White Stag Mfg. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 25, 1975

219 N.L.R.B. 1246 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

1246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
White Stag Mfg. Company and International Ladies'
Garment Workers Union, Petitioner. Case
26-RC-4919
August 25, 1975
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
PENELLO
Pursuant to authority granted it by the National
Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three-
member panel has considered objections to an elec-
tion held on December 6, 1974,' and the Acting Re-
gional Director's report recommending disposition of
same. The Board has reviewed the record in light of
the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the Act-
ing Regional Director's findings and recommenda-
tions.
The Petitioner's Objections II (A), (B), and (C),
and (8) allege that, during in-plant speeches by cer-
tain managerial employees, the Employer threatened
employees with economic reprisals following the se-
lection of union representation. For the reasons more
fully set forth in the relevant portion of the Acting
Regional Director's report, which is marked "Appen-
dix" and attached hereto, we agree with the Acting
Regional Director's findings that the evidence sub-
mitted by the Petitioner fails to sustain these objec-
tions.
Our dissenting colleague takes certain of the
Employer's statements out of context in order to
build a case for setting the election aside and, indeed,
for finding an unlawful advance refusal to bargain.
In our view, the excerpted remarks must be read in
light of other statements made in the same speeches.
When so read, we agree with the Acting Regional
Director that the speeches are not objectionable.
Moreover, we note that although the dissent would
sustain Objections II (A), (B), (C), and (8), no rea-
sons are advanced for reversing the Acting Regional
Director's findings with respect to Objections 11 (A)
and (B).
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
tions Act, as amended.
MEMBER FANNING , dissenting:
It is clear from the transcripts of meetings with
employees in the early days of December 1974, as set
forth in the Report on Objections, that this employer
told its employees that, if the Union were voted in,
the Employer was under no legal obligation to do
anything other than sit at the bargaining table. This
was the Employer's interpretation of good-faith bar-
gaining.
"... that's what good faith means. We do not
need to ever come to an agreement with this Union.
All we've got to do is sit at the table. . . . Bargaining
starts at what we call the bare table. That's the feder-
al minimum . . . . It only starts at that level...."
At another meeting , the Employer stated that, if
the Union did not get in, the Employer would guar-
antee that existing rates "will not be tampered with."
If, however, the Union won the election, existing
benefits "can be taken away if the Union gets in."
Again the Employer explained that this was so be-
cause bargaining started from the bare legal mini-
mum, which was less than the employees were receiv-
ing. Thus, the message to the employees was clear.
They had a lot of security to gain by voting against
the Union and the possibility of losing what they had
if they voted for it. All the Employer had to do under
the law, they were told, was to "sit at the table" with-
out agreeing to any new benefits and to negotiate
terms and conditions of employment less favorable
than existing benefits.
In my view, these statements of the Employer con-
stituted threats that the Employer would not, in fact,
bargain in good faith if the Union were selected by
the employees to represent them, with the implied
threat that the employees could actually lose existing
benefits if the Union were voted in.
For these reasons I find merit in Objections 11 (A),
(B), (C), and (8) and I would set aside the election.
1 The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election The tally was: 70 for, and 133 against , the Peti-
tioner ; there were 7 challenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect the
results.
APPENDIX
Objections 11(A), (B), (C), and (8):
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have not been cast for International Ladies'
Garment Workers Union, and that said labor organi-
zation is not the exclusive representative of all the
employees, in the unit herein involved, within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the National Labor Rela-
[ 1.] Based on testimony given by the Petitioner's
employee witnesses , in-plant speeches were delivered
by the Employer to the employees on October 23,
December 2, 3, 4, and 5, 1974. The Employer refused
to furnish to the Region copies of the above-men-
219 NLRB No. 196
WHITE STAG
tioned speeches, which were taped, so the testimony
of the Petitioner's employee witnesses, who were pre-
sent at the speeches, and testimony of agents of the
Employer will be relied upon to ascertain the content
of these speeches.
The Petitioner presented six employee witnesses
regarding speeches made to small groups of employ-
ees by supervisory personnel on October 23, 1974.
[The petition was filed on October 23 and a copy was
received by the Employer on October 25.] Although
there are differences in the testimony of these em-
ployee witnesses as to the content and speakers in
these meetings, all of the employee witnesses agreed
that a wage increase was announced at this time. Ac-
cording to these witnesses, the guaranteed wage for
production workers increased from $2.10 per hour to
$2.20 per hour . . . effective December 2, 1974.
These employee witnesses testified that they were not
aware that a wage increase would be going into effect
on December 2 until the meeting on October 23,
1974.
One employee witness . . . allegedly took notes in
one of the . . . meetings. According to her notes and
testimony, Guy Traylor [plant manager] announced
in addition to the wage increase that effective Janu-
ary 1, 1975, the employees would have a life insur-
ance policy worth $2,000. This employee witness also
stated that the employees' hospitalization insurance
would begin to pay $40.00 per day on a room, in-
stead of $30.00 per day, which it had previously paid.
According to this employee witness, Pete Riley [in-
dustrial relations manager from WARNACO, of
which White Stag is a division] announced that the
company retirement fund for employees would begin
at 25 years of age instead of 30, effective January 1,
1975....
Rognald Knutson, who, as vice president of manu-
facturing is in charge of wage and benefit programs
for the various White Stag plants, stated that in or
around August 1974, he began to discuss wage and
benefit increases for White Stag plants with the plant
managers, including Guy Traylor. Knutson and
Traylor testified that on September 12, 1974, there
was a meeting between Al White, the manufacturing
heads, and the domestic plant managers, in which
wage-benefit packages, as well as other topics, were
discussed. Knutson stated that he usually liked to
make wage and benefit increases effective in the fall
of the year because this was a break in the season
cycle for White Stag. Al White is Knutson's assistant.
According to Knutson, the budget, including
wage-benefit packages, for the manufacturing divi-
sion of White Stag had to be submitted to the corpo-
rate offices of White Stag on or before October 15,
1974. Thus, on October 15, 1974, Knutson stated that
1247
he instructed Al White to telephonically inform the
plant managers of White Stag facilities in Checotah,
Oklahoma; Puerto Rico; Sylvania, Georgia; and
Murfreesboro, Tennessee, of the contents of the
wage-benefit packages for their particular plants.
Guy Traylor testified that he received such a call
from Knutson and White on October 15, 1974. Knut-
son stated that each time such a wage-benefit pack-
age is announced telephonically, two confirming let-
ters are sent-one from Al White to the plant
manager, and the other from the plant manager to Al
White. A copy of the confirming letter which was
sent from Al White to Traylor was shown to the
Board Agent, and it was dated October 15, 1974.
Knutson stated that Traylor and the other plant
manager who received the direction on wages and
benefits on October 15, 1974, were instructed tele-
phonically on that date to announce the new wage-
benefit package to their employees on October 23,
1974. Guy Traylor stated that he received.instruc-
tions to make this announcement on October 23,
1974, from Al White and Knutson on October 15,
1974.
Knutson stated that the wage and benefit pack-
ages, which were revealed simultaneously to the four
plant managers and were announced the same day in
the four plants, involved comparable wage and bene-
fit increases. Knutson stated that, when he came to
White Stag in 1973, one of his primary goals was to
achieve uniformity among the White Stag plants. In
keeping with this policy of uniformity, Knutson con-
tended that he attempted to implement similar wage
and benefit programs in plants simultaneously.
Knutson also stated that he encouraged plant man-
agers to make such announcements to their employ-
ees in meetings.
Gus Traylor stated that he announced the increase
in wages and benefits to his employees on October
23, 1974, as he was instructed. Traylor stated that he
announced a wage increase, which was to be effec-
tive on December 2,• 1974, the establishment of a life
insurance policy, the effective date of which was Jan-
uary 1, 1975, an increase in hospitalization benefits,
effective December 1, 1975, and the lowering of the
retirement age According to Knutson, the wage-ben-
efit increases in the other plants occurred in these
same general areas.
Guy Traylor and Knutson stated that on October
15, 1974, when Knutson made the decision to an-
nounce the wage-benefit package on October 23,
1974, they did .not know that a.petition would be
filed by the Petitioner. Traylor and Knutson testified
that they discovered that a petition had been filed on
October 25, 1974, at which time the Employer re-
ceived a copy, of the petition from the National La-
1248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bor Relations Board.
This investigation disclosed that the Employer cus-
tomarily announced wage and benefit increases such
as the ones given in September 1973, and May 1974,
to employees in meetings which were held on compa-
ny time and premises and such announcements have,
in the past, been made well in advance of the date of
implementation. Thus, the meeting on October 23,
1974, in which such increases were announced was
found to be consistent with the Employer's past prac-
tices.
In view of the evidence presented, there was no
indication that the announced wage-benefit package
on October 23, 1974, was unlawfully motivated. This
wage-benefit package had obviously been planned
for this plant, as well as other White Stag plants, for
at least one month-and-a-half before the petition was
filed. Also, the decision to announce the increase in
wages and benefits to the White Stag employees in
four plants on October 23, 1974, was made on Octo-
ber 15, 1974, and the announcement was made by
plant managers in those plants on October 23, 1974,
as planned. It should be noted that the Petitioner
states in its objections that this increase was an-
nounced prior to the filing of this petition. The Peti-
tioner did not offer any proof for its allegation that
there was a threat made by the Employer that the
wage increase would be nullified by a majority vote
for union representation. The Board has consistently
held that, when an employer is confronted with a
union organizing campaign, it should decide the
question of granting or withholding benefits as
though the union was not in the picture, which this
Employer did.3 In the announcements of the benefits
on October 23, the investigation revealed the Em-
ployer did not make the announcement in the con-
text of antiunion expression. As there was no evi-
dence presented which would indicate that the
announcement of a wage-benefit increase on October
23, 1974, and its implementation on December 2,
1974, interfered with the conduct of the election, it is
found that Objection Il (B) is without merit.
[2.] An employee witness for the Petitioner stated
that on December 2, 1974, Supervisor Claudia
Ligon's group, of which the employee witness was a
member, was called into a meeting with Rognald
Knutson, Al White, and Guy Traylor. According to
the employee witness, Knutson said that the Employ-
er had always given raises to employees, and it did
not need anyone to tell it when to take such action.
This employee witness alleged that Knutson said
that, if the Union won, the Company would have to
negotiate in good faith, but the Company would not
3 The May Department Stores Company, 174 NLRB 770 (1969)
have to sign a contract. Knutson added, according to
this witness, that negotiations would begin at the
minimum levels and go up, instead of starting at the
current levels of the employees' benefits and wages.
Knutson also allegedly outlined the assets of the Peti-
tioner to the group of employees. He also said that, if
there was a strike, the employees who wished to work
could do so, and the strikers would be replaced.
According to the employee witness in Ligon's
group, Al White also spoke at this meeting and
showed the employees charts which illustrated the
new pay increase and the amount of money an em-
ployee would lose during a strike. Guy Traylor also
allegedly spoke at this meeting. He told the employ-
ees that he had formerly worked for Bobbie Brooks,
which was organized. Traylor supposedly stated that
the employees would not want a union because, as a
result of union representation, there would be a mid-
dle man between the employees and the manage-
ment.
The employee witness from Claudia Ligon's group,
together with another employee witness from this
group, which consisted of approximately 20 to 25
employees, submitted to the Board a tape recording,
which is purported to be a tape of this meeting which
occurred on December 2, 1974. A transcript 4 of this
tape is attached hereto as Exhibit C. One passage
from this transcript reads as follows:
If the Union wins, what happens? Many think
that if the Union wins the election that it is an
automatic contract. The law says that the Com-
pany must negotiate with the Union in good
faith. Good faith bargaining does not include
signing a contract. Good faith bargaining is if
we reject a demand we feel in any way would
jeopardize this factory or in any way put this
company in a non-competitive position, that's
what good faith means. We do not need to ever
come to an agreement with this Union. All we've
got to do is sit at the table. For example, another
thing, many people thought that bargaining
starts at where you are today. This is not true.
Bargaining starts at what we call the bare table.
That's the federal minimum, and the necessary
things that FICA and unemployment requires
that we pay under the law. It only starts at that
level. We negotiate holidays, we negotiate vaca-
tion, we negotiate pension, we negotiate wages,
base rates, you name it, and it's negotiable. The
Union knows this, but I doubt very much they
told you this at their meetings or at your homes.
It starts at the bare table. Many people think
well, what's really so bad about in the
4 The content of this speech was difficult to hear on this tape, so this
transcript is rough and somewhat incomplete
WHITE STAG 1249
Union? What can I lose? Let's start .
Everything is up for negotiation. It's horsetrad-
ing.
The Employer was requested to provide a tran-
script of this tape, as well as others, but he was un-
able to locate it. The Employer's counsel, when asked
to make a statement of position in regard to this pas-
sage, stated that he felt that it was not quite accurate,
although he did not specifically state what was inac-
curate about this quotation.
Another of the Petitioner's witnesses , who was in
Supervisor Lillian Alexander's group, which consist-
ed of approximately 16 employees, stated that Knut-
son, White, and Traylor spoke to her group on De-
cember 3, 1974. According to this employee witness,
Knutson described in detail the insurance benefits,
holidays, vacations, and leave for jury duty which the
employees received from the Employer. Knutson al-
legedly stated that the Union did not pay wages, and
he informed the group in general terms about what
the Union could not do for employees. This employ-
ee witness testified that Knutson declared that there
was not an automatic contract following the Union's
victory in an election. He said that the government
only requires the Employer to sit down and bargain
in good faith, and a company would not be required
to sign a contract which would eliminate it from
competition in its field. According to the Petitioner's
employee witness Knutson stated that negotiations
begin at the bare table with regard to holidays, bene-
fits, and pensions. Knutson allegedly compared con-
tract negotiations with horse trading. In answer to a
question from the audience, Knutson allegedly stated
that the mechanics in Portland, Oregon, pay $11.50
per month in union dues. Knutson also described
some of the Union's assets, which were listed on a
report issued by the Federal Government. According
to the employee witness, someone in the audience
asked Knutson if the employees had to vote one way
or the other, and Knutson replied that, although the
Company would like to get their vote, the employees
were free to vote as they chose. Another employee
allegedly asked Knutson why the hourly workers had
not received a pay increase, and Knutson responded
that he did not want to get sued for an unfair wage
increase, but he added that he had not forgotten the
hourly workers.
The Employer did not have a transcript of this par-
ticular speech at the time it gave evidence in the mat-
ter.
The Petitioner presented two employee witnesses
who stated that they attended a meeting between
Knutson, Traylor, White, and Ben Robinson's group,
which consisted of approximately 17 or 18 employees
on or around December 3 or 4, 1974. According to
one employee witness, Knutson stated that, if the
employees wanted a union, they had a legal right to
such representation. Knutson also allegedly declared
that, if the Union won, the Company would bargain
in good faith according to the law. However, the em-
ployee witness stated that Knutson said that the law
did not require the Company to sign a contract. Ac-
cording to the witness, Knutson said that, if the
Union won the election, bargaining would begin at
the bare table and go up.
The other employee witness from Ben Robinson's
group gave substantially the same account of
Knutson's speech in this meeting. However, she stat-
ed that Knutson also said that, if the employees went
out on strike, the plant would remain open and the
strikers would be replaced. Knutson allegedly stated
that the Company, rather than the Union, sets pro-
duction rates.
Rognald Knutson allowed the Board Agent to
copy portions of the transcript from his meeting with
Robinson's group on December 3, 1974. A passage
from this transcript reads as follows:
Question: If the Union should not get in, will
you really change the rates? If the Union does
get in, would they be taken away?
Knutson: The answer to the first question is
that I can guarantee you if the Union does not
get in that those rates will not be tampered with.
If the Union does get in, I would negotiate from
the federal minimum. Then I would say yes,
they can be taken away if the Union gets in, if
the Union agrees in the negotiations that that is
what we settle for, because it is negotiable. You
negotiate from the bare minimum. We have no
intentions of taking away, history proves that we
never have.
The Petitioner presented an employee witness
from Georgia Lance's group, who was in a meeting
between approximately 20 employees and Knutson,
Traylor, and a man who the employee witness was
unable to identify. According to the employee wit-
ness, Knutson stated that WARNACO, of which
White Stag is a division, had aided in White Stag's
growth and, as a result, White Stag could pay wages
of $2.10 per hour. However, Knutson allegedly stated
that he could not guarantee that he would be able to
meet the Union's wage demands.
According to the employee witness, the unidenti-
fied man in this meeting, presumably Al White, illus-
trated, through the use of charts, White Stag's contri-
bution to Murfreesboro and the amount of White
Stag's profits for the previous year. Traylor also al-
1250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
legedly described his aforementioned frustrating ex-
perience at the organized Bobbie Brooks plant. Fi-
nally, the employee witness contended that Knutson,
Traylor, and the unidentified man stated that the em-
ployees did not need a union.
Rognald Knutson allowed the Board Agent to
copy a portion of what is purported to be a transcript
of his speech which was given before Georgia
Lance's group on December 2, 1974. One passage of
this transcript reads as follows:
Knutson: Let's take it if the Union should
win, what happens then. The law says that we
must negotiate in good faith. I think there is a
misunderstanding that it means if the election is
over and the union wins we must have an auto-
matic contract. This is not true. The law states
that you negotiate in good faith, but you need
not come to an agreement, for it is good faith
bargaining to reject any demand that would put
this factory in a bad financial situation, make it
noncompetitive, or in fact, put the jobs here in
jeopardy.
Also, another misunderstanding is that people
think who have not been exposed to this kind of
situation that bargaining starts at where you are
today. This is not true . It starts at what you call
the federal minimum, it starts at the FICA, the
unemployment comp that we are mandatory to
pay, and the $2.00, which will be $2.10.
Rognald Knutson stated that all of the Employer's
speeches to groups of employees were taped, but they
were not read from a prepared text. Knutson testified
that a broad outline was followed in these meetings,
but the exact content of speeches would vary some-
what.
Mr. Knutson admittedly did make speeches to
groups of employees in which he stated that negotia-
tion would begin at the bare table or the federal min-
imum . While the Employer indicated that it would
make minimum initial bargaining proposals, there
were no expressed or implied threats that it would
unilaterally eliminate the benefits of the employees
and require the Union to negotiate to reestablish
them. Therefore, it is found that the Employer's
statements were permissible expressions of views re-
garding the nature of collective bargaining and its
possible effects on the conditions of employment at
the plant.'
Assuming, arguendo, that on December 2, 1974,
Rognald Knutson made to a group of employees the
remark, "Good faith bargaining does not include
signing a contract." When taken in isolation, this
comment could be considered objectionable. Howev-
er, within the same passage Mr. Knutson emphasizes
that everything is subject to negotiations with the
Union, including holidays, vacations, and pensions,
thus indicating the Employer's willingness to negoti-
ate with the Union regarding the employees' terms
and conditions of employment. The import of the
foregoing is not that the Employer would refuse to
bargain in good faith, but it is rather an expression of
the Employer's views about the nature of collective
bargaining. The above-mentioned remark which was
allegedly made by Knutson, when read in context,
does not imply the futility of union representation,
and thus, did not exceed the bounds of permissible
campaign propaganda.6
Thus, it is found that this portion [C] of Objection
II is without merit.
[3.] The Petitioner presented four employee wit-
nesses who testified that they attended a meeting be-
tween Mr. Traylor, Mr. Knutson, Mr. Riley, and all
of the employees on the morning of December 5,
1974. One of the Petitioner's employee witnesses stat-
ed that, according to her watch, the meeting began at
approximately 8 a.m. and ended at about 8:15 a.m.
Another employee witness stated that the meeting
began shortly after she started to work at 7 a.m.
Two employee witnesses who were presented by
the Petitioner have submitted an alleged tape of this
meeting on December 5, 1974. . . . Three of the
Petitioner's employee witnesses read this transcript
and stated that it was an accurate record of the
speeches which were made in the meeting on Decem-
ber 5, 1974.
Mr. Knutson stated that, according to his watch,
this meeting in which Traylor, Riley, and he spoke
began at 8 a.m. and ended at approximately 8:30
a.m. on December 5, 1974.
Although the Petitioner states that the Employer
implied at that meeting that the law could not com-
pel it to engage in anything other than surface bar-
gaining, there were no statements to that effect in the
tape which the Petitioner submitted. As the content
of these speeches is found to be within the bounds of
permissible campaign propaganda and the meeting
did not violate the Board's 24-hour prohibition on
speeches to massed assemblies of employees, Objec-
tion 11 (8) is found to be without merit.
5Computer Perhipherals, Inc, 215 NLRB No 22 (1974) 6Rudy's Farm Company, Inc, 190 NLRB 324 (1971)
WHITE STAG 1251
[4.] The Petitioner did not present any witnesses in employees to minimum standard established by law.
support of its contention that supervisory personnel Thus, Objection II (A) is found to be without merit.
had talked to employees individually and informed Having found, as set forth above, that none of the
them that the selection of a bargaining agent would objections herein have merit, it is recommended that
immediately reduce the actual pay being received by Objections 11 (A), (B), (C), and (8) be overruled.