false stories about management
are circulated by the union organizer. Often
the person is told the card is used only to get a
secret ballot election in which the employee
can vote for or against the Union.
The important thing now is for you to un-
derstand that you have no obligation to vote
for the Union even if you have signed a card.
We have never felt that a union was needed at
our plant.
We do not believe that a union would be in the
best interest of all of us who depend upon the
success of this operation. Of course, you will
be free to vote as you choose. All we ask is
that you consider all of the facts and recognize
that the union organizers' real goal is to obtain
more dues-paying members.
September 11, 1967
This Thursday, September 14th, another secret
election will be held by the N.L.R.B. at our
plant. As in all the other elections we have had
over the past 12-15 years, your vote will de-
cide whether a union-once again the United
Furniture Workers Union, AFL-CIO-will be
your sole representative in all matters concern-
ing your wages, hours of work and other condi-
tions, or whether you will continue to exercise
your individual freedom to discuss and settle
your own problems with those of us you know
so well.
We know you understand and appreciate the
importance of this matter. It is impossible to be
neutral , because every one of you will be
directly affected by the outcome. Union con-
tracts cover all employees at the plant, not just
those who vote for the union . Union security
clauses require all employees to pay initiation
fees and dues and to be subject to union rules
under penalty of paying fines, assessments, etc.
Your vote is important!
PLAYSKOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1571
You and we know that there are problems and
differences of opinion in all groups , in lodges,
churches and even in families . You also know
that the people directly concerned can best
work out problems without outside inter-
ference . Our plant is no different . From time to
time we have had problems , but we believe you
will agree that we have worked them out with
those directly involved with far better than
average success . A union would not eliminate
problems , but it would interfere with your right
to speak for yourself and make your own deci-
sions.
Over the years the unions who have sought
your money have warned you that if you didn't
vote for them the company would change its
wages and working conditions and withdraw
benefits . We think our record is the best
answer to such statements . Since the last elec-
tion four years ago, Playskool has voluntarily:
Raised wages every year . Today our wages
are among the best in the toy industry.
Installed a paid pension plan to provide
security for you and your family in later
years.
Provided steady work without major
layoffs for any reason . This is almost un-
heard of in the toy industry.
Continued to avoid temporary layoffs
when there is no work on certain jobs by
moving people to other departments
without loss of pay . Many union contracts
prevent such transfers . We don't know
what this union would try to do about this
or about transfers to the Sacramento
plant ; we do know that the union
representatives have strongly resisted a
combination of the two plants for the
N.L.R.B. election.
Scheduled regular overtime work at time
and one-half . As you know , unions like to
place restrictions on overtime work. Why?
To force the employer to hire more dues-
paying members to get production out.
As usual, the union organizers are full of
promises . Their propaganda sheets imply that
they can guarantee you all sorts of improve-
ments ( remember the mis-information on night
shift premiums ). It seems the Furniture Wor-
kers' Union has " promised " or "guaranteed"
some of you that it would both
(a) keep every wage and other benefit
you already have, and
(b) get you wage increases and improve-
ments in existing benefits plus new
benefits.
Such campaign "promises " and "guarantees"
are nonsense and the union knows it. Here are
the FACTS
If and when a union wins an election , all it gets
is the right to bargain with the employer.
Under the law, this means merely that the
company is required to sit down and bargain in
good faith with the intent of reaching a con-
tract. All benefits including those now in effect
are bargainable . All are on the table for trad-
ing. They can be traded down as well as up and
one benefit can be traded for another.
Only one thing is sure: No one can honestly tell
you in advance what would come out of bargain-
ing.
We still firmly believe that you and we will be
better off without a union-without being
forced to deal with each other by rules set
down by strangers who don 't know us, don't
really understand our situation and may not be
in sympathy in what we are trying to do. Be
sure to vote Thursday . We hope you will vote
NO, but the decision is yours . It is up to you to
decide whether you will be better off going
along as in the past with repeated increases in
wages and benefits , without work stoppages
and lost pay , and dealing directly with us, or
whether you should give the union the right to
speak and act for you.
September 12, 1967
Most employees at Playskool have never had
any dealings with unions and do not know what
it would mean to have a union at Playskool.
Every employee should ask the questions:
"What does it mean to belong to a union?
What do I have to give up? What do I expect to
gain?"
One of the most important things about joining
a union is the change demanded in your at-
titude. Unions are founded on the principle
that any employer is an enemy, and that this
"enemy" can be compelled by force to do the
things the union wants it to do. The union de-
mands of its members complete allegiance to
the union , and to what the union wants, re-
gardless of the real interest of the employees or
of the employer . This is what joining a union
really means-that you identify your employer
as an " enemy" and that you are going to join a
union in order to force him to do something.
Every union handout that you have seen, by its
language and its content, makes this clear.
THREE QUESTIONS
You should ask yourself three questions:
1. Do you really regard Playskool as an ene-
1572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
my? And do you really believe that Playskool is
such an enemy that you must join an outside
party to try to force Playskool to do things?
2. Do you believe that the drive for unionism
now going on started spontaneously within the
company9 You all know the union picked you
as their target.
3. Do you believe that this outside party is
more interested in you and your welfare, or in
the thousands of dollars in dues you and your
fellow employees would pour into their
treasury?
A BASIC QUESTION
Every individual should ask : "Why should I
want to be in a labor union?"
Fewer than 30% of the people who work for a
living in America are members of unions.
Many Americans belong to unions because
they have no choice-they work in union shops
where employees must belong to a union or be
fired. Total union membership in the United
States has stayed about the same for the past
15 years , despite the tremendous growth in the
work force. This reflects the fact that millions
of people do not feel that union membership
would do them any good . With this stagnation
of interest in unions , it is easy to understand
why labor union leaders are interested in you
and your dollars.
Union leaders resent the fact that many Amer-
icans do not feel that they have to use force to
get satisfactory job conditions. Union member-
ship can mean many things, but the following
list includes most of the important things that
belonging to a union means to individuals.
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM
The interests of the union leaders always come
before the interests of the individual members.
For example , the prime objective of unions is a
union shop ( where everyone must be a union
member ) and the deduction of union dues
(check -off) from the paychecks . The union
members may want something else, but this is
secondary as far as the leaders are concerned.
In the Hampshire contract, union security is
provided for in the very first article.
You now have, as an individual, every right
that any union offers and more. You can deal
directly with your foreman, your plant
manager or higher company official. Under
union control, you will be "represented" by
someone else, who may or may not respect
your needs and aims. The very basic freedom
of speaking for yourself in matters that affect
you personally is gone when you join a union.
The interests of the union always come before
the interests of the individual.
COSTS
The basic costs of belonging to a union are in-
itiation fees , dues , assessments and fines. These
out-of-pocket dollars pour into the union treas-
ury and are used for purposes which may be
totally ditlerent from those you, as an in-
dividual, would support. This money does not
go into a pension fund , insurance fund or any
other fund that is useful to the individual.
The typical union contract calls for all dues
and initiation fees to be deducted from the em-
ployee's paycheck by the employer and paid
directly to the union. This "check-off" of dues
is always a major objective of any union. The
initiation fee is sometimes waived to get votes,
but friends and relatives you might bring in for
jobs later would have to pay.
A much greater cost, never stated by a union,
may come if the union decides to strike.
STRIKES
The basic power of a union is in its power to
strike-to take you off the job and put you in
the streets while the union seeks to force the
company into agreement on the union terms.
Whether the terms originally offered are fair or
not is beside the point . To justify its existence,
a union must always demand more , and try to
force an employer into agreement . If the em-
ployer cannot grant the demands for more, a
strike may result.
No company wants its employees on strike.
The decision to strike is always a union deci-
sion . During 1962 , work stoppages caused the
loss of 18,600,000 man days in America. In
1965, over 40,000 Chicagoans were on strike.
There has never been a strike of any kind at
Playskool because employees have found that
they could deal directly with the company and
again their own security and their own objec-
tives.
A strike at Playskool could cost you many
weeks of wages , and could endanger the future
of the company and the security of everyone's
jobs. This is a high price to pay for member-
ship.
But more important than the money out of the
pocket is the cost to your own dignity and your
own freedom. Do you really want your fellow
union members to vote to put you on the street
in front of your own company in a picket line
that represents the union views , but may not
represent your personal views?
PLAYSKOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1573
Playskool has a history of and a reputation for
leadership in employee benefits and pay in the
toy industry. Your pay has steadily improved
through the years as your productivity has in-
creased and as your work has helped keep
Playskool competitive and your own job
secure . Your pay reflects what you do. You
have achieved this without a union and without
a strike.
LEADERSHIP
Union leadership at the local level typically
falls to the most militant, argumentative and
emotional persons in the group. All of us know
people like this. The question is: Do you want
people of this kind to make your decisions for
you?
If I were faced with the decision confronting
you, I would want to know the union leaders
who want me to entrust my future to them. I
would want to know why these men became so
suddenly interested in me . I would want to
know their background, and whether they are
the kind of people I would really want to fol-
low.
Too often employees are taken in by the glib
promises of union men who have no intention
of fulfilling their promises once an election is
over. Some may think that - "We will give the
union a try, and if it doesn't work, we will get
rid of the union." Unfortunately, it is not that
easy. Once a union is voted in, you have
entrusted your future to these leaders for a
long time.
UNION SECURITY
Belonging to a union really means that you are
giving security to the union. No union can give
you job security. No union ever created a job
in American industry. No union will provide us
with the know-how to design and make better
toys . No union will provide us with more
customers , or improve the service and quality
our customers demand.
CONCLUSION
What does it mean to belong to a labor union?
Let's summarize.
1. You give up your individual freedom and
join a movement that identifies your employer
as your enemy.
2. If the union negotiates a union security
provision, money is taken directly from your
own paycheck to support a set of objectives
that you may not agree with, and to support a
union organization of which you may not want
to be a part.
3. You subject yourself to the possibility of
going on strike to get "more" when your real
and honest objectives can be reached without
outside force.
4. You subject yourself to unknown leadership
whose goals may be substantially different
from your own.
5. Your vote for a union is really a vote for
union security-not a vote for your own
security.
POINTS TO REMEMBER
What are the benefits you expect to gain from
this association? You must answer this
question yourself. As you answer this question,
remember these things:
1. A union can make all kinds of irresponsible
promises.
2. A company cannot make promises during
an election campaign- it is against the law. But
only the company can deliver.
3. A union cannot create jobs.
4. A union cannot create sales of our
products.
5. A union cannot improve our competitive
position.
6. A union cannot guarantee job security.
It will continue to be Playskool policy to in-
form every employee of all the facts in all of
these issues . When you walk into the closed
voting booth and privately mark your ballot ac-
cording to your own best beliefs , you should be
well informed.
Remember two important things:
1. If you signed a union card , you are not
bound in any way to vote for the union in the
secret election. Only you will know how you
vote on September 14.
2. Every eligible employee should vote on Sep-
tember 14 . Anyone not voting is , in effect, vot-
ing for the union.