Textron, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 3, 1969

176 N.L.R.B. 377 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

BOSTITCH DIV . OF TEXTRON , INC. 377
Bostitch Division of Textron, Inc. and Sequoia
District Council of Carpenters, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Bostitch Division of Textron , Inc. and Sequoia
District Council of Carpenters, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO. Cases 20-RC-7923 and
20-RC-5015
June 3, 1969
DECISION, ORDER, AND
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
By CHAIRMAN MCCULIOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On March 10, 1969, Trial Examiner Herman
Corenman issued his Decision in the above-entitled
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 and that the Union's
objections to the election conducted in Case
20-RC-7923 be overruled and a certificate of results
of election issue, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision and a
supporting brief and Respondent filed an answering
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has 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 the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations 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
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it
hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Union's
objections to the election conducted in Case
20-RC-7923 on March 28, 1969, be, and they hereby
are, overruled. As the Union failed to receive a
majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify the
results of the election.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots cast in the election conducted in Case
20-RC-7923 has not been cast for Sequoia District
Council of Carpenters, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and
that said labor organization is not the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the
unit found appropriate within the meaning of
Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended.
MEMBER BROWN, dissenting:
Unlike my colleagues, my examination- of the
Respondent's campaign literature and speeches
convinces me that they tended to engender an
unreasoning fear in the employees' minds that their
jobs and economic welfare were in danger should
the Union win the election.
A decision in cases like the instant one must be
based solely on a consideration of the totality of the
campaign, as words and phrases, which are lawful
when considered alone, may be "united in such a
fashion as to yield an improper end product."' In
my opinion, application of this principle to the
statements here requires the conclusion that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Thus, here in the period of approximately I
month before the election on March 28, the
Respondent distributed seven letters, cartoons, and
circulars, gave a lengthy speech twice to two
different shifts of employees, and informally
addressed six groups of employees. In its campaign
Respondent emphasized that selection of the Union
would result in the likelihood of strikes with
accompanying loss of wages and jobs, loss of direct
contact with management, reduction of overtime,
and discontinuance of the production of certain
marginal items with consequent job loss. In
addition, the Respondent stressed the benefits the
Company presently provided and the conditional
nature of these benefits by stating, "[i]f the Union
wins the election, negotiations will not start on the
premise that the Union will merely add new
benefits. If the Union wins, all matters concerning
your wages, hours and working conditions, including
past and present will be subject to collective
bargaining." Similarly, the Respondent indicated the
futility of selecting the Union with statements such
as the following: "It just doesn't make any sense to
me for you to have to pay tribute to a union to get
what you are getting now, and maybe even less than
what you would have received anyway, without a
union."
It matters little that Respondent's expressions
were temperate in tone and stated in opinion form
rather than as facts, as this subtlety is lost on the
'Daniel Construction Company, Inc v. N.L.R.B. 341 F 2d 805 (C.A. 4),
enfg . in relevant part 145 NLRB 1397.
176 NLRB No. 47
378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR
average employee and there emerges from the
volume of rhetoric only the spectre of strikes, dire
economic consequences, and job loss should the
Union win the election. The inevitable result was to
create an atmosphere of fear which rendered the
employees incapable of making a free choice.
For the above reasons , I would find that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and would set
the election aside and order a new one.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERMAN CORENMAN, Trial Examiner: This matter, a
proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , herein called the Act, was
heard at Fresno, California , on December 3 and 4, 1968,'
with the General Counsel and the Respondent
participating , pursuant to due notice to all parties, upon a
complaint issued by the General Counsel on October 22,
alleging violations of Section 8(aXl) of the Act by
Bostitch Division of Textron , Inc., herein called the
Respondent . Sequoia District Council of Carpenters,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, did not
appear at the hearing . Respondent 's answer denied
committing the complaint ' s alleged unfair labor practices.
On March 28, in Case 20-RC-7923, an election was
held in a unit of Respondent ' s production and
maintenance employees at its Visalia , California plant
which the Union lost by a vote of 38 to 34. On April 2,
the Union filed and served timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election . Pursuant to Section
102.33 of the Board ' s Rules and Regulations , as amended,
the hearing on the objections in the representation matter
have been consolidated for hearing with the complaint
herein.
All parties were afforded an opportunity to adduce
evidence , to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
file briefs . Briefs received from the General Counsel and
Respondent have been carefully considered . Upon the
entire record in the case , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The pleadings establish, and I find , that the Respondent
is a Rhode Island corporation with its principal place of
business at East Greenwich , Rhode Island. Respondent
operates and maintains a manufacturing plant at Visalia,
California , where it is engaged in the production of staple
machines and wire products. During the past year, in the
course and conduct of its business operations , Respondent,
from its Visalia , California, plant sold goods and services
valued in excess of $50 ,000 directly to customers located
outside the State of California.
It is admitted by the pleadings, and I find , that the
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
All dates hereafter refer to year 1968 unless otherwise noted.
RELATIONS BOARD
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The sole issue in the complaint proceeding in Case
30-CA-5015 is whether certain election propaganda, oral
and written, disseminated by the Respondent before the
March 28 Board -conducted representation election
interfered with, restrained, or coerced employees in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
B. The Election Campaign
Preceding the election , the Respondent conducted a
propaganda campaign to defeat the Union . Evidence
adduced at the hearing shows that on March 4 , 1968, the
Respondent distributed a letter to the employees notifying
them of the approaching election and that it was a serious
matter . In this letter , the Respondent set forth its position
against unionization , and of its intention to give the
employees the facts.
On March 14, 1968, the Respondent distributed another
letter to the employees again reminding them of the
importance of the election which was scheduled for March
28. This letter enumerated to the employees the many
benefits they enjoyed without a union and emphasized that
they obtained without a union , and that a union was not
needed in the future to make further progress . It reminded
the employees that their progress was made without
strikes , picket lines , lost paychecks , and without the
misery and bitterness that a union brings with it; and that
employees chances for wage increases and job security
comes when the company can meet competition and
remain successful in business , which can be accomplished
by everyone working together as a team.
On March 14 , Respondent mailed a cartoon to the
employees entitled "Do you want this to happen to you,"
urging the employees to "vote no " and depicting an
individual weighted down with a heavy burden of union
dues , fines , assessments for strike funds, political
contributions and initiation fees . On March 22 , another
cartoon was distributed to the employees entitled "It's
your choice " showing one well dressed head of the
household with pay check in hand , at home with his
contented family while beneath him stands a forlorn
tattered worker with empty pockets on strike at the
factory . At the bottom is the legend "VOTE NO." On
March 28 , Respondent circulated a bulletin urging the
employees to vote "no" as a guarantee against strikes,
lost pay days, the payment of union initiation fees, dues
or assessments , and for job security and protection of
"yourself and family."
In addition to the foregoing campaign literature,
Respondent on March 21 issued a letter to the employees
and on March 26 its final letter to the employees.
Respondent ' s plant manager , Hubbard, also read from a
carefully prepared text identical speeches to different shifts
of employees assembled in the plant on March 26 and on
March 27 . Additionally , in the week preceding the March
28 election , Hubbard addressed six groups of
departmental employees in the plant from March 20-27
reviewing with them essentially the same matter contained
BOSTITCH DIV. OF TEXTRON, INC. 379
in the written speech.'
Since the General Counsel contends that remarks
contained in the March 21 and 26 letters and in the
written speech violated Section 8(ax l) when considered
within the context of all Respondent's election propaganda
disclosed by the record, I have attached those three
documents to this Decision as Appendixes A, B, and C for
ready reference.' The General Counsel makes no claim
that the other letters and cartoons reference to above per
se violated the Act.
I have concluded that in their total context the March
21 and 26 letters and the in-plant speeches (Appendixes A,
B, and C) made by the Respondent in the course of the
preelection campaign were privileged by Section 8(c)' of
the Act.
C. Analysis and Discussion of Propaganda
I shall herein discuss those written or oral messages to
the employees which the General Counsel contended were
not privileged as free speech within the meaning of
Section 8(c).
(1) In its March 26 letter it was asserted by the
Respondent that "the Carpenters' Union is a serious
threat to the continued successful operation of this
company - and your jobs"; and the letter closed with the
remark "So, why gamble with your money, and the
security and future of yourself, your family, and your
company, by bringing this union into the plant." The
General Counsel construed the March 21 letter as an
implied threat of loss of employment.
I do not regard this language , taken in its context, as a
threat of reprisal that the Respondent would take if the
Union came in but rather as a prediction of unfavorable
consequences that might follow from possible union
action, namely as recounted in the March 21 letter that
the union would want a "union shop" under which
employees will suffer job loss if they don't pay union dues
and initiation fees estimated by the Respondent as "at
least $100.00 a year; that the "only way they (the Union)
could try to force us to agree to any demands we believe
are unreasonable, or that would raise our costs out of line,
forcing our prices higher than our competitors - would
be by PULLING YOU OUT ON STRIKE - and if you
go on strike you cannot collect unemployment insurance
and you can be permanently replaced." Such prediction
coupled with the statement that economic strikers are
subject to loss of jobs by permanent replacement have
been held by the Board and the Courts to be privileged by
Section 8(c), as a reasonably accurate statement of the
right of the employer to operate his business in the course
of a strike by the permanent replacement of strikers
within the purview of N.L.R.B. v. Mackey Co., 355
U.S. 333,1 Harvey Aluminum, Inc., 156 NLRB 1353,
N.L.R.B. v. Herman Wilson Timber Co., 355 F.2d 426
(C.A. 8), denying enforcement of 149 NLRB 673;
11 find that in the course of the conversation between Hubbard and
employee Fred Sartuche , Hubbard 's remarks do not depart in material
aspects from the general import of his prepared written speech.
'The March 21 and 26 letters sent to the employees were both in English
and Spanish . The speeches by Mr . Hubbard in the plant were in English
only, without an interpreter.
'Sec. 8(c) provides as follows:
The expressing of any views , argument, 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.
Werthan Bag Corp. of Nashville, 167 NLRB No. 3; Delta
Sportswear Inc., 160 NLRB No. 30; James Hotel Co.,
d/bla Skirvin Hotel, 142 NLRB 761, Texas Boat
Manufacturing Co., 143 NLRB 264.
Likewise the Respondent's statement that "the
Carpenters' Union is a serious threat to the continued
successful operation of this company -- and your jobs," in
the context made, was no more than a prediction of action
the Union might take in connection with possibly making
unreasonable demands and possibly strike action which
could seriously affect plant operation and employee jobs.
N.L.R.B. v. Lyman Printing & Finishing Co., Inc., 357
F.2d 844 (C.A. 4), denying enforcement of 150 NLRB
844; F.T. Adams Co., Inc., 166 NLRB No. 112; cf.
Greensboro Hosiery Mills, Inc., 162 NLRB No. 108.
Unlike the General Counsel, I do not regard the
Respondent's statement in the March 21 letter which
follows to be a threat of reprisal or force:
Up until now, you had the right to speak for yourself
and settle with us personally any problems you have
had. But if this Union were to get in here, this freedom
and this right would be taken away from you and
placed in the hands of the Union. And, who would be
the stewards and committee people who would handle
your affairs? Look around you and see who is active in
pushing the Union. Are they individuals whom you
consider capable of handling your problems, and into
whose hands you would be willing to entrust your
business and your affairs.
In the context of the statement, it is difficult to perceive
that the Respondent would want to revoke the privilege of
employees individually taking up and settling their
grievances and problems with management or that he
intended to carry that message to them. Obviously, he was
referring to the Union's right and insistence under Section
9(a) of the Act to adjust grievances and to be given an
opportunity to be present at such adjustments, a fact of
industrial life. See Valencia Baxt Express, Inc. 143
NLRB 211, 217-218. Obviously, the remark was a
prediction of what the Union would probably want in
connection with a contractual grievance procedure and is
entitled to under Section 9(a) of the Act. Harvey
Aluminum , Inc., 156 NLRB 1353; Nalco Chemical Co.,
163 NLRB No. 19. Westmont Engineering, 170 NLRB
No. 6; Capitol Electric Power, 171 NLRB No. 42;
Worzalla Publishing Co., 171 NLRB No. 34; K. O. Steel
Castings, Inc., 172 NLRB No. 216; James Hotel Co.
d/bla Skirvin Hotel, 142 NLRB 761.
The March 26 Letter
The General Counsel contends that the March 26 letter
violated Section 8(a)(1). Specifically, the General
Counsel's brief charges that Respondent threatened
employees with loss of existing benefits and job security
by informing them "If the Union wins the election,
negotiation will not start on the premise that the Union
will merely add new benefits. If the Union wins, all
matters concerning your wages, hours and working
conditions, including past and present - will be subject to
collective bargaining." Again, in the' context of all the
Respondent's preelection propaganda, I do not regard this
statement as coercive or as a threat of reprisal. On the
contrary, the Respondent's aforesaid statement was a
'Mackey , supra, was not overruled by N L R.B. v. Fleetwood Trailer
Co.. 389 U.S 375.
380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reasonable explanation that all of the terms and
conditions of employment were the subject of negotiation.
Playskool Manufacturing Company, 172 NLRB No. 177;
Capitol Electric Power Assn., 171 NLRB No. 42;
Orchard Corporation of America, 170 NLRB No. 141;
Jacob Brenner Company, Inc., 160 NLRB 131, 138; Trent
Tube Company, 147 NLRB 538, 541.
The General Counsel points to the following statement
in the March 26 letter as a threat to the employees' job
security:
Where unions are, strikes generally occur. If we should
have a strike, our customers would probably go
elsewhere. They are not concerned about you or this
company. They want a steady and reliable source of
supply. With any stoppage or interruption of
production , they would not hesitate one moment to take
their business elsewhere, and probably never come back.
Why risk the possible loss of your job.
Again , in the context of all the Respondent ' s election
propaganda , the foregoing statement cannot be regarded
as a threat of reprisal or force, but a prediction of the
risks of loss of customers occasioned by a work stoppage.
In the absence of any evidence that the Respondent's
surmise of possible customer loss is patently false , it must
be accepted as a legitimate prediction and opinion of a
possible risk resulting from a work stoppage by the
Union. Warton Drilling Co. Inc., 164 NLRB No. 51;
Formex Co., 160 NLRB No. 67; Cf. Haynes Stellite
Company, 136 NLRB 95.
Respondent's identical speeches on March 26 and 27
from a prepared text (reproduced here as Appendix C)
were largely a reiteration of propaganda contained in the
March 21 and March 26 letter and the departmental
meetings held in the last week before the March 28
election.
The Speeches
In the speeches of March 26 and 27, Respondent's
plant manager told the employees,
If we had to make substantial increases in our hourly
rates , or if we had to adopt unecomonic union practices,
we couldn't continue our present liberal overtime policy.
In addition , we would have to stop making some of our
low-profit items like finishing nails, wide crown staples.
Right now they are not hurting us too much, but if our
expenses go up substantially, we have to get out of that
business - and that would mean less work and fewer
jobs for our employees.
The General Counsel contends that the foregoing
remarks amounted to employer threats to cut overtime
hours and jobs. Again, it is clear that the Respondent was
not making a threat of reprisal if the employees selected
the Union. To the contrary he was expressing his views
that the consequences of negotiation with the Union might
result in the Respondent being required to increase wages
to the point that economic considerations might require
the reduction of overtime hours and the discontinuance of
producing certain marginal items . These were views and
expressions of opinion that the Respondent was privileged
to make by Section 8(c) of the Act. The Board expressed
its policy in T. M. Duche Nut Co., Inc., 174 NLRB No.
72, as follows:
An employer is not precluded from carrying to its
employees the possible adverse economic consequences
that might be expected if its business costs are
increased, provided this is done in a noncoercive
manner. (citing (Citing Wagner Industrial Products
Company Inc., 170 NLRB No. 157; T.R.W. Electronic
Component Division TRW, Inc., 169 NLRB No. 6)
Such expressions constitute permissible predictions of
the possible economic consequences of increased costs
rather than threats of reprisal to force employees into
abandoning the Union.
The General Counsel contended that these remarks in
the speech violated Section 8(a)(1):
As far as I can see , bringing a union here can only
cause trouble for all of us. Now I'll tell you why I say
that. If a union gets in here, we will not be able to give
any more than we can afford - and you can get that
without a union anyway .... Quite frankly, I don't see
how any union can get you any more than we have
already given you or what you can expect in the normal
course of events. We have given you the most we can
without endangering our financial position here.
The General Counsel contends that the Respondent's
remarks aforesaid , amounted to a statement that choosing
the Union would be a futile act. Granting that the
employer argued to the employees that the Union could
do no more for the employees than the employer was now
doing for them, that argument was no more than the
expression of his view or opinion within the privilege of
Section 8(c) of the Act. It did not constitute a threat of
reprisal. In the same speech the employer assured the
employees that if they selected the Union, he would
bargain with it in good faith. The employer is privileged
to express his opinion to the employees that unionization
is not desirable for them and the reasons for his opinion.
(George Groh & Sons, 141 NLRB 931; Bruns Garage,
Inc., 148 NLRB 363; Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc., 143
NLRB 386.)
Summary and Conclusion
Reexamining the March 21 and March 26 letters and
the written speech that was made on March 26 and 27
and which contains essentially the substance of remarks
made to employee group from March 21 to 26, I find and
conclude that all of the matter contained therein
amounted to the dissemination and expression of views,
argument or opinion within the meaning of Section 8(c) of
the Act. None of the remarks, oral or written, amounted
to threats of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.
The remarks contained in the documents in issue were
temperate and singularly free from terroristic overtones.
The dominant message in the Respondent ' s propaganda
was to point out to the employees the benefits that they
were enjoying without a union and the possibility that
union demands would worsen their economic position.
Whether the arguments were sound or not is irrelevant to
a determination as to whether they were privileged by
Section 8(c). In any event, the opinions expressed and the
prediction of unfavorable events that might flow in the
future from possible union tactics and demands, were not
based on patently or proven misrepresentations of fact.
In essence , none of the statements , written or oral,
made by the Respondent implied that it was going to take
any action in retaliation for its employees' organizational
activities, or if they selected the Union. Rather they were,
in my view, statements of opinion, prediction of events
that might occur, and a review of benefits presently
provided by the Respondent, which were relevant to the
election issues , and which the Respondent had every right
BOSTITCH DIV. OF TEXTRON, INC. 381
to call to the attention of its employees.
That the Respondent presented to his employees a
biased and partisan view of the risks of unionism cannot
be gainsaid . But this he was privileged to do . As the court
said in Southwire Co., 383 F. 2d 235 (C.A. 5):
The guaranty of speech and assembly to the employer
and to the union goes to the heart of the contest over
whether an employee wishes to join a union . It is the
employee who is to make the choice and a free flow of
information , the good and the bad , informs him as to
the choices available . It is an adversary proceeding and
hardly impartial.
Accord N. L.R.B. v . TRW-Semiconductors Inc., 385 F.2d
753 (C. A. 9). See also T. M. Duche Nut Company Inc.,
174 NLRB No. 72, where the Board expressed the opinion
that "An employer is not precluded from conveying to its
employees the possible adverse economic consequences
that might be expected if its business costs are increased,
provided this is done in a noncoercive manner."
I have concluded that the propaganda in issue which is
set forth in Appendices A, B, and C did not interfere with,
restrain , or coerce employees within the meaning of
Section 8 (a)(1), because privileged by Section 8 (c) of the
Act. In this connection it is important to note that the
Respondent ' s election propaganda was disseminated or
spoken in an atmosphere free from other alleged unfair
labor practices.
iv. objection to election
The union objections to conduct affecting the results of
the election were as follows:
The Employer made material and substantial
misstatements of fact, implying to the employees that if
the Carpenters became their certified representative, the
business would be closed and the employees' jobs would
suffer; the Employer untruthfully indicated to the
employees that if the Carpenters became their certified
collective bargaining agent , the employees would be
required to pay political contributions which would not
only be an unlawful requirement but is totally untrue;
Company representatives offered substantial wage
increases and betterment of conditions if the employees
voted not to accept the Carpenters Union as their
certified bargaining agent.
The evidence adduced by the General Counsel to
support the claimed 8(a)(l) violation is offered to support
the Union's objections to conduct affecting the results of
the election.
I find that the employer's election propaganda in
evidence did not interfere with the employees' free and
uninhibited choice in the selection of a bargaining
representative.
As heretofore found, Respondent did not engage in any
threats of reprisal or force or promise of benefits.
Respondent's election propaganda in overall content
reviewed existing benefits without unionism and the
employer's liberal policy, as opposed to the risks and
burdens of unionism, which, the employer pointed out,
could result adversely to the employees' economic
interests. The arguments made by the employer, although
clearly partisan, were temperate, free from exacerbating
vituperation or terroristic forebodings and devoid of
proven campaign trickery, though self-laudatory and
deprecatory of the union. The propaganda emanaged by
letters, cartoons and speeches from March 21 to 27; and
the Union had ample time to reply and to disseminate its
own propaganda. Additionally, the employees were
capable of evaluating the employer's letters and remarks
as typical campaign propaganda. I find that the objections
to election are without merit and should be overruled.6 T.
M. Duche Nut Company, Inc., 174 NLRB No. 72; The
Orchard Corporation of America, 170 NLRB No. 141;
Worzalla Publishing Co., 171 NLRB No. 34; Warton
Drilling Co., Inc., 164 NLRB No. 51; Howmet Corp.,
171 NLRB No. 18; TRW Electronic Component
Division, 169 NLRB No. 6; Dyersburg Cotton Products,
Inc., 168 NLRB No. 151; Allied Egry Business Systems,
Inc., 169 NLRB No. 60; Trent Tube Company,
147 NLRB 538; American Greeting Corporation, 146
NLRB 1440.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed;
that the Union's objections to the election be overruled;
and that a certificate of results of election issue.
'The transcript of the hearing is corrected as shown on Appendix D
attached hereto [omitted from publication] in accordance with the General
Counsel' s motion.
APPENDIX A
Division of
BOSTITCH Textron Inc.
March 21, 1968
To All Employees and Their Families:
The Carpenter's Union is a serious threat to the
continued successful operation of this Company and -
your jobs. For this reason , we are very strongly against
bringing this Union into the plant. You can block this
threat by voting NO in the election.
When the Union paints a rosy picture, watch out! Here
are a few things they don't tell you:
First, it should be clearly understood that the Union is
an expensive business . . are first and foremost
interested in your money. If you vote the Union into the
plant , it will cost each and every one of you at least
$100.00 a year in dues - not to mention initiation fees,
special assessments and fines. What guarantee do you
have that the Union won't raise their dues, or that there
won't be fines, extra assessments and political
contributions? Whether you like it or not, you may find
yourself paying to support strikes in plants you never
heard of.
Another thing - these Union sharpies won't ever trust
you to pay them. The first thing they will want is a
"Union Shop" contract - a contract under which you
must become a member of the Union and pay dues to
them, or else the Union can have you fired. Think this
over carefully. Is this what you want?
382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Up until now you had the right to speak for yourself
and settle with us personally any problems you have had.
But if this Union were to get in here , this freedom and
this right would be taken away from you and placed in the
hands of the Union . And, who would be the stewards and
committee people who would handle your affairs? Look
around you and see who is active in pushing this Union.
Are they individuals whom you consider capable of
handling your problems , and into whose hands you would
be willing to entrust your business and your affairs?
Now, don 't make the mistake of believing, as many
employees have , that if the Union is voted in, you will
automatically receive a wage increase and other benefits.
Nothing could be further from the truth ! If the Carpenters
were to win the election , there would still be only one way
they could try to force us to agree to any demands we
believe are unreasonable , or that would raise our costs out
of line , forcing our prices higher than our competitors -
that would be by PULLING YOU OUT ON STRIKE!
We hope you realize and understand that this Company
has no intention of yielding to such pressure as that -
ever.
What 's more - if you go out on strike , you cannot
even collect unemployment insurance , and you can be
permanently replaced . So, when the strike ,is over you will
have lost everything , including your job.
So, why gamble with your money , and the security and
future of yourself, your family and your Company, by
bringing this Union into the plant?
Play safe . Keep these outsiders where they belong - on
the outside . They have no place in this plant.
VOTE RIGHT VOTE ON THE RIGHT SIDE
VOTE NO
APPENDIX B
Division of
BOSTITCH Textron Inc.
March 26, 1968
To All Employees and Their Families:
On Thursday , March 28th , you will decide whether or
not to have the Carpenter ' s Union at Bostitch . How you
vote is important to all of us - because the future success
of this plant and your welfare are at stake in this election.
Here are a few final facts you should remember before
you vote:
1. The election will be by secret ballot, under the
supervision of the National Labor Relations Board. You
will vote in complete secrecy , and no one will ever know
how you voted . You are free to vote against the Union, no
matter what you have said or done before the election.
Even if you have signed a Union authorization card, or
promised to vote for the Union , you can still vote NO on
March 28th . Don't be misled if the Union representative
or anyone else tells you differently.
2. BY ALL MEANS, VOTE IN THIS ELECTION.
Don't stand aside , believing that its outcome will not
affect you . A majority of the votes cast will determine the
results , and your failure to vote is the same as a vote for
the Union . If you do not want the Carpenters - be sure
to vote "NO UNION".
3. It is only your money that the Union is interested in
- not you . If you vote the Union in, they won't even
trust you to pay them. The first thing the Union wants is
a check-off of your dues and assessments out of your pay,
so that they can get your money before it even comes into
your hand. Whose security are these paid Union agents
looking out for?
4. The Company is forbidden to make promises to you
before the election. On the other hand, the Union has
made many "pie-in -the-sky" promises. Their promises are
empty ones, since they have no ability to carry them out.
5. Real job security comes from your Company, and
your Company alone . It is your Company that furnishes
your job and your paycheck -- not the Union. The
Carpenters will never furnish you a day's work or a cent
of pay.
6. If the Union wins the election, negotiations will not
start on the premise that the Union will merely add new
benefits. If the Union wins, all matters concerning your
wages , hours and working conditions, including past and
present - will be subject to collective bargaining.
7. Where Unions are, strikes generally occur. If we
should have a strike, our customers would probably go
elsewhere. They are not concerned about you or this
Company. They want a steady and reliable source of
supply. With any stoppage or interruption of production,
they would not hesitate one moment to take their business
elsewhere, and probably never come back. Why risk the
possible loss of your job?
8. Don't get the idea that you can bring the Carpenters
into the plant on a trial basis and get rid of them, if you
do not like the results. Too many employees who are
stuck in a Union shop have found out to their sorrow it
isn't that easy! Avoid making their mistake, by keeping
the Carpenters out in the first place.
9. The Company can and does guarantee that we shall
continue to treat you fairly. Without a Union, we can
accomplish more for the mutual benefit of the Company
and the employee.
Now we hope you will think about all the things we
have tried to bring out in our talks with you and in our
letters . As matters now stand, you have a steady job at
good wages and with good benefits. We hope to make
things even better. Is there any good reason to bring this
outside Union in, pay your money to it, and at the same
time run the risk of tearing everything apart?
If you will study this whole matter carefully, we believe
that you will surely come to the conclusion in your own
good judgment : That you stand to lose if the Union were
to get in here , and that you stand to gain by keeping it
out.
APPENDIX C
SPEECH BOSTITCH
Ladies & Gentlemen:
I wish you would give me your attention for a few
minutes. I want to talk to you about the election that is
going to be held here tomorrow afternoon. I don't like to
have to read a speech to you, but I don't want to be
misquoted by the Union. That's their usual technique, so I
think I'd better read the speech so there can be no
question about what I say. I hope you will bear with me.
I want you to know right from the beginning that I am
not making any promises or any threats. I don't want to
know the way you are going to vote, although naturally I
would like you to vote "No", and I'm not trying to find
out whether you are for or against the Union. That's all
BOSTITCH DIV. OF TEXTRON, INC. 383
your business and your affair. You have a right to be for
the Union. But I also want you to know that you have a
right to be against the Union, and for the Company. It's
your business.
I am only interested in giving you some true facts, and
giving you our side -- the Company's side, on this whole
thing.
First -- it is important that all of you vote - and I
hope you'll vote against the Union -- because the result
will be determined by the majority of votes actually cast.
For example, if 70 employees vote, the Union would have
to get 36 votes to win the election. If only 50 vote, the
Union would have to get only 26 votes in order to win.
So, be sure to vote because if you do not want a union,
but fail to vote, the effect is the same as if you had voted
for the Union. Remember, if the Union gets a majority of
the votes cast -- not necessarily a majority of all the
eligible votes, it will then have the right to represent
everyone - not just those who voted for it.
Some of you have asked whether or not you have to
vote for the union because you previously signed a union
card. Some were talked into signing cards - others,
perhaps, were pressured into signing , and others have
simply changed their minds. No matter what the reason,
the answer is you don't have to vote for the Union, even
though you may have signed one of their cards. Don't let
anybody tell you differently. That is why the election is by
secret ballot, and no one will know how you vote.
You will be given a ballot and asked to go into a booth
and mark it. The left-hand box will say "Yes" and if you
mark that box, it means you want a union. The right-hand
box - the right way is the "No" box, and you mark that
for NO union. I hope you do just that - mark the right
side - the correct side -- the NO side.
Bear in mind that promises and only promises are all
this union can give you. They can promise you anything,
but can they deliver? The union organizers don't care
about that. All they want is your vote - and the dues,
assessments and initiation fees that go with it. That's all
they care about. Once they get you to vote for them, they
won't have to worry then about making good on their
promises. Remember -- only the Company can deliver.
Don't forget - it's the Company that hires you, pays
you and provides you with work - not the union. The
union doesn't go out and get orders that provide work for
you. The union doesn't finance this business . And it's not
the union that has to service our customers and satisfy
them. It's the Company that does all these things . It's the
Company that pays you. The union doesn 't give you a job
and pay you. Only the Company can do that. So, when
you boil it all down, all the union can do is make
promises - but it is the Company that actually delivers.
And we have delivered! Let's face it -- we have
delivered in the past without a union - because of our
own voluntary policy of fair treatment for all. We didn't
need a union to force us to do this, and we don't need a
union to force us to treat you just as fairly in the future.
As a result of this voluntary policy of fair treatment for
all, there are 18 benefits that we have given you, and that
you now have at this Company. And remember -- you
have not had to pay one single red cent in union dues to
get these benefits, and you have never had to be troubled
with a union and its rules and regulations.
You now have and enjoy an overall setup which is as
good as any comparable shop in the area - union or
non-union . When you go out and compare conditions in
similar business , you will find that your setup here is
much better.
When you talk about an overall setup, you have got to
take into consideration a number of things. You have to
consider your earnings, your benefits, the type of place
you work in and how management treats you.
You also have to consider benefits and pay on an
annual basis . Sure, you may go into a place and see that
they have a rate on a job that is a little higher than some
of our rates. That may be true here and there. But the
important thing is not simply what the particular hourly
rate is. The important thing is what is in your pay check
at the end of the week and at the end of the year. What
does it total to? What does it amount to? In some of the
places where they might have a few higher rates than
some of ours, you undoubtedly find that they do not have
the steady work that you enjoy here. At the end of the
year when you total up all the hours worked, you will find
they have worked many hours or weeks less than you, and
that your total earnings are well above the earnings in
those plants. Your weekly pay checks and your total
income - which are what really count -. are much better
than most places.
Another thing - you have direct personal contact with
management . Now this is nothing to sneeze at. This
contact - this direct contact that you have with
management, is an important thing. I hope it is important
to you, because it is very important to us in management.
I know that many of you have taken advantage of this
direct contact to come to us with your personal problems.
We have always tried to help you. This has been helpful
to you and its been a good thing for the shop, too,
because we have had (or I always thought we had) a
happy and contented shop.
Look, if you have a problem in your job, whether it's
connected with your work or whether it's a personal
problem, you have an absolute right to come in to see us
at any time and discuss it with us. Now I'm not telling
you that we are going to solve every problem that might
come up, because sometimes a problem cannot be solved.
I am not telling you that if you have a gripe or grievance
or a complaint that it is necessarily going to be decided
your way. But I am telling you one thing - we will listen
to your problem, whatever it is , and I guarantee you and
promise you that we will give you an honest answer, and
that we will give your problem complete and fair
consideration. And we will try to solve it. And where it is
humanly possible, we will solve it - believe me.
Now I am not promising you anything new. This direct
contact policy has been in existence here as long as I have
been here. I am telling you about something that already
exists . I am telling you about something that many people
here take advantage of regularly.
If a union were to get in here, this direct contact with
us as we now have it, and as you know it, would be out
the window! It could not exist any longer. That's not
because I would want it that way, but because that's the
way the union wants it. The union law says that you
cannot come in to see us alone . You have got to give your
problem to a Union Steward, and he's the one that will be
presenting your problems to us. Well, you know what that
means. First of all, would you want someone else handling
your personal problems? And second, if, for some reason,
the Steward or the union representative does not like you,
they would probably bury your request or complaint at
the bottom of a pile. We might never even get to see it.
You know who is active in pushing this union. Ask
yourself - are they individuals in whom you would be
384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
willing to entrust your business and affairs , if they were
your Stewards? You know these unions - they thrive on
trouble and dissension . They don't want things to run
smoothly . They don't like the idea ( in fact they won't let
it happen ) of a fellow being able to talk to his boss on a
friendly , personal basis . And you know why - because it
makes them less important . And I don 't want that to
happen here , believe me , and I am sure you don't. If a
union got in here, we would be powerless to stop it.
To go on - we give you 6 paid holidays . We give you
paid vacations , which are in most cases comparable to
those given in union places.
We have an excellent group insurance program, with
which I am sure you are familiar , and which is at least
equal to those in many union places.
We have given you pensions which are administered by
the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company - so you
know your pension rights are safe and protected.
We have a stock savings plan under which you receive
the Company 's contribution after 6 years.
I could go on and point out other benefits you enjoy,
such as: coffee breaks , wash-up time , funeral leave, an
eye-glass allowance of $10.00 and so on. But there is no
point in going into too much detail . You know this has
always been a good place to work . We don 't try to make
your lives miserable with a lot of rules and regulations
and do everything by the book . This is the way we have
chosen to operate , and I think it has worked out well for
you, as well as for us . Let's keep it that way - without a
union and union restrictions.
Finally - you have real job security . At Bostitch, you
get true job security - not union insecurity ! The union
has probably tried to sell you a line that they are going to
guarantee you job security . That ' s just plain baloney! No
union can guarantee you a job. No union can guarantee
you steady work . Remember - the Company hires you,
pays you and provides you with a job - not the union.
So, when you boil it right down , your jobs and pay
come from our customers who buy our products . They are
the ones who really provide us with work right here. If we
cannot get our customers to buy from us, we have no
business and no payrolls. So job security depends on
customer security , and this can be achieved by you - the
worker, and by the Company , only when there is 100%
cooperation.
Now, it is also important for you to understand that for
a Company to be successful, and to provide work for its
employees , it must be able to meet competition - that is,
it must be able to sell its products at a competitive price,
because if it cannot compete, it cannot sell the goods. This
can be achieved only if we have team -work among all the
people concerned . This business has to be one happy
family , the way it has always been. We must all pull
together. If anything comes in to disrupt the harmony that
we have had here, the fine spirit of cooperation that exists,
then naturally something has to suffer; and our ability to
satisfy our customers - that is, to sell them at a price
they are willing to buy at , would suffer . And as I said
before, if the customers stop buying , then your jobs suffer
accordingly.
Now suppose , despite everything I say , you people
decide not to follow my advice and you should vote the
union in. If that should happen , we would of course have
to bargain with the union - and we would bargain in
good faith, as required by law.
One of the first things the union would require, if they
get a contract here , would be that we sign a so-called
"Union Shop Provision " and "Check-Off" provision. This
would mean that everyone , whether or not they had voted
for the union or wanted to be a union member, would
have to join the union and would have to pay union dues,
initiation fees , assessments , and so on . This could add up
to a lot of money which would come right out of your pay
- and you would never see it! Because of this so-called
"check -off" provision , we would be required to pay it
directly to the union.
I understand that the union has promised you that your
dues won ' t be more than $6.00 per month $72.00 per
year , with an initiation fee of $30.00. Do you know that
the union dues at Gang-Nail Truss are $8.75 per month
- $105.00 per year - with an initiation fee of $50.00?
Now who is this union really kidding? Do you think that
the union is going to let you off with paying $6.00 a
month , while the employees at Gang-Nail Truss pay
substantially more? You can rest assured that once you
vote the union in, your dues will be the same as everyone
else's - whether you like it or not - and you won't have
anything to say about it.
Just to show you what can happen once a union gets its
hands on you - the automobile worker' s union raised
their dues from $5.00 per month to $20.00 per month, for
all their members earning between $2.00 and $2.99 per
hour , and to $25.00 per month for those earning $3.00 per
hour or over in order to support their strike against Ford.
Even the Steelworkers are getting into the act , and they
have asked that a $5 . 00 per month assessment be made
for initial financing of the strike fund against the steel
companies.
So you can see for yourself that any increase the union
might get you, if you vote them in, could be eaten up by
what you have to pay them . You might wind up with less
take-home pay than you now have.
Compare this with the policy we have always followed
of giving individual increases on a merit basis every six
months. It has always been our policy to give pay
increases as employees become more experienced, and as
they gain more time with the Company.
This policy has put more money into your pockets,
without the necessity of paying anything to a union - and
this policy , if continued without the necessity of dealing
with the union , will continue to put additional money into
your pockets - still without any part of it having to go to
a union.
You know that we have been fair to you in the past.
You know that you don 't need a union to force us to
continue to be fair to you in the future!
Another thing - we are a small plant and we operate
flexibly. We move people around as needed. If we can't do
that , we are in trouble. But, the union doesn 't allow this.
Under union rules , everyone has his or her own job with a
little fence around it - and we would not be allowed to
move people around freely to take care of all the little
emergencies that come up from day to day. Union red
tape and restrictions would hurt us badly. And if we
couldn't move you around , we would just have to send
you home because of the lack of work.
Furthermore , if we had to make substantial increases in
our hourly rates , or if we had to adopt uneconomic union
practices , we couldn 't continue our present liberal
overtime policy.
In addition, we would have to stop making some of our
low-profit items like Finishing Nails, Wide Crown
Staples . Right now they are not hurting us too much, but
if our expenses go up substantially , we have to get out of
BOSTITCH DIV. OF TEXTRON, INC. 385
that business - and that would mean less work and fewer
jobs for our employees.
As I said to you before , if we have to bargain with this
union , we will bargain in good faith as required by law,
but that doesn ' t mean we would have to agree to anything
that the union said.
We certainly would not be able to agree to anything
that would hurt the continued existence of this plant. The
union salesmen want you to believe that you have
everything to gain and nothing to lose by voting for them.
That is just not true and they know it. When we sit down
to bargain with the union , if we have to , we will bargain
about each and every item , term and condition of your
employment . In other words - we will bargain about
your vacation plan, about your holidays , your hourly
rates , your bereavement pay, your insurance, and
everything else you have . You might wind up with more
as a result of the bargaining , but it is just as possible that
you will wind up with the same as you have now , or even
less. This has happened before when a union came in and
it can happen again . Getting a union in here is not a
guarantee that you will get anything more or better than
you have now.
As far as I can see , bringing a union in here can only
cause trouble for all of us. Now, I'll tell you why I say
that . If a union gets in here, we will not be able to give
anymore than we can afford - and you get that without a
union anyway . You know that - your past experience
here shows that . But is the union going to be satisfied?
They don' t care about you. All they are interested in is
your dues and the power that they think that they can get,
and because they' ll be stuck with promises which they will
have to try to fulfill, they'll probably try to force us to
give you more than what we can really afford to give. At
that point, we'll have to make a choice whether to give
more than we could afford , and lose our ability to
compete or to take a strike . And if a strike does take
place , the union would insist on your going out on strike,
even if you don't want to, and would prevent those people
from working who want to continue to work.
Now let me tell you this - if we had a strike here, we
would have to continue to run our business, strike or no
strike . Our doors would remain open and we would have
to hire replacements for anybody who went out on strike,
and once you 're replaced , that means the end of your jobs.
The law gives us the right to permanently replace
economic strikers , and don ' t let the union tell you
anything differently.
And even if a strike didn ' t last long , and you came
back to work after being out some period of time, how
many weeks ' wages would you have lost , and do you think
you will ever be able to make up the money that was lost
during the strike? Why, it would take months or maybe
years or even never.
Quite frankly, I don't see how any union can get you
any more than what we have already given you or what
you can expect in the normal course of events. We have
given you the most we can without endangering our
financial position here. We are in a very tough business.
Competition is brutal. We can survive only as long as our
expenses of doing business don't get out of line.
Of course, I recognize that there is room for
improvement here. After all, there's room for
improvement anywhere - whether it's in a union shop or
in a non-union shop. Things are not perfect anywhere.
There is no such thing as a perfect place. This Company
has always recognized that fact and I will always
recognize the fact that there is room for improvement
here. I can only tell you one thing - we are the kind of
people who are always seeking to continue making
improvements in your wages , benefits and working
conditions , when we can do so without jeopardizing the
Company. Nobody had to ask us and nobody had to tell
us when to make improvements in the past, and nobody
will have to tell us in the future when additional
improvements can be and should be made.
Remember - you get all these benefits that you now
have, and nobody forced us to do this for you. No union
was necessary to get this for you. We did this on our own
voluntarily - because we have a policy of making
improvements when our financial situation allows it, and I
hope we will be able to maintain this policy in the future.
I hope that we will be able to continually make
uhprovements here . I see no reason why we cannot make
more and more improvements as the years go by. This is
what I am hoping for and I am,sure this is what you are
h )ping for, too.
The important thing to remember is that you havt, had
these improvements and you haven ' t had to pay one single
red cent to a union to get them; and in the future , if there
is no union , you are not going to have to pay anything to
a union to get more benefits and more improvements. It
just doesn 't make any sense to me for you to have to pay
tribute to a union to get what you are getting now, and
mal be even less than what you would have received
any'vay , without a union.
The future of this operation is in your hands. All of you
must know that we are doing our level best for you.
Bringing a union in cannot force us to do more than our
best - and it could cost you money besides.
Where's the percentage for you? Why take a risk? Why
risk the possibility of strikes , short workweeks, and all the
rest that goes with bringing in a union? Don't risk a
secure future with this Company by voting in this union.
I think I deserve your confidence . Show me that you
have confidence in me by voting "No" in tomorrow's
election.
Thank you for listening.