Van Raalte, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 9, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 1326 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of VAN RAALTE , INC. and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
HOSIERY WORKERS, C. I. O.
Case No. 10-C-1594.-Decided August 9,1946
Messrs. Albert D. Maynard and Paul S. Keulthau, for the Board.
Messrs. R. M. McConnell and H. M. Harton, of Knoxville, Tenn.,
for the respondent.
Mr. Herbert G. B. King, of Chattanooga, Tenn., and Messrs. John
TV. Seltzer and Sonnie Davis, of Knoxville, Tenn., for the Union.
Mr. Ben Grodsky, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed on September 7, 1944, by Amer-
ican Federation of Hosiery Workers, C. I. 0., herein called the Union,
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the
Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its
complaint dated October 14, 1944, against Van Raalte, Inc., Athens,
Tennessee, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing
thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance that the respondent from about July 1, 1944, has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by (a) urging, persuading,
threatening, and warning its employees to refrain from joining or
remaining members of the Union, (b) urging union members and
adherents to resign their positions with the respondent, (c) questioning
its employees regarding their union membership and activities, and
(d) interfering with the use of a meeting place by the Union's ad-
herents in Athens, Tennessee.
69 N. L. R. B., No. 168.
1326
VAN RAALTE, INC. 1327
On October 24, 1944, the respondent filed an answer in which it
denied that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Athens, Tennessee, on
October 30, 1944, before Louis Plost, the Trial Examiner duly desig-
nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, and
the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, was afforded all parties.
The deposition of Jack P. Elrod, which was taken at Knoxville, Ten-
nessee, on October 24, 1944, pursuant to a stipulation entered into be-
tween counsel for the Board and counsel for the respondent, was
admitted in evidence by the Trial Examiner. On objections by the re-
spondent, the Trial Examiner subsequently struck from the record
certain of the testimony appearing in the deposition.' At the close
of the hearing, counsel for the respondent moved to. dismiss the com-
plaint. The motion was denied. At the close of the hearing, counsel
for the Board moved to conform the pleadings to the proof. The
motion was granted. The Board has reviewed the rulings on motions
and on objections to the admission of evidence made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. At the close of the hearing,
counsel for the Board and the respondent argued orally before the
Trial Examiner. Counsel for the respondent submitted a brief to
the Trial Examiner on November 12, 1944.
On November 29, 1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent and
the Union. In the Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner found
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act, and recommended that the respondent cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the
policies of the Act. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a brief in support of its exceptions. Oral
argument was held before the Board at Washington, D. C., on March
I Elrod testified , inter alia, regarding the speech, set forth below , which was delivered
to the respondent's employees on July 19, 1944, by H. A. Vestal, the plant manager. Over
objection by the respondent 's counsel, Elrod answered questions as to what certain ex-
pressions used in the speech meant to him. The Trial Examiner sustained the objection
and struck from the record all of Elrod ' s testimony regarding his understanding of the
meaning of any portion of Vestal 's speech . Were we to agree that the speech was "ambig-
uous," as it was characterized by counsel for the respondent at one point in his oral argu-
ment , we should not be prepared to say that Elrod ' s testimony as to its meaning was inad-
missible. However , since we are satisfied and hereinafter find that the speech plainly was
directed to the employees' union membership and activity, as admitted by counsel for the
respondent at a subsequent point in his oral argument , we shall not disturb the Trial
Examiner 's ruling.
1328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
27, 1945. The respondent appeared and participated in the argument;
the Union did not appear.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respondent's
brief and exceptions, and the entire record of the case, and finds that
the exceptions are without merit insofar as they are inconsistent with
the findings, conclusions, and order hereinafter set forth.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of New York. This proceeding involved only its plant at Athens,
Tennessee, where the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of
hosiery. During 1943, the respondent purchased for use in its Athens
plant $335,000 worth of raw materials, 70 percent of which was shipped
to the plant from points outside the State of Tennessee. During the
same period the respondent shipped from its Athens plant finished
materials valued at $1,250,000, of which 99 percent was shipped to
points outside the State of Tennessee. The respondent has a total of
243 employees at its Athens plant.
The respondent concedes, and we find, that it is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of-the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
American Federation of Hosiery `Yorkers, affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization which admits
to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On July 7, 1944, an organizer of the Union met with one of the
respondent's employees in Athens and left authorization cards with
him for distribution. The ensuing organizational activities of the
employees were conducted openly ; signatures to the cards were at
times solicited within the plant during working hours. H. A. Vestal,
the manager of the plant, learned that the employees were conducting
union meetings in a filling station operated by a former employee of
the respondent. He discussed these meetings with the filling station
operator, with the operator's grandfather, and with the local manager
of the oil company whose products were being distributed at the filling
station.'
2 Counsel for the Board sought to prove that Vestal had attempted to influence the filling
station operator not to permit the employees to hold union meetings on his premises. We
VAN RAALTE, INC. 1329
On July 19, 1944, at 3: 30 p. m., at which time the work shifts
changed in the respondent's plant, the power was shut off and all the
employees were assembled in the knitting room. Vestal then delivered
the following speech :
Please get as close up as you can now for I can't talk very loud.
I wish to call your attention to the coal situation. As you know
this firm has always tried to take care of you on coal, and although
we tried very hard last year we failed. For three months I have
been trying to get coal for you for next winter, but they say we
have no priority on lump or egg coal, and it looks as though I'm
not going to be able to get lump coal for you again this year.
I can get mine run coal for you at a cost of $5.50 a ton delivered.
It is like what is on the yard and if you are interested in it then
put your name on a knitter ticket and turn it in within the next
two weeks.
I have also talked with McMillan several times, and asked him
to see what he could do for us. I told him we had stayed with him
pretty close in the past, but two weeks ago he said coal was very
hard for him to get and that he had more orders than he can fill,
but said he would let us know. So I would suggest that you place
your orders anywhere you can get coal., or if you want the mine
run let me know at once. I want you all to have coal this winter.
And I know more than anything we are all wanting the war to
be over. I really feel it will partly be over within sixty days,
however, those who give it much thought say Christmas. We
would all rather the war be over than anything for we know what
it is doing for us and what it will mean to us all later. All of us
are paying and will continue to pay. Some are paying heavier
than others, but we all pay for war. I believe business will hold
up for a few years after the war, but those who have jobs now
should to my opinion hold on to them. There are ten to eleven
million people who will bc, coming back from service, and with
defense plants going down it will create a great unemployment
with many millions out of work. The Van Raalte Company plans
to take care of every person going into military service from this
plant, and I believe will. But there are going to be lots of others
out hunting jobs, and that is not hard to see with millions back
from the service and millions turned out of defense work. I wish
you would think this over seriously. I am talking for your own
good and from the heart.
We heard of high wages elsewhere, but too often when people
get there the wages are not as high or the jobs not desirable. I
find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the evidence fails to establish this. Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the allegation that the respondent interfered with the use of a meeting place
by the Unions adherents.
701592-47-vol. 69--85
1330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
feel safe in saying that 98 percent of those who have left here
have asked for work again , and some of them have cried for jobs
back with us. This leads me to believe the Van Raalte Company
is as good a place to work as anywhere in Tennessee or anywhere
else. Van Raalte regards their employees very high . They want
to do everything they can. I realize 20 percent is taken out of
your check but this is income tax. If you do anything at all you
have to pay it. This is a credit you get and it goes to the Govern-
ment, so you have to consider it as earnings.
As to pay the Van Raalte Company is willing to pay and wants
to pay but pay is frozen and you have to show just cause to the
War Labor Board before you can give any advances . They have
tried to get advances and have had experts to try, but if the re-
quest is for over 50 0 an hour they will not grant it unless it is in
a war zone , and, of course , Athens does not have war plants.
Every one in Athens should be thankful there is no defense plants
here for they cause mushroom growth and undesirable living con-
ditions , then when it leaves , a town is dead. I remember after
the World War and the Spanish-American War and it will hap-
pen again for it follows a war.
A little further about wages-I spoke of the tax of 20 percent,
over which Van Raalte has no control , but some of your vacation
pay and bonus checks amounts to 6¢ an hour , so I am afraid some
do not give Van Raalte credit for that. Some figure 6.3 cents
an hour where they have been over two years, others figure 4¢ to
6¢. Seniority gives more vacation pay and bonus, and this is
something to work for.
The first year you are with Van Raalte you are not worth very
much to the firm, and there are jobs where for several weeks the
person is really in the way, so you see all who work only six months
and quit are just a loss to the firm. The Van Raalte stock is on
the exchange. The people who run Van Raalte Company receive
only 500 a quarter or $2.00 a year a share on their investment
when the firm is making money. Last year the firm did not make
the money they did the previous year, and year before last they
did not make the money they did the year before that. But the
person who is making ordinary money is the person who is con-
tent. It seems it is the person making the big money who is talk-
in the most and Van Raalte can't be made to do anything any
more than you can. They can quit any time. The stockholders
are scattered to the four winds , and if you had Van Raalte stock
you would not be willing to just take $2.00 a share a year. Of
course, some years they have a little accumulation but they have
to keep a reserve for the years they lose money . This is neces-
sary and before they will be driven they will go down. Be sure
VAN RAALTE, INC. 1331
you get this in your minds. They are willing to put faith in you
and give you what they can, and if you are not satisfied, don't try
to tear up the organization, for there are many honest people
here who want to hold it together for the present and the future.
We have a few who are looking out only for themselves, and who
haven't thought of you or of me, and you folks know what to
do with that kind of fellow. You know what you have here and
you know how to keep it. We have one of the finest plants any-
where and where one is not willing to cooperate then he is your
enemy and a bad enemy. If there is anyone not thoroughly satis-
fied come on in and get your release, for we don't want this torn
up, and I don't believe it will be torn up.
I have confidence in most everyone here. There are some new-
comers who do not understand it and who do not understand me,
but I do not believe anyone who has been here for two years fails
to have confidence in me, or that I do not have confidence in.
If you will come one at a time, I will talk with you, and will
give you all the time you want. I am your friend and I want
you to do well. Every man who has been here ten years is doing
well. He has his home, his car and is doing well by his children,
and when he is really interested in that way, he is happy. I
don't want to be where I am not happy, and if you are not happy
and satisfied we don't want you to be with us.
The hardest work I ever did in my life was ten months' work
in Knoxville. I wouldn't leave it until I got a man to take my
place. I told the firm I wanted to quit and why. They wanted
to raise my pay, but I told them I didn't want a raise, I didn't
want the job-I wanted to quit, and I did quit. Life is too short
to stay where one is not happy. Go some place and get another
job if you are not happy-and if you are not satisfied there then
learn to adjust yourself. If you try here and there and are not
satisfied, then just admit it is yourself who is wrong and get
yourself straightened out. Don't try to put it on someone else.
I am telling you this from the heart and if you will try it you
will thank H. A. for it some day.
If you cannot adjust yourself get somewhere else, for as I stated,
you are an enemy to the rest of us and we don't want that. We
want this to be the best place to work, made up of good people
and all getting along. We want you to want to be here, and if
you don't then something is wrong. See if you can. correct it,
and if you can't., then no one can. You needn't ask for help for
it is up to each individual. Work on yourself and fix it if you can,
If you can't, then do something else.
I'll be glad to talk with anyone singly. I believe every fore-
man will help you if you ask him. I know the machines are kept
1332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in good shape and we try to get the best yarn on the market. The
yarn we have now is as good or better running than any we have
ever had, with the exception of some cotton yarn but we should
congratulate ourselves on getting cotton yarn at all for it is very
hard to get. Many places machines are down on account of
yarn, but Van Raalte has spent much time and scoured the country
trying to keep yarn for full time, and they are going to try to
continue giving you fifty weeks of work and two weeks with
pay as they have been doing. We try to give you as much time
as you want. We have given you longer hours than we are
right now, but yarn is hard to get now. When yarn is a little
easier to secure and when the weather gets cooler we will try
to give you 48 hours if you want it.
I got a letter from my son this week and he said they are work-
ing seven days a week and 10 hours a day. That is 70 hours a
week. Many would much rather be at home working 48 hours
a week. We should be more thankful for what we have.
I have confidence in most of you. I am sorry I have had to
lose confidence in any, but I'm sure those I have lost confidence in
are less than two percent, and they are the ones who have not
thought. I hope they will come in and see me and apologize.
They are welcome and we will forget the past. If I do you wrong
I am willing to apologize and if a fellow on one machine does
another fellow wrong then I hope he will apologize. I want its
all to feel that way. I want to be your friend, and I believe you
all know I am your friend. Please believe that until you find it
different, then if you find it different come and tell me and I will
appreciate it. Come to see me individually if I have done you
wrong. Is there a question? (No response).
Hubert, do you have anything to say? 3
HUBERT. Nothing at this time but I'll be glad to talk with any
who cares to come to me, one at a time.
Mr. VESTAL. Thank you for your attention. You are dismissed.
A few days after his speech, Vestal summoned Jack Elrod, a knitter,
to his office. Vestal told Elrod that he understood that Elrod had
signed a card for the Union and, upon Elrod confirming this, told
him that he ought to think over carefully what he went into. Vestal
then said that Athens was not a union town; that although unions
might be all right in the North, they were not all right for the South;
that the respondent's plant in New Jersey was organized but the
Union did not work so well there; that the respondent had brought its
plant to Athens in order to get away from unions; and that a union
3 This question was addressed to Hubert Vestal, the plant superintendent.
VAN RAALTE, INC. 1333
would ruin the respondent's business and all other business in Athens.
Vestal showed Elrod the drawings of a proposed addition to the re-
spondent's plant and stated that now he did not know if it would be
built. He also told Elrod that the respondent would not work "under
organized labor" and that it "didn't have to work" since it "could
quit any time." Vestal closed the interview by telling Elrod to discuss
his union membership with his father.4
About the same time, Foreman Grant Thompson on separate oc-
casions approached helpers Edward Harrod and William Elrod 5 while
they were at work and stated that if the Union came into the plant it
would be 4 years before they could become machine operators.' On
a different occasion Thompson told another helper, Auda Lee Marler,
who had signed an authorization card a few days before, that if the
Union came into the plant she would not be permitted to turn a switch
on any of the machines.7
Conclusions
The respondent has engaged in a coercive course of conduct designed
to discourage its employees from becoming or remaining members
of the Union.
On July 19, 1944, shortly after the start of the Union's organiza-
tional effort, all the employees were assembled (luring working hours
and addressed by Plant Manager Vestal, who had learned of the
employees' union activity. Although Vestal did not specifically advert
to the Union or its activities as such during his speech, we are satisfied
and find that the timing and content of the speech were such as to
make plain that Vestal intended to and did direct his words to the
employees' attempt at self-organization.8 We are further convinced
Q The findings as to the conversation between Vestal and Jack Elrod are based on the
uncontradieted testimony of the latter.
6 Harrod and Elrod, who were respectively 16 and 18 years of age, had been given union
cards which Thompson had suggested they take home and discuss with their parents.
e Machine operators or knitters are among the highest paid production employees of the
respondent.
7 The findings as to Thompson's statements are based upon the testimony of Harrod,
William Elrod, and Marler, who impressed the Trial- Examiner as credible witnesses.
Thompson denied that he had made such statements to Harrod and Elrod ; he testified that
he. thought they had overheard a conversation in the washroom between him and employee
Lawson, in which Thompson had related what had occurred at the plant of a former em-
ployer with respect to the time required to become a machine operator. Thompson did not
recall the conversation with Marler. Upon the entire record, including the similarity of
the statements concerning which Harrod, Elrod, and Marler each testified, we find, as did
the Trial Examiner, that Thompson made the statements set forth above.
8 Counsel for the respondent conceded this during his oral argument before us. He stated,
inter alia:
. , . I think that this speech should be construed as an argument by the plant
manager against the organizational efforts that were being carried on. And I don't see
how it could be given given any other construction.
! • t R i i R
. . , unquestionably . . . Vestal had reference to the Union . . . in his speech. I don't
think there is any doubt about that.
1334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Vestal's statements to his involuntary audiences exceeded the
limits of free expression protected by the First Amendment.
The speech was not "an argument , temperate in form, that a union
would be against the employees' interests"; it contained, on the con-
trary, "a covert threat to recalcitrants" and a plain "intimation of
reprisal" for the exercise of their statutory rights .1s In the course
of his speech, Vestal dwelt at length upon the probability of wide-
spread unemployment in the post-war era, which, according to Vestal,
was not far distant. He recounted the advantages of employment with
the respondent, in connection with which he injected the warning
that the respondent "can't be made to do anything anymore than you
can," that it "can quit any time," and that "before [it] will be driven
[it] will go down." Vestal then cautioned those who were "not satis-
fied" against trying "to tear up the organization" and asserted that
there were in fact "a few who are looking out only for themselves."
In the circumstances, and in the absence of any alternative showing
or explanation," we construe, and we are satisfied that the employees
construed, this statement to denote those who sought to improve their
economic position through organization in the Union. Vestal charac-
terized them as enemies of the respondent and of the other employees;
lie urged there-"anyone not thoroughly satisfied"-to obtain a release,
since the respondent did not want any person "not happy and sat-
isfied . . . to be with us"; he invited these-"the ones who have
not thought"-to apologize and promised to "forget the past" if they
would do so. We think it plain from the foregoing and from the
speech in its entirety that Vestal sought to and did create the impres-
sion that the union adherents were enemies of the respondent, that
union membership and employment with the respondent were incom-
patible,12 and that persistence in their organizational efforts would
result in loss of employment or other economic detriment.
Our conclusion concerning the coercive nature of Vestal's speech
is corroborated by Vestal's intimidatory statements to Jack Elrod a
few days later. On this occasion Vestal questioned Elrod about his
union membership and cautioned him to weigh the matter carefully.
He stated that the respondent had brought its plant to Athens to avoid
unions and that a union would ruin the respondent's business. He
e In Matter of Thompson Products , Inc., et al., 60 N. L. R. B. 1381 , we stated :
In view of the economic dependence of the listeners upon the respondents ], a factor
which rendered the employees unduly responsive to the slightest suggestions of the
speakers , and in view of the compulsion of the listeners to give heed , the adjurations
of the speakers passed the realm of the free competition of ideas envisaged by the
First Amendment into that of coercion.
10 The quotations are from the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit in N. L. R. B. v. American Tube Bending Co., Inc., 134 F. (2d) 993 (C. C. A. 2),
cert. den . 320 U. S. 768.
11 See footnote 7, supra.
zx Matter of L. H. Hamel Leather Co ., 45 N. L. R. B. 760 , 766, enf ' d N. L. R. B. V. Hamel
Leather Co., 135 F. (2d) 71 (C. C. A. 1).
VAN RAALTE, INC. 1335
emphasized his statements by showing Elrod plans for a proposed
addition to the plant, which, asserted Vestal, might not "now" be built.
The inference, which we draw from these statements, that unioniza-
tion of the employees would result in removal or closing of the re-
spondent's plant became explicit in Vestal's further statement that the
respondent would not work "under organized labor" and that it
"didn't have to work" since it "could quit any time." Any doubt
which may have existed as to the coercive intent and meaning of
Vestal's speech of July 19 was dispelled by his statements to Elrod.13
Finally, we are satisfied that the statements of Foreman Thompson
to Harrod, William Elrod, and Marler formed part of the pattern of
the respondent's coercive conduct. Thompson told these employees,
in effect, that in the event the Union became the employees' bargaining
representative, they would riot obtain promotions which they other-
wise might receive. The respondent contends that these statements
merely "were the opinions of Thompson as to the effect unionization
of the plant would have upon [the employees'] work, and did not con-
stitute interference, restraint, or coercion." We do not agree. There
is nothing in Thompson's statements themselves which made clear to
the employees that he intended to convey the idea that the Union would
demand any restriction upon promotions. Nor was any showing
made that the Union had made such a demand of the respondent or of
other employees in the industry. In view of this, and in the light of
the respondent's concurrent intimidatory conduct discussed above,
we are of the opinion that the employees reasonably understood
Thompson's statements to mean that if they joined or assisted the
Union, the respondent would impose the penalty of denying promo-
tions which they otherwise might secure."
Upon the entire record in the case, we are convinced and find that
by Vestal's speech of July 19, 1944, by Vestal's statements to Jack
Elrod, by Thompson's statements to Harrod, William Elrod, and
Marler, and by the totality of such conduct, the respondent engaged
in a course of conduct which interfered with, restrained, and coerced
13 At no time did Vestal state to the employees that they were free to join a union, that
benefits which they enjoyed or would enjoy would not be withdrawn if they should do so,
or that the respondent would deal with them collectively if they so desired . Compare
N. L. It. B. v. American Tube Bending Co., Inc., 134 F. (2d) 993 (C. C. A. 2). Indeed,
Vestal ' s statements were the antithesis of such assurance . Matter of Peter J. Schweitzer,
Inc., 54 N. L. R. B. 813, enf'd as modified, Peter J. Schweitzer, Inc. v. N. L. It. B., 114 F.
(2d) 520 (App. D. C.). In this regard, the respondent contends in substance that any
coercive effect of its conduct was neutralized by statements to employees by Foreman
Thompson to the effect th.it they were free to join or not to join the Union. We do not
agree with this contention . Thompson did not so inform the employees as a whole.; he
testified merely that he had made this statement to every "helper in the house ." But even
if it were shown that Thompson so informed all the employees , we are satisfied that these
statements did not counteract his more specific statements , discussed below, and cer-
tainly did not neutralize the more authoritative statements of his superior , Plant Manager
Vestal.
14 See Matter of American Laundry Machinery Company, 57 N. L. R. B. 25.
1336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act. 15
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above,,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described
in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. American Federation of Hosiery Workers, C. I. 0., is a labor
organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spondent, Van Raalte, Inc., Athens, Tennessee, and its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from interfering with its employees in the exer-
cise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, and
to join or assist American Federation of Hosiery Workers, C. I. 0.,
or any other labor organization, by directly or indirectly warning or
^ N. L. R. B. V. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 147 F. ( 2d) 262 (C. C. A. 6) ; Matter of Peter
J. Schweitzer, Inc., 54 N. L. R. B. 813, enf' d as modified , Peter J. Schweitzer, Inc. v.
N. L. It. B., 144 P. ( 2d) 520 (App. D. C.).
VAN RAALTE, INC. 1337
threatening its employees with economic reprisal because of their
membership in, or other activities on behalf of, the above-named or
any other labor organization.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its plant copies of the notice attached hereto, marked
Appendix "A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
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 sixty (60) consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith,
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges
that the respondent has interfered with the use of a meeting place by
adherents of the Union, in Athens, Tennessee, be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY, concurring separately :
Although I do not believe that certain comments in the majority de-
cision can be supported, I concur with the ultimate conclusion reached
by my colleagues that the utterances of the respondent company's offi-
cials violated subsection 8 (1) of the Act and cannot be defended as
mere incidents of the exercise of free speech.
In reaching this result I am not impressed with the narrow construc-
tion which my colleagues place upon the doctrine of the American Tube
Bending case,16 or such metaphors as "involuntary audience" or "pat-
tern of the respondent's coercive conduct." It seems to me that it is
unnecessary to resort to such strained rationalization in view of the
fact that the speech delivered by Vestal was calculated to intimidate
rather than to appeal to reason. Although the record contains a
concession that the speech was directed at the organizational drive
going on (and it seems reasonably clear that the employees so must
have understood), there is no specific mention made in it of the charging
union or labor organizations generally. An argument couched even
in bitter terms, if specific, would be permissible. This employer,
instead, chose to implant fear in his audience for a Spenglerian at-
'"N. L. R. B. v. American Tube Bending Co., Inc., 134 F. (2d) 993 (C. C. A. 2), cert.
den. 320 U . S. 768.
1338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mosphere of approaching doom characterized the entire address, cul-
minating in a warning that workers unmindful of their employer's
forebodings should seek employment elsewhere.
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 interfere with our employees in the exercise
of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
and to join or assist American Federation of Hosiery Workers,
C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, by directly or indirectly
warning or threatening our employees with economic reprisal
because of their membership in, or other activities on behalf
of, the above-named or any other labor organization. All our
employees are free to become or remain members of this Union,
or any other labor organization.
VAN RAALTE, INC.
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.