Southeastern Pipe Line Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 6, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 341 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

SOUTHEASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY 341
3. The CIO contends that its current 3-year contract with the Em-
ployer, effective until March 15, 1954, bars a present determination of
representatives. The record does not show that a substantial part of
the Employer's industry is covered by contracts for a 3-year term.
Accordingly, as the current contract has been in effect for almost 2
years, we find that it is not a bar to this proceeding.2 We also find
that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner and the Employer stipulated that the unit cov-
ered by the current contract between the Employer and the CIO is
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The CIO con-
tends that a multiemployer unit of the employees of the six companies
who are members of the Wyoming Valley Throwsters Labor Com-
mittee,' is appropriate. It stated, however, that if the Board should
find such a multiemployer unit to be inappropriate, then it agreed
that a single-employer unit is appropriate.
For reasons fully set out in our recent decisions in Franklin Throw-
ing Company, 101 NLRB 153, 101 NLRB 737, in which we discussed
in detail this multiemployer bargaining, we find a unit limited to the
employees of this Employer the appropriate unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, mill, excluding executives,
managers, superintendents, assistant superintendents, foremen, assist-
ant foremen, foreladies, assistant foreladies, chauffeurs, truckdrivers,
office clerical employees, professional employees, confidential employ-
ees, guards, and supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
I General Motors Corporation, Detroit Transmission Division, 102 NLRB 1140; Bai-
lance Manufacturing Company, Inc., 97 NLRB 1019.
On May 1, 1951, the CIO and its Penn-Appalachian Joint Board entered into an agree-
ment with the Wyoming Valley Throwsters Labor Committee providing for a joint welfare
program, covering the employees of the six companies.
SOUTHEASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, CIO. Case No. 10-CA 1360. March 6, 1953
Decision and Order
On December 19, 1952, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
103 NLRB No. 38.
257905-54-vol. 103-23
342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the In-
termediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof.
The Board 1 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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in the
case,3 and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the following modification and
clarification .5
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that Barcroft' s transfer was
discriminatorily motivated and therefore was a violation of Section
8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act a
The Respondent contends that the transfer was not discriminatory,
because Barcroft's job, wages, hours, and working conditions remained
substantially unchanged as the result of the transfer. As the Trial
Examiner points out, however, Barcroft's new job is more confining
than his old one and does not afford the variety of work formerly
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board bas delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel . [ Chairman Herzog and
Members Houston and Murdock].
2 Over the objection of the Respondent , the Trial Examiner admitted in evidence testi-
mony as to conversations between supervisory officials . The Trial Examiner did not, nor
do we, make any finding that these conversations constituted unfair labor practices. How-
ever, this testimony was properly admissible as background to show the Respondent 's atti-
tude toward the Union, its motivation in transferring Barcroft , and its planned action to
undermine the Union by securing withdrawal of the Union' s membership. Such evidence
also is relevant to credibility determinations.
s The Respondent has requested oral argument. The request is denied , inasmuch as the
record and brief adequately set forth the issues and the positions of the parties.
4 On page 352 of his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examincr states that "After Whitlock
had had a conversation with Mr Hamilton . . . Oates . . . told Whitlock 'the company
was disappointed ' in him.. . The record shows , and we find, that this conversation
between Oates and Whitlock occurred after Oates had had a conversation with Hamilton,
which Whitlock did not hear.
On page 348 of the Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner states that "Winters told
Bembry that Barcroft was the 'spark plug' of the Union and that he ( Barcroft) would
have to discontinue his activities on behalf of the Union or be discharged or transferred."
The record shows, and we find, that Winters said in mentioning the fact that Barcroft was
the "spark plug" of the Union, "we would have to get rid of Barcroft , fire him." The
Intermediate Report is corrected accordingly
5In adopting the findings of the Trial Examiner, we have accepted his resolutions of
credibility. As demeanor of witnesses is a factor of consequence in resolving issues of
credibility, and as the Trial Examiner , but not the Board, has had the advantage of observ-
ing the witnesses while they testified , it is the Board 's policy to attach great weight to a
Trial Examiner's credibility findings insofar as they are based on demeanor . Hence, we
do not overrule a Trial Examiner ' s resolutions as to credibility except where the clear pre-
ponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the Trial Examiner ' s resolution
was incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F. 2d 302
(C A 3). Applying this standard to the facts of the present case, we perceive no adequate
basis for overruling the Trial Examiner 's credibility determinations.
e ".. . the transfer of an employee . . . traceable to membership in a labor union .. .
constitutes discrimination within the interdiction of Section 8 (1) and ( 3),." Continental
Oil Company v N. L. R. B., 113 F. 2d 473, 484 (C. A. 10).
SOUTHEASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY 343
available to him. Moreover, his new place of employment is also a
considerable distance from his former place of work.' Accordingly,
we find that the transfer has resulted in discrimination in regard to
Barcroft's terms and conditions of employment. In any event, Bar-
croft's transfer constituted an independent violation of Section 8 (a)
(1), especially as it resulted in the removal of Barcroft from the bar-
gaining unit.
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. We base this finding on the following
conduct of the Respondent :
(a) The discriminatory transfer of Barcroft.
(b) The threats of reprisal made by Bembry and Winters to Bar-
croft on account of his union activity.
(c) The supervisor solicitations of employee withdrawals from the
Union.
(d) Personnel Director Lawrence's statement to employee Roddy
that he could not expect any favors from the Respondent because, as
a worker for the Union, he had made himself an enemy of the
Respondent.
(e) Personnel Director Lawrence's statement to employee Whitlock
clearly implying that a supporter of the Union was an enemy of the
Respondent and would be treated as one.
(f) Personnel Director Lawrence's and Supervisor Oates' inter-
rogation of employee Hansard as to attendance at a union meeting.
(g) Supervisor Hamilton's questioning of Hansard as to his union
sympathies.
3. As recommended by the Trial Examiner, we shall order the
Respondent to restore Barcroft to his former position. We do not
adopt the Trial Examiner's further recommendation that the "Re-
spondent should be relieved of its obligation to make such reinstate-
ment effective, if it proves to the National Labor Relations Board that
for legitimate business reasons it is advantageous to continue its pres-
ent arrangement of operating with the combined job and that an
undue hardship would result from a requirement that it reinstate
Barcroft." s
Both the Trial Examiner and the Board have found that the Re-
spondent transferred Barcroft and consolidated his job with that of
another employee for discriminatory reasons. So far as appears, if
Barcroft had not been active in the Union's behalf, he would have
been permitted to remain at his old job. In these circumstances, the
only way to undo the wrong perpetrated against him is to require the
7 Phillips Petroleum Company, 24 NLRB 317, 333.
8In view of our rejection of this recommendation of the Trial Examiner, the Respond-
ent's motion for leave to present additional evidence bearing on the issue of hardship is
hereby denied.
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent to restore him to his former position. "Only thus can
there be a restoration of the situation, as nearly as possible, to that
which would have obtained but for the illegal discrimination." 9
The Board's purpose in ordering Barcroft's restoration to his former
job is remedial and not punitive. If hardship results from the order,
as claimed by the Respondent, it is a hardship for which it is itself
responsible. It must bear any loss entailed. It cannot shift it to
the victim of the unfair labor practice.1° To accept a hardship plea
as a reason for refusing to apply the usual reinstatement remedy
would permit the Respondent to enjoy the fruits of its unlawful con-
duct and would serve to encourage rather than discourage unfair labor
practices by others. Whether Barcroft's transfer be considered a vio-
lation of Section 8 (a) (3) or (1), we believe that the effectuation of
the policy of the Act requires that the Respondent restore Barcroft
to his former position 11
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Southeastern Pipe Line
Company, Atlanta, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Oil Workers International Union,
CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by trans-
ferring any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating
against them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of employment.
(b) Threatening employees with economic reprisals or the with-
holding of economic benefits because of their membership in or activi-
ties on behalf of Oil Workers International Union, CIO, or any other
labor organization.
(c) Soliciting employees to withdraw from Oil Workers Inter-
national Union, CIO, or any other labor organization.
(d) Interrogating employees concerning their union affiliations,
sympathies, or activities.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Oil Workers International Union,
CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other con-
9 Phelps Dodge Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 313 U. S. 177, 194.
10 Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Don Juan Co., Inc., 185 F. 2d 393 (C. A. 2).
11 Cf. The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company, 101 NLRB 1208 , and cases cited
therein.
SOUTHEASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY 345
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all of such activ-
ities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to T. E. Barcroft immediate and full reinstatement to
his former job of clerk-warehouseman without prejudice to his sen-
iority or other rights and privileges.
(b) Post at its Chattahooche office and warehouse and in its various
pumping stations, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked
"Appendix A." 12 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Re-
gional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed
by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for at least
sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that such notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the. Regional Director for the Tenth Region, Atlanta,
Georgia, in writing, within ten (10) days from the (late of this Order.
of the steps taken to comply herewith.
1' In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a decision and order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in OIL WORKERS INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, CIO, or in any other labor organization of our
employees, by transferring any of our employees, or in any other
manner discriminating against them in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with economic reprisals
or the withholding of economic benefits because of their member-
ship in or activities on behalf Of OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to withdraw from OIL
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, or any other labor organi-
zation.
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
affiliations, sympathies, or activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organi-
zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist OIL WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to
refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to T. E. Barcroft immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former job of clerk-warehouseman without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges.
SOUTHEASTERN PIPE LINF. COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated --------------------- By -------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report
This case' involves an alleged discriminatory transfer of T. E. Barcroft and
certain specified charges of interference, restraint, and coercion of employees.'
Barcroft
Barcroft's employment with Southeastern Pipe Line Company, herein called
Respondent, began in October 1943. From that date until September 18, 1951, he
was the division clerk (clerk-warehouseman) in Respondent's northern division
office and warehouse . On September 18, 1951, Barcroft was transferred from
the northern division office and warehouse to Respondent's general offices (about
12 miles away) and was given a job as a clerk in the traffic departments Counsel
for the General Counsel contends Barcroft was transferred because of his lawful
activities in behalf of the Union. Respondent contends Barcroft's transfer was
brought about because of his interference with Respondent's work through his
i The issues in this captioned matter were fully litigated at a hearing before the under-
signed in Atlanta, Georgia, on October 9 and 10, 1952. After the close of the hearing well-
prepared briefs were received from counsel which have been considered in the preparation
of this report.
2 Interrogation of employees concerning their union membership, activities, and sympa-
thies; threats to discharge and effect economic and other reprisals if employees joined or
retained membership in the Oil Workers International Union, CIO, herein called the Union ;
promises of economic and other benefits to employees refraining from union membership
and activities ; causing withdrawal from membership in the Union by threats and coercion.
a His pay and hours of work remained the same and he performed work of a clerical
nature which was similar to a large portion of the work in his former job.
SOUTHEASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY 347
activities on behalf of the Union during working hours and that the transfer
was made to enable Respondent to combine two part-time jobs (that of laboratory
technician and that of division clerk).
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election ° issued June 12, 1951, an
election was conducted among all operating and maintenance employees of
Respondent, and on August 9, 1951, the Union was certified to be the collective-
bargaining agent for the employees involved. Both before and after the election
Barcroft actively assisted the Union. He was its "key" man during its organizing
campaign and, a short time after the election, was elected secretary-treasurer of
the Union Local and a member of the union negotiating committee.
As clerk-warehouseman Barcroft's duties included taking dictation and typing
letters for the superintendent of the northern division, keeping records concern-
ing the operating and maintenance employees in the northern division, and receiv-
ing and distributing materials and supplies. In the course of his duties Barcroft
delivered materials or otherwise made business trips to various pumping stations
within this division. At the Chattahoochee warehouse, where he was normally
employed, and during some of the trips to the pumping stations, Barcroft engaged
in activities on behalf of the Union. Prior to the election he campaigned for
the Union. After the election he sought to obtain checkoff slips for union dues.
There was no rule against such activity.
During the same period of time that Barcroft was active on behalf of the
Union, Respondent's officials, on company time and property, engaged in activity
against the Union. Prior to the election they sought to have employees vote
against the Union ("vote in favor of the company by voting No on the ballot")
in the coming election.' After the election they sought and obtained from
employees withdrawals from the Union.'
This record reflects that Barcroft and Respondent's officials, in their respective
activities for and against the Union, on occasion would take employees away
from where they were supposed to be working, thus causing employees to be
unable to perform their duties properly, and that these individuals (Barcroft and
Respondent's officials) at times consumed considerable time in these endeavors e
4 94 NLRB 1177.
6 Respondent is engaged in transporting petroleum products by pipelines from Port St.
Joe, Florida, to various points within the State of Georgia. No jurisdictional issue is
involved herein
For example : B W Winters, vice president and general manager of Respondent, visited
various locations and instructed Respondent's supervisors to talk to employees and get
them to vote and work against the Union which some of these supervisors did. On or
about July 11, 1951, Respondent prepared, distributed among the employees, and posted
on its bulletin boards, a letter or statement urging employees to vote against the Union.
This letter is attached hereto as Appendix A. Winters asked Barcroft to go among
employees and work against the Union (there is conflicting evidence as to the specific state-
ments made by Winters, but it is clear from both versions of what was said that Winters
did request Barcroft to discourage employees from voting for the Union). J. H. Lawrence,
Respondent's personnel director, talked to employees individually and in groups, at various
locations throughout Respondent's system, urging them to vote against the Union.
7 Shortly after the election Winters addressed an assembly of supervisory employees
and told them Respondent didn't need a union and could get along very well without a
union and that he would like the supervisors to talk to the men and see if they couldn't
discourage them from belonging. Winters asked the supervisors to talk to the employees
and ask them to write letters resigning from the Union and give copies of such letters to
Respondent. Respondent promised to pay postage for such letters. (Respondent's motion
to strike this testimony is hereby denied ) Thereafter, various officials of Respondent
at various times and places sought and obtained such letters of withdrawal.
8 For example : Barcroft talked to men in the warehouse for 20 and 30 minutes and
Leslie P. Thomas, a supervisor, excused his crew 30 minutes before quitting time so they
could consider his suggestion that they withdraw from the Union. Also Van Norhues, a
supervisor , and J. H. Lawrence, personnel director, talked to groups of employees about
withdrawing from the Union.
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
However, there is no evidence that any employee was disciplined or reprimanded
for, or even accused of, being delinquent in his work, no evidence that Respond-
ent's officials were criticized for their activities against the Union, and no evi-
dence that Barcroft was cautioned that his activities on behalf of the Union on
company time and property were against company policy or otherwise reprehen-
sible and should be discontinued. In fact, Barcroft was asked by Respondent's
vice president and general manager, to perform similar services against the
Union.
About "a month or better" before the election, which took place on August 1,
1951, Clyde M. Woodruff, station chief at Chattahoochee station (about a hun-
dred feet from the warehouse involved herein), told John R. Bembry (Bar-
croft's immediate superior) that Barcroft "was interfering with my men taking
them back to the warehouse and talking to them." Bembry did not reply, "he
just walked off." Thereafter, and before the election, Woodruff told Winters
(general manager ), during one of Winters' routine visits to the station, that
Barcroft was calling the men into the warehouse and talking to them about the
Union and keeping them in there a substantial length of time and that he had
complained to Bembry, but Bembry had done nothing. Winters did not reply to
Woodruff, but shortly thereafter talked to Bembry about this matter.
The evidence is conflicting as to the specific statements made by Winters and
Bembry on this occasion, but it appears from the entire record herein, and the
undersigned finds that Winters told Bembry that Barcroft was the "spark plug"
of the Union and that he would have to discontinue his activities on behalf of
the Union or be discharged or transferred. Bembry disputed Winters' state-
ments concerning Barcroft's union activities and stated Respondent would have
to have some reason to discharge or transfer Barcroft. The discussion termi-
nated with an understanding that Winters would give further consideration
to the matter.
About "2 to 4 weeks" before the election, Winters asked Bembry to talk to
Barcroft and see if he wouldn't stop his activity in the Union-stop taking any
active part in it-and "work with the company to help defeat it." Bembry
talked to Barcroft and "told him that the company wanted him to drop his union
activity and if he didn't he was going to get into trouble because they were
more or less after him." Barcroft stated "it was his right to be for or against
the Union and he didn't feel they could do anything to him about it"
Barcroft testified that on Friday before the election Winters came to the
warehouse where he was employed and that the two of them had a discussion
in Bembry's (northern division superintendent) office with no one else present
and with the doors closed. Barcroft's version of this conversation was that
after Winters had told him that he (Winters) knew Barcroft was prounion and
asked him to go out over the weekend and "try to discourage the boys from
voting for the union," that the following took place:
I said, "What if the union goes in" and he says, "What if the union doesn't
go in and if it doesn't you know what will happen," and I said, "Yes, I can
feel the axe on the back of my neck right now," and I asked him what if
the union does go in what would happen and he said, "Well, there are ways
of taking care of it and you can always be transferred," and I said , "Yes, I
can always be transferred, and if you transfer me I will file charges against
you," but he was very careful that nobody was near enough to hear that
conversation, he closed two doors.
Barcroft testified that as Winters left the room he (Winters) said, "Tom, I do not
believe I make a good salesman" and that he (Barcroft) said, "I wouldn't say
SOUTHEASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY 349
that but I cannot get out and talk to these boys because I knew how many
cards we had signed."
Winters' testimony regarding this occurrence follows:
Q. Will you state to the examiner what you said to Mr. Barcroft?
A. I went out there like Mr. Kilpatrick said, it was previous to the elec-
tion a few days or a week, I do not remember, of course, I had known about
Barcroft's activity for the union and so I went out and I talked to Tom, he
is one of the boys, we call him by the first name, and I said, "Tom, I under-
stand you are doing a lot of activity among the employees," and he said,
"Mr. Winters, I am not doing any, your information is wrong, I am neutral,
neither for or against the Union", and I said, "It is funny I get all of these
reports about you," and he said, "These people don't like me, they will tell
you anything", and I said , "Tom, what about you, since you are neutral
and say you are neutral, what about you going out and working against the
union, what about going out and telling the employees of the benefits the
company gives you, bonus plan, two weeks vacation, hospitalization, sick
leave, what about going out and trying to sell men on voting against the
union, that we knew our little company didn't need a union, we were close
to the men, called them by their first names".
Q. You are telling what you told him?
A. Yes, He said "no, I am neutral, I am not for the union or against it
and I cannot do that."
Q. Mr. Winters, yesterday Mr. Barcroft testified here that on that occa-
sion you asked him what if the union goes in and he testified that he replied
that he felt the axe right on his neck. Did you ask him that question and
did he make that reply?
A. I didn't ask him that question.
Q. Did he make that statement?
A. He made no statement.
Q. Did you ask him what if the union didn't get in? I beg your pardon,
did he ask you what if the union doesn't get in and did you say, "You can
always be transferred"?
A. I did not.
Q. Did he ask you what if the union does go in and you said you can
always be transferred?
A. I didn't.
Q. He testified yesterday that he said if he were transferred he would
file charges. Did he make that statement?
A. He made nj statement like that.
From his observation of witnesses and the entire record herein the under-
signed credits Barcroft's testimony, outlined above, concerning this conversation.'
As previously noted herein, the election took place on August 1, 1951, and
thereafter Barcroft continued his activities on behalf of the Union-sought
checkoff slips-and Respondent's officials continued their activities against the
Union-sought letters withdrawing from the Union.
About 10 days before his transfer, Barcroft was told by Bembry that be-
cause of his union activities Respondent was "out to get" him. Barcroft
In determining credibility in this proceeding the undersigned has considered inter
alia : The demeanor and conduct of witnesses , their candor or lack thereof ; their apparent
fairness , bias, or prejudice ; their interest or lack thereof; their ability to know, compre-
hend , and understand matters about which they have testified ; whether they have been
contradicted or otherwise impeached ; and consistency and inherent probability of the
testimony.
350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
responded he "was active in the Union and if they could get me that was their
lookout."
On September 17, 1951, Woodruff (station chief at Chattahoochee station)
told Winters (on one of Winters' routine trips to the station) that Barcroft
,,was calling his employees over there [to the warehouse] and asking them
to sign a dues deduction card and talking to them about the union." Winters
said "he would see if he couldn't correct it." On that same date (September 17,
1951) Winters went "out on the job where I [Bembry] was working out in
the field" and told Bembry to transfer Barcroft to Respondent's general offices
(outside the bargaining unit) effective at the close of business that day. Bem-
bry inquired as to whether Barcroft's books and records should be checked
and was told "No," that Winters wanted Barcroft transferred immediately.
That evening Barcroft was told to turn in his keys and report the following
morning to Respondent's general offices. Shortly thereafter, Barcroft was given
the job he now holds-a clerk in the traffic department.
Barcroft's duties at the warehouse were taken over, and are now performed
by Quentin Brown (a laboratory technician). Barcroft's job and Brown's job
have been combined. It is readily apparent from this record, and the under-
signed finds, that the decision to combine these jobs was not long contemplated
but was made at the time of, and in view of, the immediate transfer of Bar-
croft. It further appears, and the undersigned finds, that the combining of
these jobs was not a motivating factor in Barcroft's transfer but rather an
expedient resulting from such transfer. This matter is discussed further under
the section of this report entitled "The Remedy."
On January 16, 1952, Winters and Bembry discussed a contemplated transfer
of Bembry to a job as safety supervisor with headquarters in Respondent's
general offices. During this discussion Winters told Bembry that Respondent
"had worked every way to whip the Union and they had it about whipped" and
that Bembry was "stupid" to let Barcroft work right under his nose organizing
the Union ; that it had taken Respondent "all that time to undo" what he
(Bembry) had let go right under his supervision.
It is apparent from the facts outlined above that the issue herein is: Was
Barcroft transferred (out of the bargaining unit) because his (union) activities
interfered with his work and the work of other employees (a lawful motiva-
tion for such a transfer) or because Respondent resented his activities on behalf
of the Union, and alleges interference with work as a pretext to conceal its
real motive?
On the basis of the entire record, the undersigned is not persuaded that Bar-
croft was transferred because of interference with Respondent's business. As
noted above, there was no rule against solicitation on behalf of, or against, the
Union and Respondent's supervisors and officials and Barcroft engaged in the
same type of interference with work and each to a substantial extent. Yet only
Barcroft suffered consequences therefor.1° Furthermore, it appears, as noted
above, that had Barcroft engaged in similar conduct against-instead of for-
the Union, Respondent would not have considered his interference with work
reprehensible.
In view of the failure of Respondent's contentions "to stand up under scrutiny,"
the affirmative evidence (outlined above) that the reason for the transfer was
Barcroft's prounion activities, and 'n view of the antiunion conduct hereinafter
outlined, the undersigned believes and finds that the evidence in this case demon-
strates that the transfer of Barcroft was due, not to interference with work,
10 Barcroft was moved out of the bargaining unit and to a job which he considered, and
considers, less desirable than his former job.
SOUTHEASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY 351
but to Barcroft's union membership and activity and Respondent's desire to
remove him from proximity to employees interested in the Union and to Respond-
ent's desire to break up the Union.
Respondent's contention that there was no "discrimination" since the working
conditions are the same and Barcroft suffered no "detriment" is hereby rejected.
It is obvious from a comparison of the two jobs that they are not the same,
although they are similar in some respects. For example, the pay and hours
are the same and Barcroft performs work in the new job which is similar to
a large portion of the work in his former job. Yet the work as clerk in the
traffic department is more constant and confining than that of clerk-warehouse-
man and does not offer the variety of work and the opportunity to be in close
contact with employees throughout Respondent's system that Barcroft' s former
job provided. It is also apparent that the transfer brought about a detriment
to Barcroft since, solely because of his union membership and activities, he was
accorded a treatment different from that which he would have received absent
such membership and activities.
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
As previously noted herein, threats of reprisals because of union activity were
made to Barcroft by Bembry and by Winters. Also, as noted above, Respondent,
through various officials and at various times, solicited employees to vote against
the Union in the coming election-in some instances the employees were told that
"the company didn't feel that they needed a union, that they would do everything
for them that the union could do," and that if Respondent was organized there
might be shutdowns caused by strikes.
In the spring of 1950, J. C. Roddy was transferred from the northern division
construction crew to a training center in the southern division (Florida) of Re-
spondent's system to learn to be a diesel station pumpman. It was anticipated
that upon completion of his training Roddy would become a pumper at a diesel
pumping station. He was given such a job and sent to Wewa, Florida. How-
ever, during his training and thereafter he sought a job (with Respondent) near
Atlanta, Georgia (his home), either at the Chattahoochee station-an electric
pumping station-or as a member of the maintenance gang in the northern divi-
sion . He was not given a definite commitment that a transfer near to Atlanta
would or would not be arranged.
About a week before the election (the election was conducted by mail and
was concluded on August 1, 1951), J. H. Lawrence, Respondent's personnel
director, went to Wewa, Florida, and inquired of Roddy as to whether he was
still interested in a transfer to the northern division. Roddy indicated he was
and later in the same conversation Lawrence asked Roddy if he "had been
working for the union." Upon receiving an affirmative reply, Lawrence told
Roddy "since you have worked and are working against the company and have
made yourself an enemy of the company you cannot expect the company to show
you any favors."" Roddy was not transferred and voluntarily left Respondent's
employ in September 1951.
J. A. Whitlock, a gauger at Respondent's Doraville tank farm, testified that
on an occasion in September 1951 Lawrence explained to him the disadvantages
n Lawrence denied that he made any statement to Roddy that Roddy had made him-
self an enemy of the Company and testified he explained to Roddy that it would be neces-
sary for Roddy to be retrained to do the work of a pumper at the Chattahoochee station
since it was an electric station and that he did not think the Company would like to do
that because of the expense involved. From observation of witnesses and after careful
analysis of the record herein , the undersigned credits Roddy 's testimony , outlined above.
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Union and stated to him "if I was an old sorehead and didn't expect to
get anywhere with the company anyway, I would get in the Union but the men
who have good leadership and ability do not naturally need that." Whitlock
further testified:
Q. Do you recall any other things he said relative to the Union and what
the company's attitude was toward those who were or were not in the Union?
A. Well, he more or less explained their position in the thing . He said
that a man couldn't afford to fight [sic] the hand that was feeding him. In
other words, if we got on the wrong side and started out as an enemy we
would be treated as one ...
Lawrence denied that he stated to Whitlock that "a man couldn 't fight [sic]
the hand which is feeding him," and testified he told Whitlock that Respondent
was opposed to the Union because of the possibility of strikes and mentioned
that during recent strikes at organized oil companies Respondent continued
operating.
From observations of witnesses and the entire record herein, the undersigned
credits the testimony of Whitlock and finds that Lawrence made the statements
attributed to him.
After Whitlock had had a conversation with Mr. Hamilton, one of Respond-
ent's supervisors, in which Whitlock had stated he didn't know how the men
felt about the Union, Oates, station chief at Doraville tank farm, told Whit-
lock "the company was disappointed" in him because he had "lied" to Hamilton
as to whether he (Whitlock) was involved in the Union and suggested that Whit-
lock write a letter of withdrawal from the Union and stated that if he resigned
from the Union "the company wouldn't hold it against me." 72
Prior to the election (concluded August 1, 1951) Lawrence and Oates inter-
rogated Stanley Hansard, an employee at Doraville, as to the number of em-
ployees in attendance at a union meeting and Winters, Oates, and Lawrence, on
different occasions, asked Hansard to vote against the Union in the coming elec-
tion. About 6 months after the election Hamilton, a supervisor, asked Hansard
if he had a union card, and Lawrence questioned Hansard as to his union
sympathies.13
On several occasions Lawrence talked about the Union to Leonard Jackson,
an employee at Respondent's Rome, Georgia, station, and on one occasion shortly
after the election told him "the company was trying to do everything it could for
us and had been doing so and he thought the proper thing to do was not to
belong to it." 14
Several weeks after the election, W. W. Mathis, a supervisor, said to Jackson :
"It looked like it [the Union] was going down and the nien were coming out of
it and said it looked like the best thing for anybody to do was to get out of
it" and told Jackson he could get out by writing a letter to the Union and sending
a copy to Respondent.15
As indicated elsewhere herein, Respondent initiated a movement to repudiate
the Union and actively sought and obtained letters resigning from the Union.
However, there is no evidence of threats of reprisals or promises of benefit in
1' Oates did not testify herein.
11 Lawrence denied that he asked Hansard "how he felt about the Union and asked him
if he was for it or against it and that you [Lawrence] asked him if he had a union card."
Oates and Hamilton did not testify herein and Winters did not testify concerning Han-
sard's statements. The undersigned credits Hansard's testimony outlined above.
14 Lawrence did not testify concerning any conversation with Jackson . The above is
based upon Jackson 's testimony.
11 Mathis did not testify herein.
SOUTHEASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY 353
return for such letters, except as already indicated in this report or as may be
inferred in the light of the copies to Respondent, the discharge of Barcroft for
union activities, and the conduct outlined in this section of this report.
Threats of reprisals if workers embrace unions unpalatable to management
have long been held a form of interference violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. Respondent's,
threats of reprisals and promises of favors come squarely within the ban of the
Act. However, there remains for consideration the question of whether Re-
spondent's questions, statements, and conduct, not containing remarks per se
violative of the Act, were sanctioned by Section 8 (c) of the Act, 16 or whether in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act they amounted to interference, restraint,
or coercion of employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. The
absence of expressions per se violative of the Act is not determinative of the
question presented and the antiunion questions, statements, and conduct are not
to be viewed in isolation but in the light of the entire course of conduct of which
they are a part.
As noted above, Respondent took affirmative steps to thwart the organizing
efforts of its employees and, failing that, took affirmative steps to disintegrate
the Union. It may be reasonably inferred and is inferred by the undersigned,
that Respondent' s questions , statements, and conduct (outlined above) not
containing remarks clearly violative of the Act, were, nevertheless, a part of a
course of conduct designed to restrain and coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in the Act and were not protected by Section 8 (c). N. L. R. B.
v. Gate City Cotton Mills, 167 F. 2d 647, 649 (C. A. 5) ; N. L. R. B. v. Fulton Bag
and Cotton Mills, 175 F. 2d 675, 677 (C. A. 5) ; N. L. R. B. v. LaSalle Steel Co.,
178 F. 2d 829 (C. A. 7), certiorari denied 339 U. S. 963; N. L. B. B. v. Kropp
Forge Co., 178 F. 2d 822, 827-829 (C. A. 7), certiorari denied 340 U. S. 810;
Joy Silk Mills v. N. L. R. B., 185 F. 2d 732, 739, 743 (C. A. D. C.), certiorari denied
341 U. S. 914. Moreover, Respondent's questioning of employees concerning their
union membership and activity and solicitation of resignations from the Union
did not constitute " the expressing of any views" by the Company, but an at-
tempted interference with employee self-organization. See N. L. R. B. v. Minne-
sota Mining and Manufacturing Co., 179 F. 2d 323, 326 (C. A. 8) ; N. L. R. B. v.
Bailey Co., 180 F. 2d 278, 280 (C. A. 6) ; N. L. B. B. v. Williams Lumber Co., 195
F. 2d 669, 672 (C. A. 4).
The undersigned finds that by the conduct outlined above Respondent inter-
fered with, restrained, or coerced employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
In summary, the undersigned concludes and finds that: (1) Respondent dis-
criminated in regard to the terms and conditions of employment of T. E. Barcroft
in violation of Section (a) (3) and (1) of the Act; (2) Respondent interfered
with, restrained , and coerced its employees, in the manner outlined herein, in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act; and (3) these unfair labor practices
occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent's business, have a
close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
ie Section 8 (c) of the Act provides as follows : "The expressing of any views, argu-
ment, or opinion, or the dissemination 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 of this Act, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or
promise of benefit."
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Remedy
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in viola-
tion of the Act, the undersigned recommends that Respondent, to effectuate the
policies of the Act, cease and desist therefrom and take the affirmative action
hereinafter specified.
Simultaneous with the transfer of Barcroft, Respondent combined his job (the
job of clerk-warehouseman) with that of laboratory technician and since that
time the laboratory technician, an employee senior in time of employment to
Barcroft and possessing special training needed in running laboratory tests which
Barcroft does not have, has been performing the combined job and even the
combined job does not keep him busy full time. Accordingly a question arises
as to whether Respondent should be required to reinstate Barcroft to his former
job.
Prior to the transfer of Barcroft, Respondent employed division clerks (clerk-
warehousemen) to the division superintendents in its division offices (northern
and southern division)." Barcroft served as one of these division clerks from
October 1943 to September 1951 and throughout such employment his duties re-
mained substantially the same. However, the job did not require full-time work.
At the same location where Barcroft worked (the Chattahoochee warehouse)
Respondent also employed a laboratory technician (Quentin Brown). A few
months prior to September 1951, the amount of work required of the laboratory
technician decreased substantially and Brown was assigned part-time work at
Respondent's general offices in Atlanta. At the time of Barcroft's transfer,
Brown was performing laboratory work (at the Chattahoochee warehouse) 2
days a week and working at the general offices in Atlanta 3 days a week. When
Barcroft was transferred, Brown ceased performing duties at the general offices's
and was assigned a job consisting of a combination of Barcroft's former duties
and duties as laboratory technician. Since that time Brown has performed the
duties of the combined job. Nevertheless, this combined job does not keep him
busy full time and his immediate supervisor, the northern division superintend-
ent, has requested that Brown be assigned additional duties which he can per-
form at the warehouse. The northern division superintendent estimated that
Brown is gainfully employed "not more than five hours" a day and that his
laboratory duties require "well over fifteen hours" per month.
There is no evidence that a similar combining of jobs has been made with
respect to the division clerk to the southern division superintendent.
There is nothing in this record indicating that these jobs would have been
combined for nondiscriminatory reasons." To the contrary, the evidence is to
the effect that combining of these jobs was an expedient resulting from the
transfer of Barcroft. Whether it was an economic expedient resulting in a sav-
ing in efficiency and expense for Respondent is speculative and is not revealed by
this record. It is possible, of course, that combining of these jobs has proved
beneficial to Respondent and that for legitimate business reasons it desires to
continue the present method of operating. However, this record does not furnish
sufficient information to form a basis for determining that question. For ex-
ample, the evidence is not adequate to form a basis from which a comparison
17 See Southern Pipe Line Company, 94 NLRB 1177.
78 This record does not reveal who, if anyone, now performs these duties.
19 The situation prevailing at the time of Barcroft 's transfer had existed for considerable
time and there is no evidence that Respondent was dissatisfied in any manner with that
method or that it had contemplated any change in its method of operation in regard to
the duties of Barcroft or the duties of Brown.
SOUTHEASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY 355
can be made of the effectiveness of the present method of operating and of the
method of operating previously, there is no evidence from which a comparison
can be made with the situation prevailing in the southern division, and there
is no evidence concerning the duties formerly performed by Brown at the general
offices of Respondent. Maybe these duties are not now performed. On the other
hand it may be that additions were made to the staff to compensate for Brown's
removal therefrom and that the combining of Barcroft's and Brown's jobs at
the warehouse does not in fact accomplish greater efficiency or a saving in
expense. For similar reasons it cannot be determined from this record whether
reinstatement of Barcroft to his former position as clerk-warehouseman would
work an undue hardship on Respondent.
Since the evidence does not establish that absent discriminatory reasons Re-
spondent would have combined these jobs, since it is speculative as to whether
Respondent would continue this combined job for nondiscriminatory reasons, and
speculative as to whether reinstatement of Barcroft would work an undue hard-
ship on Respondent; ° and since the only appropriate way the wrong inflicted upon
Respondent's employees by its unfair labor practices can be rectified is by
placing the employees in their status quo,21 the undersigned believes that Re-
spondent should be required to offer Barcroft reinstatement to his former job
of clerk-warehouseman. However, it is further believed that Respondent should
be relieved of its obligation to make such reinstatement effective, if it proves to
the National Labor Relations Board that for legitimate business reasons it is
advantageous to continue its present arrangement of operating with the combined
job and that an undue hardship would result from a requirement that it reinstate
Barcroft.
Since Barcroft did not suffer any loss of pay by reason of the discrimination
against him, a recommendation that he be made whole is not appropriate herein.
[Recommendations n omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
July 11. 1951
TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF
SOUTHEASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY:
The Management of your Company has received many inquiries from employees
concerning the election which will be held by the National Labor Relations Board
to determine whether our employees will be represented by the C. I. O. Union.
As a result, we feel that it is proper and in order at this time to answer questions
which are being asked and to correct some of the gross misrepresentations which
are being made by the C. I. O.
°D The party engaging in the illegal acts, not the injured party, must bear the burden
resulting from unfair labor practices and suffer the incidental hardship necessary to
remedy adequately the wrong committed. See N. L. R. B. v. Don Juan Co., 185 F. 2d
393 (C. A. 2).
xi Failure to establish status quo may discourage employees from exercising their lawful
rights because of the inadequacies of the remedy for prior unfair labor practices.
22 The scope of the unfair labor practices discloses a purpose to interfere with, restrain,
and coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and
that danger of other unfair labor practices in the future is to be anticipated from the
course of Respondent's conduct in the past. In order, therefore, to make effective the
interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act and effectuate the policies of the Act,
it is recommended that Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon
the rights guaranteed in the Act. See Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544
enforced 188 F. 2d 362 (C. A. 3).
356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Preliminary to this, we would like to say that the Management of the Com-
pany, during the eleven years in which the Company has been in business, has
enjoyed the most pleasant of relationships with employees . In dealing directly
with employees , we have been aple in a personal way to meet problems of em-
ployees, and have not had to deal with employees thin an OUTSIDER . The only
period in which this was not true was during approximately two years when
employees were represented by a union . Incidentally , the other union lost all
interest in representing our employees and withdrew voluntarily when employees
stopped paying dues, since our employees became tired of paying these monthly
dues and receiving nothing in return in spite of all the earlier promises made by
the union.
The election will be held under the supervision of the Labor Board in the near
future and each of you will receive from the Board a form of ballot . This ballot
will carry instructions as to the method of voting . The ballot will have a space
marked "NO", and if you mark this space with an "X" you will be voting
AGAINST having the C. I. O. as your representative.
We would be less than frank and honest if we did not convey to you our
thoughts on the subject of this election as follows :
1. To begin with, this C. I. O. drive which has been carried on for some
months has not been initiated by our employees . It is the effort of an outside
organization seeking to impose itself upon our employees . The representa-
tives of this union have travelled back and forth along the pipeline trying to
"high pressure" our employees into joining the union.
2. In the past we have dealt directly with your problems and know that if
there were legitimate complaints , or grievances , of any kind existing that you
would have informed us of such differences . The union representatives are
manufacturing as many theoretical grievances as they can in an effort to
induce you to join the union. Such grievances exist only in the minds of
these outsiders , whose real interest is the collection of fees and dues from
you.
3. The union is making promises , some of which it cannot possibly fulfill.
4. We invite you to review the many things which the Company has done
for you VOLUNTARILY and without any union , as follows :
(a) General increases in wages and salaries have been made at all
times to keep pace with comparable wages and salaries in the oil indus-
try. For instance , in 1950 there were two increases totaling a minimum
of 11 %, and we have just been advised of approval of our application,
filed early this year , for a 4% increase , which incidentally will be
retroactive to May 1st. The retroactive part of this increase will be
compiled as soon as possible and added to your next pay check. The
said increase of 4% was obtained SOLELY thru our efforts.
The statement by the C. I. O. claiming credit for the increase is utterly
without truth.
(b) We have adopted a pension system more liberal than any in the
oil industry.
(c) We have installed and recently expanded a group insurance and
hospitalization plan comprising the most modern and fullest kind of
coverage . Those of you who have had recent "arrivals" in your families
should be most aware of this.
(d) We have followed a vacation and holiday policy in keeping with
those in the Southeast.
SOUTHEASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY 357
(e) Working conditions in pumping stations and wherever our em-
ployees have been engaged have been maintained to the very highest of
standards.
(f) Whenever our employees have been injured, the Company has
been most liberal in paying to such employees the difference between
their Workmen's Compensation benefits and their regular salaries or
wages. This has been purely voluntary.
(g) Whenever employees have had serious or extended illness, the
Company has been extremely liberal in paying wages and salaries in
addition to the sick leave benefit plan outlined in the Company's In-
struction Manual. This has been purely voluntary.
(h) During World War II, and since the outbreak of hostilities in
Korea the Company has voluntarily instituted a plan to benefit men
called into the service by payments of substantial military awards
during their service. Again, THIS IS VOLUNTARY.
In addition to the items above listed, there are innumerable instances where
the Management has "taken care of" the problems of individual employees. At
all times there has been complete freedom of expression between Management
and employees.
Should our employees decide that they need a union to represent them this
very personal relationship would terminate inasmuch as our employees would
then be represented by an OUTSIDER
Now, let us explain to you the troubles ahead for you and us in the event the
majority of you should vote against the Company. First, let us correct one
of the many misrepresentations by the union representatives. They are in-
forming our employees that they will have to join the union in order to continue
in the employ of our Company, if the union wins the election. This statement
is 100% untrue. The Taft-Hartley Act provides:-
"Nothing in the Act shall be construed as authorizing the execution or
application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as
a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution
or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law."
The Georgia Law, Section 54-902 provides that:-
"No individual shall be required as a condition of employment, or of
continuance of employment, to be or remain a member of an affiliate of a
labor organization, or to resign from or to refrain from membership in or
affiliation with a labor organization."
This means that you CANNOT be required to join a union , or to REMAIN
a member of a union as a condition of continued employment in the State of
Georgia. The same is true under the Florida Law. Thus, both Federal and
State Laws guarantee that your continued employment by Southeastern Pipe
Line Company will never require you to join a union or to remain in a union.
We are informed that the union is telling our employees that if they don't
join now before the election that the union will make them pay $100 initiation
fee if the union wins the election. Let us ask you , at this point, does this
kind of a threat indicate that the union is interested in any of you, except for the
DOLLARS that they can take out of your pockets? We are not surprised at
such threats, however, as this is the usual , typical approach of a union. They
will make any kind of threats and will make every conceivable promise to try
to induce employees to vote for the union. Why is this true ? The reason is
that the unions are, themselves, engaged in business-the business of making
money-of making money by collecting initiation fees and monthly dues from
257965-54-vol. 103-24
358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees. The union is probably offering a "bargain price" initiation fee to
induce you to join now. Don't be misled by this false "generosity". You can
be certain that you will be called upon to pay monthly dues of $3.00 to $4.00,
plus whatever extras the union "big shots" find that it is necessary to assess
you for their purposes. One way or another the union will collect the initiation
fee from you-once they "own" you, as they do all members.
The union representatives are telling our employees that if they have signed
a card applying for membership in the union that they will be required, and
are required, to vote for the union in the election. Again, this is absolutely
incorrect. If any of you have been misled into joining the union, or signing an
application card, under the high pressure methods of the union you can with-
draw your application or your membership. If you do not wish to do this you
can still vote in favor of the Company by voting NO on the ballot. No person
will know how you vote since your vote will be in a sealed envelope and your
name will not appear anywhere either on the ballot or on the envelope when
the votes are counted.
The union representatives have already started informing some of our em-
ployees of the union plans to have a strike of our employees if the Company
will not comply with the demands which the union states it will make.
If this threat is carried out we would have the first work stoppage in our
eleven years of operations, with the following results :
(a) Employees on strike would receive no pay. We believe that most
of our employees have commitments and family obligations which require a
steady source of income. When this is stopped, the people who suffer are
the wives and the children of employees. We suggest that you talk this
entire matter over carefully with your wives and children before taking
a step which you will regret.
(b) Strikes invariably result in the creation of ill-will and bad feelings
between Management and employees.
Each of you should know that the individuals occupying management positions
in this Company are also "hired help" and your position as employees is no
different from ours. By improving your positions with the Company both from
the standpoint of wages, salaries and otherwise, we improve our condition, as
employees, at the same time.
The many things that this Management has been able to obtain for employees,
as listed above, should be proof enough of our determination in the future
to constantly better our employee's wages, working conditions and all matters
pertaining thereto.
There are 63 of our employees who will receive their ten year award pin next
year. This will make a total of 72 employees (42%) who will have been with
the Company ten years or more. This in itself is certainly evidence of job
security and fair treatment of the employees by the Company.
Finally, let us make one thing perfectly clear, and that is, that there is no
union which can get our employees anything more than our Management itself
can get and will get for employees. In the final analysis, if you determine that
you want to be represented by an OUTSIDE UNION the net result will be that
you will make less money because you will have to pay monthly dues to the union,
initiation fees, and other special assessments.
We urge, therefore, that you vote NO on the ballot and by so doing vote to
continue our pleasant relationship, as in the past. If you fail to vote it is
equivalent to a vote for the Union. Please, therefore, everyone vote and
vote-NO.
B. W. WINTERS