Petition — Chayes Virginia Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

In The | WICHAEL RODAK, 42. 022K |

October Term, 1975

wot D-~ 745 |

CHAYES VIRGINIA CORP, A Wholly Owned

Subsidiary of BCC Industries, Inc.,

Petitioner (Respondent below)

—v3s.—

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Respondent (Petitioner below)

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

AND APPENDICES A, B, AND C

JOSEPH A. YOCUM

805 Union Federal Building

Evanaville, Indiana 47708

Attorney for Petitioner

KAHN, DEES, DONOVAN & KAHN

305 Union Federal Building

Evansville, Indiana 47708

Of Counsel

UNIGRAPHIC, INC.. 140! NORTH FARES AVENUE, EVANSVILLE, IND., PHONE 424-3660

INDEX

PAGE

SI IID sccitscnsicsicnuiccssbieieiniealiaceniphlieiialensisaigemaandaniadiie 2

EIT. sssuiniilideseecmesiceinesalecdainaavensiinianitenidiicsmminisiniaieaitin 2

ETE RET REET TT 2

Constitutional Provisions and

Se UIE .scciscusssnssinsciiabinihicineeniteeaesieniitiaibaininnaiinies 2

SII. <sisssnsiianesiaceiiesieiiusialicideioaleaitaiiiadileddaianiiniaananane 3

Reasons for Granting the WYit ................cccccceeeeee 7

I. The Court Below Erroneously and Uncon-

stitutionally Retused to Set Aside a Certifi-

cation Election or to Remand This Matter

for a Hearing Relating to Objections Filed

by Virginia to the Certification of Election

in Light of This Court’s Decision in N.L.R.B.

v. Saviar Manufacturing Co., 414 U.S. 270

(1973) Which Stands for the Proposition

That, Regardless of Source—Union or Com-

pany Conduct—the Same Ruies Must be Ap-

plied to Conduct That Serves as the Basis for

Objecting to an Election, Thereby Depriving

Virgina’s Employees of Their Rights Under

Section 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the National Labor

Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 157, 158, 159,160.

FELT AOA EMS LI aE OE 13

ti In The

CASES CITED SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PAGE October Term, 1975

Bill Pierce Ford, Inc.,

181 NLRB 929, fr. 1(1970) ooo ccceceeceseeeeeeeeee 11

General Shoe Corporation, , No.

SR TRIE Ne ener ear er ne Nam. 8.

Hollywood Ceramics, Inc.,

140 NLRB 221(1962) .0...........ccnsscccssccssssssssssnssee ‘ids a CHAYES VIRGINIA CORP, A Wholly Owned

Subsidiary of BCC Industries, Inc.,

N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, Petitioner (Respondent below)

ke ee & ON | ee 9 —ve.—

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

N.L.R.B. v. Savair Manufacturing Co.,

Respondent (Petitioner below)

414 U.S. 270(197B) occcssssscssnsesseesnsssneseneessennsee 2 77,

Struksnes Construction Co.,

165 NLRB 1062, 1064 (1967) 00... 10 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

AND APPENDICES A, B, AND C

STATUTES

I a 2 ; , ,

To the Honorable, the Chief Justice of the United

OD BR. BE, TE, BOI BD iis ssescscessecesneseennnssen 8, States And the Associate Justices of the Supreme

1,42, (3 Court of the United States:

The Petitioner, Chayes Virginia Corp. (hereafter

MISCELLANEOUS referred to as “Virginia”) respectfully prays that a

writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment and

CCH ECONOMIC CONTROL P. 1631.20, opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the

p. 1633-9 (Transfer Binder, Phase II Rules, Seventh Circuit entered in this proceeding on July 22,

Nov. 14, 1972—Jan. 10, 1978) oooccccccoccccsssssssesssse 5 1975.

2

OPINION BELOW

The opinion of the Court of Appeals will not be re-

ported because it is designated as an “Unpublished

Order” pursuant to said Court’s Rule 28. It is printed

in Appendix A annexed hereto.

JURISDICTION

The judgment of the Court of Appeals was entered

on August 22, 1975. The jurisdiction of this Court is

invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the Court below erroneously and uncon-

stitutionally refused to set aside a certification election

or to remand this matter for hearing relating to ob-

jections filed by Virginia to the certification election

in light of this Court’s decision in N.L.R.B. v. Savair

Manufacturing Co., 414 U.S. 270(1973) which stands

for the proposition that, regardless of sourcee—union or

company conduct—the same rules must be applied

to conduct that serves as the basis for objecting to an

election.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND

STATUTE INVOLVED

The pertinent constitutional provision involved is as

follows:

Mes . nor shall any person . . . be deprived of life,

ae or property, without due process of

ye

8

STATEMENT

Virginia operates a plant in Evansville, Indiana

which is engaged in the production of dental chairs

and related items. (Appendix B, p. 16) On October 2,

1972 a petition for a Board conducted election was filed

in Case No. 25-RC-5155 by the International Union of

Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO

(hereafter “I.U.E.”) for certification as bargaining

representative of Virginia’s employees. An election

was held and the I.U.E. won the election by 3 votes.

On December 20, 1972 Virginia filed objections to the

election with the Board, asserting conduct of the I.U.E.

prevented a fair and lawful election. The Board

through its local Regional Office investigated the mat-

ter and issued a decision recommending to the Board

in Washington that the objections be overruled and

that a Certification of Representative be issued. Vir-

ginia filed exceptions to this decision, and after review

by the Board in Washington, the decision of the Re-

gional Office was affirmed.

At no point in the above was Virginia afforded an

opportunity for an evidentiary hearing. Thereafter,

Petitioner refused to comply with the Board certifica-

tion issued in due course; and this proceeding was be-

gui in the form of an unfair labor practice charge

filed by the I.U.E. in Case No. 25-CA-5606. After the

issuance of a complaint and the filing of pleadings and

other papers (contained in Appendix C), Counsel for

the General Counsel of the Board moved for summary

judgment. Without granting an evidentiary hearing on

either Virginia’s Objections or any form of its re-

sponses to the motion for summary judgment, the

Board granted the motion and on petition for enforce-

4

ment of this order the Court below granted enforce-

ment. (Appendix B contains the formal papers which

were before the Court below in addition to Appendix

C which is Virginia’s portion of the transcript before

the Court of Appeals while Appendix A is the Decision

of the Court below.)

The decision of the Court below, in effect, abdicates

the judicial function by simply reciting the facts that

support. the Board’s findings and relying on the

Board’s expertise or discretion to support its decision.

By way of material circulated by the I.U.E. prior to

the election, Virginia submitted the following to the

Board in support of its Objections and by way of An-

swer and Response to the Motion tor Summary Judg-

ment.

1. Union Polling of Employees: An employee was

called by a “Mr. Snodgrass,” but-the employee was not

at home. (Appendix C, Resp. Ans. Ex. H., p. 1) The

same was true of another employee. (Respt. Appendix

C, Ans. Ex. H., p. 2) Another employee did respond to

the same caller, Mr. Snodgrass, and was asked, “how

I felt about the union.” (Appendix C., Respt. Ans. Ex.

H., p. 3) During the same conversation Snodgrass ad-

vised that “We (the I.U.E.) are calling some of the em-

ployees to find out their feeling about the Union, or

words to that effect.” (Appendix C, Respt. Ans. Ex.

H., p. 4) This activity took place two or three days

prior to the representation election.

2. Threats Made to Employees: At least one em-

ployee, who was deaf, was threatened about not sup-

porting the union over a rather long period of time.

(Appendix C, Respt. Ans. Ex. G., p. 1) This type of

conduct was not limited to a single employee. (Appen-

5

dix C, Respt. Ans. Ex. G., p. 2) Or as simply stated:

“About Donna (the I.U.E. adherent) being on Char-

lotte (the deaf girl) this was what you might call gos-

sip in the shop since everyone knew about it.” (Appen-

dix C, Respt. Ans. Ex. G., p. 1)

3. Unlawful Promise of Benefits: In a letter to em-

ployees, the I.U.E. stated that “All wages under $2.75

an hour are exempt from any control.” (Appendix C,

Respt. Ans. Ex. I, Handbill 39) The applicable regula-

tions in effect at the times in question stated:

“Under the new regulations (retroactive to July

15, 1972) persons now making less than $2.75 per

hour are permitted to receive increases which will

bring their pay up to that level. However, if such

increases amount to 5.5% or more of the previous

base pay to the unit, further increases are not

permitted unless a special exception is granted

by the Internal Revenue Service or the Pay

Board. If an increase of less than 5.5 percent is

required to reach the level of $2.75 the total per-

missible increase is 5.5 percent above the base

pay level (but not a full 5.5 percent above $2.75).”

CCH ECONOMIC CONTROL P. 1631.20, p.

1633-9 (Transfer Binder, Phase II Rules, Nov. 14,

1972—Jan. 10, 1973)

4. Unlawful Waiver of Initiation Fees: In a handbill

distributed by the I.U.E. on November 8, 1972 the fol-

lowing statements as to fees were made:

“INITIATION FEES—YOU AND EVERY OTH-

ER WORKER IN YOUR PLANT ON ELEC-

TION DAY WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPOR-

6

TUNITY TO JOIN THE IUE WITHOUT

PAYING ANY INITIATION FEE.” (Board

Brief on Appeal, p. 14)

5. Misrepresentations in Handbills—On the day be-

fore the representation election the I.U.E. distributed

a handbill indicating that employees from another com-

pany had received substantial wage increases added

on to substantial wage rates existing prior to addition-

al increases. Similarly, this handbill indicated that at

one time Virginia employees had paid vacations and

these were taken away. (Appendix C, Respt. Ans. Ex.

I. Handbill 52) Other facts show that this handbill was

incorrect in that:

“Handbill No. 52 of 12-14-72 is most misleading,

since any fair reading of the prior handbills in-

dicates that this handbill was not prepared by the

employees of Indian Industries, but by the same

person who prepared the other handbills involved

in this case. I might add that in checking with

Indian Industries, the job rate structure con-

tained on the first page of this open letter is very

misleading in that only 29 of the company’s em-

ployees occupy these positions and most of the

employees at Indian Industries started at $1.80

an hour and worked up to $2.50 an hour, although

new employees progress rather rapidly from $1.80

to $2.25. The point is the Union misrepresents the

wage structure by placing emphasis on the higher

wages. I might add that I was not aware of this

fact until after the election when we took an op-

portunity to check this matter .. . Also, this hand-

bill contains a misrepresentation with reference

to vacations, in the sense that it implies that this

|

|

ij

7

employer gave vacations and then took them

back, which is not the truth.” (Appendix C, Respt.

Ans. Ex. J., p. 7)

In addition, the following matters appear in the

handbills: (1) Reference to company financial data

that could not have been.obtained except through theft

(Appendix C, Respt. Ans. Ex. I, Handbills, 38, 39, 40,

41, 46, 49 and 50 and Ex. I, p. 1-2); (2) Repetitions of

misstatements as to wage controls (Appendix C, Respt.

Ans. Ex. 1, Handbills 39 and 46); (3) Misrepresenta-

tions as to the attitudes of religious leaders on the sub-

ject of unions (Board Brief on Appeal, pp. 19-21) ; (4)

Incorrect assertions as to I.U.E. procedures relating to

strikes and their sarction by its International Presi-

dent (Appendix C, Restp. Ans. Ex. I, Ex. C annexed

compared with handbills 22, 28, and 29 also annexed) ;

(5) A guarantee of at least 50¢ an hour wage increase

(Appendix C, Respt. Ans. Ex. I, Handbill No. 46).

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

I.

THE COURT BELOW ERRONEOUSLY AND UN-

CONSTITUTIONALLY REFUSED TO SET ASIDE

A CERTIFICATION ELECTION OR TO REMAND

THIS MATTER FOR A HEARING RELATING TO

OBJECTIONS FILED BY VIRGINIA TO THE CER-

TIFICATION OF ELECTION IN LIGHT OF THIS

COURT’S DECISION IN N.L.R.B. V. SAVAIR MAN-

UFACTURING CO., 414 U.S. 270(1973) WHICH

STANDS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT, RE-

GARDLESS OF SOURCE—UNION OR COMPANY

CONDUCT—THE SAME RULES MUST BE AP-

PLIED TO CONDUCT THAT SERVES AS THE

8

BASIS FOR OBJECTING TO AN ELECTION,

THEREBY DEPRIVING VIRGINIA’S EMPLOYEES

OF THEIR RIGHTS UNDER SECTIONS 7, 8, 9 AND

10 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,

29 U.S.C. 157, 158, 159. 160.

Any reading of the entire record in this case and in

turn relating this reading to the decisional results in

this area indicates that the assumption is union con-

duct must be viewed less stringently than employer

conduct when it comes to deciding whether or not cer-

tain conduct either requires that an election be set

aside or that the same conduct requires a finding of

an unfair labor practice. (Note: The Board has for

many years held that conduct that requires that an

election be set aside does not have to be so serious as

to constitute an unfair labor practice. General Shoe

Corporation, 77 NLRB 127(1948) (A fortiori if con-

duct is found to be an unfair labor practice it can also

serve as grounds for setting aside an election.) Al-

though argued in this case and ignored by the Board

and the Court below, Section 7 of the Act, in relevant

part, states as follows:

“Employees shall have the right to self-organiza-

tion, to form, to join or assist labor organizations,

to bargain collectively through representatives of

their own choosing, and to engage in other con-

certed activities for the purpose of collective bar-

gaining or other mutual aid or protection, and

shall also have the right to refrain from any or

all such activities .. .” 29 U.S.C. S 157.

Rather recently, this Court took occasion to inter-

pret the legal relationship between the two sets of

rights granted employees under the above section of

the National Labor Relations Act. In concluding that

these two sets of rights are equal rights, this Court

observed:

“Any procedure requiring a ‘fair’ election must

honor the right of those who oppose a union as

well as those who favor it. The Act is wholly neu-

tral when it comes to that basic choice. By S. 7 of

the Act, employees have the right not only to -

‘form, join or assist’ unions but also the right ‘to

refrain from any or all of such activities.’ An em-

ployer who promises to increase fringe benefits

by $10 for each employee who votes against the

union, if the union wins the election, would cross

the forbidden line under our decisions. See Na-

tional Labor Relations Board v. Exchange Parts

Co., 375 U.S. 405, 84 S. Ct. 457, 11 L.Ed.2d

435...

“The Board in its supervision of union elections

may not sanction procedures that cast their

weight for the choice of a union and against a

nonunion shop or for a nonunion shop against a

union. ...

If we respect, as we must, the statutory right of

employees to resist efforts to unionize a plant, we

cannot assume that unions exercising powers are

benign towards their protagonists or the employ-

er.” N.L.R.B. v. Savair Manufacturing Company,”

414 U.S. 270(1973).

10

Although this point was made to the Court below, it

was not discussed or dealt with in its decision. In what

follows Virginia will point out to this Court areas in

which employer conduct violated the Act and, by defi-

nition, would thus serve as the basis for setting aside

an election, noting that similar conduct, from Vir-

ginia’s point of view, was engaged in by the I.U.E. in

this case. The argument here is, of course, that if con-

duct on the part of both unions and employers must be

gauged by the same standards, this matter must, after

granting this petition, be either decided against the

Board or remanded to it for a decision in light of this

principle since it was ignored by it and the Court below

in deciding this matter.

1 Union Polling of Employees: The Board has

adopted very rigid standards in the area of employee

polling, which are well stated in the following:

‘Absent unusual circumstances, the polling of em-

ployees will be violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the

Act unless the following safeguards are observed:

(1) the purpose of the poll is to determine the

truth of a union’s claim of majority, (2) this pur-

pose is communicated to the employees, (3) assur-

ances against reprisals are given, (4) the em-

ployees are polled by secret ballot, and (5) the

employer had not engaged in unfair labor prac-

tices or otherwise created a coercive atmosphere.”

Struksnes Construction Co., 165 NLRB 1062,

1064 (1967).

None of these safeguards were present in this case.

Similarly, it is axiomatic that direct inquiry into an

employee’s union activities or sympathies is an unfair

11

labor practice more subject to being condemned than

a poll. See the observations of the Board in Bill Pierce

Ford, Inc., 181 NLRB 929, fn. 1(1970)

2. Threats Made to Employees: Both Section 8(a)

(1) and (b)(1)(A) of the Act make it an unfair labor

practice for either an employer or a union to “restrain”

or “coerce” employees in the exercise of their rights

guaranteed under the Act. It seems strange, indeed,

that the activity with reference to the deaf girl did not

cause the Board some concern.

3. Unlawful Promise of Benefits: As shown by

Savair, supra, any promise of benefit on the part of

the employer amounts to an unfair labor practice un-

der Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. At the relevant time

in question there were wage and price controls defin-

ing what the limits on wage increases were, yet the

I.U.E. chose to ignore this, as did the Board and the

Court below.

4. Unlawful Waiver of Initiation Fees: The lan-

guage in the union handbill set out in the above with

referénce to initiation fees speaks in terms of “you

(the employee receiving the handbill) and every other

worker in your plant on election day” not being re-

quired to pay initiation fees. (Board Brief on Appeal,

p. 14) The Court below, apparently, found this waiver

to be unconditional and thus in conformity with this

Court’s point of view expressed in Savatr, supra, yet

does this waiver speak in unconditional language. Vir-

ginia asserts this waiver is clearly conditional and

must be condemned. This is so because the waiver is

limited to employees “in your plant on election day.”

The question is obvious—what about employees hired

12

after the election, yet before a contract is signed, and

employees not voting due to illness or leave of absence.

Obviously, they would have to pay initiation fees, while

their fellow employees, according to the waiver in this

case, would not have to pay them. Thus, the only way

a given employee could take advantage of the waiver

is to be in the plant on election day and vote for the

I.U.E. No one hired after the election, but before a

contract is reached, or anyone not able to vote for

whatever reason just could not have taken advantage

of the waiver. To be unconditional, a fee waiver would

have to reach everyone employed prior to the execution

of an agreement with the I.U.E., not just an election

date. Otherwise, the nature of the condition—being in

the plant and voting the union in—would by definition

be apparent.

5. Misrepresentations in Handbills: The Board has

traditionally held that no matter how artful, misrep-

resentations that run to such vital matters as wages,

working conditions and so on are to be condemned.

Hollywood Ceramics, Inc., 140 NLRB 221(1962) Most

significant, however, and evidence of a dual standard

where none should be supplied, is the I.U.E.’s promise

of a 50¢ an hour wage increase. As once again noted in

Savair, supra, any such statement by an employer

would amount to an unfair labor practice. In fact, the

I.U.E.’s entire course of conduct in this matter indi-

cated to Virginia’s employees that a vote for it was a

vote for a substantial increase in wages and benefits,

contrary to Section 8(d) of the Act which provides in

relevant part that:

“(After defining the obligation to bargain collec-

tively) ..., but such obligation does not compel

13

either party to agree to a proposal to require the

making of a concession . . .” 29 U.S.C.A. 158(d)

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, a writ of certiorari should issue

to review the judgment and opinion of the Court of Ap-

peals for the Seventh Circuit, or in the alternative, this

cause be remanded with directions to the Court below

to direct the Board to consider this matter in light of

this Court’s decision in N.L.R.B. v. Savair Manufac-

turiny Co., 414 U.S. 270(1973).

Respectfully submitted,

JOSEPH A. YOCUM

805 Union Federal Building

Evansville, Indiana 47708

Attorney for Petitioner

KAHN, DEES, DONOVAN & KAHN

305 Union Federal Building

Evansville, Indiana 47708

Of Counsel

123 45 678 9 10 ll 12 18

APPENDIX A

CERTIFIED pop;

United States Com oa whale

For the Seventh Circuit A Prue Copy:

Chicago, Illinois 60604 Teste:

a

ya shod order (ARGUED SEPTEMBER 11, 1974

Bete te vita, COL,

“7,4 Pa ie ait

jp clseust JULY 22. , 1975 Clork 44 t . Stdtes

Court of Ap. ~

: -+ av? the

Seve 3%

Hon. myomas E. FAIRCHILD, Chief Judge

Hon. Roport A. SPRECHER, Circuit Judge

Hon. PHILIP W. TONE, Circuit Judge

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, } On Application for

Petitioner, Enforcement of an

Order of The National

No. 74-1148 = Labor Relations Board

CHAYES VIRGINIA CORP,., A WHOLLY OWNED

SUBSIDIARY OF BCC INDUSTRILS, INc.,

Respondent. ’

The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of

its order finding that the Chayes Virginia Corporation refused

to bargain with its employees’ certified bargeining agent in

violation of Sections 8(a)(5), (1) of the National Labor

Relations Act (29 U.S.C. §§158(s)(5) and (1)). The company

concedes refusal to baryain but challeges the certification.

On December 14, 1972, an election was conducted by the

Board. The vote was 34 to 31 in favor of the union, wir one

AST COPY Aaa

CoNTHIED Ct: 7

challenged ballot and one void ballot. The company filed

No. 74-1148

timely objections to certain pre-election conduct of the

union which allegedly affected the outcome of the balloting.

The company requested that the election be set aside or, in

the alternative, that a hearing be granted. The Regional

Director conducted an administrative investigation in which

the parties were afforded opportunity to submit evidence and

issued a Supplemental Decision and Order in which the company's

objections were overruled and the union certified as the

exclusive bargaining agent. The company's request for review

of this order was denied by the Board for want of any substan-

tial issue. A In the complaint proceeding, the Board

granted the General Counsel's motion for summary judgment on

the pleadings, concluding that all of the issues raised by the

company as justification of its refusal to bargain were, or

1/ Under 29 C.F.R. §102.67(£), “[dJenial of a request for

review shall constitute an affirmance of the regional direc-

tor's decision..." There is no merit to the company's

contention that the Board's failure to explicate its denial

prevents proper judicial review, so long, as in the present

case, the decision and order of the Regional Director suffi-

ciently disclose the basis of the order. See, NLRB. v.

metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 380 U.S. 438, 443, n.6 (1965,.

albe

No. 74-1148 CZRTIF, iE) OSr a

could have been, litigated in the underlying representation

proceeding and that the company neither offered to adduce at

a hearing any newly discovered or previously unavailable evi-

dence, nor alleged any special circumstances which would

require the Board to re-examine its prior decision. In

resisting enforcement, the company contends that in the repre-

sentation proceeding the Board should have denied certifica-

tion as a matter of law, or at least that the Board should

‘ 2

have conducted a hearing into the company challenges. —

I. PRE-ELECTION MISCONDUCT

In its objection to certification, the company charged

that the union impermissibly affected the election result by

conducting a pre-election poll of employee sentiment; threat-

ening and intimidating employees; offering improper inducements

to employees; and engaging in numerous and substantial cam-

paign misrepresentations. Adopting the Supplemental Decision

2/ The company also seeks denial of enforcement in light of

the recent decision of the Second Circuit in KfC National

Management Corp. v. N.L.R... 497 F. 2d 298 (2rd Cir. 1974).

The company at no time presented the Board with this objection

to the manner of review of the certification decision, and

thus, umicr $19(c) of the National I.abor Relations Act (29

U.S.C. 4160(e)), it may not be raised for the first time in

this court.

~ ee CeRTIFICD CG?”

and Order of the Regional Director, the Board concluded that

the objections were insufficient to require the setting aside

of the election result. “Whether to set aside an election

because of incidents during the campaign period is a matter

for the sound discretion of the Board." Rockwell Mfaq. Co.,

Kearney Div. v. N.L.R.B., 330 F.2d 795, 796 (7th Cir. 1964),

cert. denied, 379 U.S. 890. We must defer to the Board's

expertise unless we are prepared to say that the Board's dis-

cretion was abused. See, N.L.R.B. v. Southern Health Corp.,

F.2d (7th Cir. 1975); N.L.R.B. v. Red Bird Foods,

ne., 399 F.2d 600, 601 (7th Cir. 1968).

The company's first objection charged that the union

"close in time to the date of the election, conducted an

illegal polling of Employer's employees, in that it asked

them through a planned telephone campaign how they were going

to vote in the election." The company argues that, since

direct inquiry into an employee's union activites or sympa-

thies by an employer, absent limiting safeguards, is an unfair

labor practice, cf. Struksnes Construction Co., 165 N.L.R.B

1062, 1064 (1967), it is likewise coercive if such inquiry is

age

No. 74-1148 C22 77D [ ”

conducted by the union. This argument ignores the substan-

tially different position of employer and petitioning union

with regard to potential coercive impact of pre-election con-

duct and has been rejected by the Board, cf. Plant City Weld-

ing and Tank Company, 119°N.L.R.B. 131, 133 (1957), and by

this court. Louis-Allis Co. v. N.L:R.B., 463 F.2d 512, 517

(7th Cir. 1972). Absent some showing of coercive impact, the

conduct alleged would not he objectionable.

The company supported its charge by averring that "we

are advised that the Union conducted a very extensive poll of

all our employees by telephone..." The company did not

disclose the source of this advice, however, but rather pro-

duced evidence that one employee was telephoned concerning his

union sympathies by an individual claiming to be a union agent

and two other employees were telephoned by the same individwl

while they were not at home. No evidence was offered tending

to establish any extensive or coercive polling. Under the

circumstances present, we discern no abuse of discretion in

the Board'sconclusion that, even if true as alleged, the

union's conduct was unobjectionable.

oe BERTEGS SOF.

The company's second objection charged that the union

had “engaged in an unlawful campaign of threats, intimidation

and coercion among Employer's employees ...." In support

of this allegation, the company offered evidence that two

employees had been threatened by fellow-employees concerning

their anti-union sentiments. One affidavit disclosed that a

deaf employee had been called a "chicken" for refusing to

support the union and was warned that all deaf employees would

be laid off if the union lost. The second affidavit charged

that an employee was cautioned that “something” might happen

to her home or car if she failed to sign a union card. The

Board did not abuse its discretion in finding these incidents

insufficient to require the overturning of the election result.

During the Board's investigation, the deaf employee denied any

threat connected with the election. Moreover, the record dis-

closes that she tested out the validity of the prophecy of a

layoff by reporting it to an officer of the company who assured

her of its falsity and instructed her not to be concerned.

The second affidavit, which was untimely submitted, fails to

identify cither the name of the fellow-employee or to establish

that she was in any way associated with the union (compare

«Gn

soe SERNAED CO

N.L.R.B. v. Griffith Oldsmobile, Inc., 455 F.2d 867, 870-71

(8th Cir. 1972) with Cross Baking Co. v. N.L.R.B., 453 F.2d

1346, 1348 (lst Cir. 1971)) and offers no indication as to

when during the campaign the threat occurred or whether it

had any coercive effect upon the employee's actions at the

polls. 3/

The company also objected to certain alleged promises to

employees by the union of benefits which could be expected in

the event of a union victory. Specifically, it was asserted

37 During the Regional Director's investigation, the company

sought to produce evidence concerning the content and effect

of the union's campaign literature. The Regional Director

refused to interview employees concerning this matter, and

instead permitted the company to submit affidavits after the

close of the investigation which would be received as an offer

of proof. Inasmuch as these proffered affidavits described

the affiants' interpretation of the union's communications,

they were properly refused since the documents spoke for them-

selves. The affidavits also contained hearsay reports of plant

rumors concerning the alleged coercion of the two employees

discussed above, which were rejected as untimely submitted.

In light of the necessity of prompt resolution of pre-certi-

fication representation dispvtes, the fact that the company

sought and obtained one extension of time from the Board, and

the lack of any allegations of coercive effect of the rumors,

the rejection was not an abuse of discretion. One additional

affidavit concerning hearsay allegations of rumors of coercion

of a named cmployce was timely submitted but properly rejected

on the ground that the employee who was the subject of the rumor

denied the alleged coercion in a statement to the Board.

~ =

iT ae

|

~ ue BITRE) Gy coeue CERTARD C7

that throughout the pre-clection campaign, the union “indi-

The company also challenged as coercive the union's

cated ta Employer's employees that were it designated as

i promise in a pre-election circular that, if certified, every

their representative, these employees would automatically

; employee working in the plant at the time of the election

obtain substantial wage and fringe benefit increases in

would be given the opportunity t: join the union without pay-

excess of those allowed by federal guidelines, therehy indi-

ing initiation fees. It is well established that the offer .

cating that an automatic exemption to the law would be made."

of an unconditional waiver of fees to all employees across

We agree with the Regional Director that "(a]) careful exami- .

the board after a successful certification is not coercive.

nation of the documents reveals no such promise, more than

Macomb Pottery v.N.L.R.B., 376 F.2d 450, 454-55 (7th Cir.

the typical campaign rhetoric easily evaluated by employes."

1967); N.L.R.B. v. Crest Leather Mfg. Co., 414 F.2d 421, 423

Union promises of such benefits have been characterized as

(Sth Cir. 1969). N.L.R.B. v. Savair Mfg. Co., 414 U.S. 270

legally unobjectionable. N.L.R.B. v. Golden Age Beverage Co.,

(1973), wherein the Supreme Court invalidated the practice

415 F.2d 26, 28, 30 (Sth Cir. 1969). Moreover, the record

of limiting the waiver of initiation fees to only those

establishes express disparagement of the claim in several of

| employees who sign authorization cards prior to election,

the company's campaign documents. Concerning the alleged

does not require a different result. The Court expressly

conflict with federal guidelines, we agree with the Sixth

i i : recognized the continuing validity of unconditional post-

Circuit which has held, under similar circumstances, that:

election waivers of the sort involved here. Id. at 274, n.4.

“{iJnformation about the wage freeze was not within the special

knowledge of the union. It had been widely publicized and The company's remaining objections concerned alleged

Gebated. And, the federal government had established places substantial misrepresentations contained in the union's post-

where answers to specific questions about the freeze could be election campaign literature. The Board concluded that “none

obtained.” Harlem No. 4 Coal CO. Vv. N.ULR.B., 490 F.2d 117, of the material is objectionable either as to its content or

125 (6th Cir. 1974), cert. denicd, 416 U.S. 986.

~~

ae

te

BEST COPY AVALABLE

ee a ee “

ROR BS c see

dei td od iD =

No. 74-1148

its timing... ."“ We have carefully examined the challenged

communication and find no abuse of discretion. The majority

of specific instances of alleged misrepresentation occurred

well prior to the date of election, permitting the company to

cor :t any fp rceived misstatements if desired. cf. N.L.R.B

v. 'ovisville Chair Co., 385 F.2d 922, 927 (6th Cir. 1967),

cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1013; Hollywood Ceramics, 140 N.L.R.B.

221 (1962). The record reveals that the company in fact dis-

puted in its own propaganda many of the claimed inaccuracies,

Follett Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 397 F.2d 91, 95 (7th Cir. 1968).

Before this court, the company focuses its argument on the

union's alleged misrepresentations concerning wage rates in

effect at another union employer, the company's profits, and

the views concerning trade unionism cf a national religious

leader. We have examined all of the circulars ‘n light of

the company's allegations and find no abuse of discretion in

the Board's conclusion that they were not objectionable 3/

/ ’

4/ The company also argues that the alleged improper action

of unknown union adherents in obtaining a company profits work

sheet without authorization required the setting aside of the

election. Taking the allegations as true, the conduct, while

improper, 15 not claimed to have been coercive or to have had

any cffect on the election result

3/ The company arques that the Board's certification of the

union must.be deemed an abuse of discretion due to its failure

—y™=

No. 74-1148

2 % 9. 4

Il, DENIAL OF A HEA ad vinid ]

The company also challenges the refusal of the Regional

Director and Board to direct a hearing on the company's

objections in the representation proceeding and the Board's

grant of summary judgment in the unfair labor practice pro-

ceeding. Under the Board's established practice, a hearing

is granted on exceptions to an election only “if it appears

to the regional director that substantial and material fact-

ual issues exist which, in the exercise of his reasonable

discretion, he determines may more appropriately be resolved

after a hearing... ." 29 C.F.R. §102.69(d). This rule

properly reflects the underlying policy of expeditious reso-

lution of representation disputes prior to certification,

N.L.R.B. v. O.K. Van Storage, Inc., 297 F.2d 74, 76 (5th Cir.

1961). We have examined the company's objections to election

and agree that the Regional Director did not abuse his dis-

cretion by denying the requested hearing and instead conduct-

5/ (Continued)

to consider the totality of the claimed misconduct in over-

ruling the objections. We have reviewed the record closely

and find no indication that the charyes were not considered

together. Moreover, we conclude that the Objections, dcs-

pite their number, were insufficient to require the setting

aside of the election.

-ll-

No. 74-1148

ing a complete and fair administrative investigation during

which the company had full opportunity to present its case.

Similarly, tne company's exceptions to the Regional Director's

Opinion merely repeated its initial objections and did not

present the Board with any evidence raising substantial and

material factual seeuse. =

The Board's grant of summary judgment in the unfair

labor practice proceeding was also proper. The company's

answer and response to the summary judgment motion admitted

the refusal to bargain and interposed only defenses that had

been previously raised and resolved in the representations

proceeding. Cf. 29 C.F.R. §102.67(f). No special circum-

stances or newly available evidence was offered.

The Board's order will be enforced.

6/ The company asserted in its affidavit supporting its

objections that evidence was difficult to obtain absent a

hearing and attendant subpoena power. Such general alle-

gations are insufficient to require the granting of a

hearing.

alte

13

en lette

FROM INDIAN INOUSTRIES WORKERS

To All the Men and Wonen at Virginia:

We have been informed the management of your plant is knocking

our contract in an effort to get you to vote against yourself.

We happen to be proud of what we have accomplished since winning

IVE Representation last April and don't think our contract is

as your bosses want you to believe. Let's just look at some

of our wage rates:

Machinist | .........s006 $4.25

Tool Repairman .......06.

Press Set-lp/Operate ....

Fork Truck Driver .......

Press Operator | ........

Maintenance Mechanic | ..

Arrcw Group Leader ......

Assenbler/Exeediter .....

Bow Spray/Finish ........

RBBEIOIEE | .cccccccccces

Bows Sander ....sccccsccee $2000

Our IVE Union cgotiated those rates AT A TIME WHEN THE COMPANY

SHOWED OUR NEGOTIATING CO:MITTEE FINANCIAL RECORDS PROVING IT

WAS IN A VERY POOR FINANCIAL CONDITION.

Of course, our Union couldn't negotiate as many gains at a time

when our Company was hurting as it could have if it was making

the big profits made by Virginia.

But we did very well considering the conditions.

We know that the Virginia bosses have been making a big deal out

of the 34¢ in general wage increases we negotiated. However, they

didn't tell you thst the general wage increases are just part of

the wage increases we won.

SssassRssq

BSSSSRSSS

14

In addition to our general wage increases, we negotiated numerous

inequity raises costing the Company an estimated $35,900 to $40,000

during the course of our contract. A lot of Indian workers wiil

be getting more in inequity raises than the general raises we get

every year.

When we voted for the IVE last April we didn't have a single paid

holiday. That's right — not a one.

We negotiated SIX PAID HOLIDAYS for the first year. In 1973, we

move up to SEVEN PAID HOLIDAYS as we get the DAY AFTER THANKSGIVING

off with pay. The third year of our contract calls for GOOD FRIDAY

as a Paid Holiday.

Despite the financial difficulties of the Company — WE ARE GOING

FROM ZERO TO EIGHT PAID HOLIDAYS IN OUR FIRST CONTRACT!

t

We understand that the Virginia bosses are making a big deal ou

of the 2 weeks vacation after 5 years it has promised for next

year.

' CATION

E WE WON IUE REPRESENTATION ONE WEEK WAS THE TOP PAID VACAT

REGARDLESS OF SENIORITY -- SC THE SECOND WEEK OF VACATION IS A BIG

GAIN FOR OUR HIGH PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES WITH OVER 7 YEARS.

without a Union until last April so we know about how

Bog can count on Company promises. (Didn't Virginia ,.

paid vacations around 1969 or 1970 and then take them back?) e

know we are going to get our vacations next summer because they

are written into a binding contract.

Our contract also provides for JURY DUTY PAY and up to three paid

days off for a death in the family.

ther

Before we got our IUE Union, you could work the same job as ano

erson lee wneee and never make as much pay. NOW OUR CONTRACT

EALLS FOR EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK -- so you move up to the top

pay of your classification with regular raises when you go on a job.

Before we got our Union, the Company did as it pleased when makino

promotions, laying off, hiring back and everything else.

Now, our contract has rules -- which we helped write -- for the

Company to follow when those moves are made. If we are overlooked

on a promotion, overtime, or one of our other rights, the Company

is required to straighten its mistake out and pay us for any money

lost.

That beats letting the Company be your prosecutor, judge and jury

by a wide margin!

15

You can't put a price tag cn it and it doesn't cost a wy! a

penny but you know the value of being treated ae in a Union

plant after going for years at the boss's mercy.

The Virginia bosses have been hitting you with the same anti-Union

opaganda the Indian bosses put out last spring. You might be

terested in the following --

Sy | tried to scare us with strikes but we haven't lost

@ minute on strike. ‘

We were told the "Union Bosses" would run our Union. We

are the bosses of our Union deciding the issues and ©

electing our officials in fair democratic elections.

They tried to scare us with dues -- but we dfdn't pay a

in dues until our contract was signed. Now we pay

-5O per month.

As for the assessment and fines lie all anti-Union bosses

seem to put out, we can tell you from experience that

it’s all bull.

Just as the IVE said, every one of us working at Indian

at the time we won our Union was given an opportunity

to join without paying any initiation fee.

We were told that =o a Union would hurt Se

== OUR EMPLOYMENT HAS T ABOUT DOUBLED SINCE

Saaaet 72-20 ON APRIL 20! (We now have about 165

workers,

Our IVE Union has made many more gains than the ones we have

mentioned here, but you can get an idea of how well we have done

at a time when Indian Industries was in financial trouble.

Considering that Virginia is making tremendous profits

-- and you make $2200 chairs while our main product is gm

tables for which our Company gets as little as $24.50 -- we ko

you will do a lot better when you win your Union at Virginia.

We thank you for letting us set the record straight in regara

to our Tub é ont WELCOME. TO

contract. We also would like to say --

ISSUED BY SATIS I

WORKING A

—

————— eee

__——LLS

Append x B

MR

No. 741148 9

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Petitioner,

CHAYES VIRGINIA CORP., A Wholly Owned Subsidiary

of BCC Industries, Inc.,

Respondent.

ee eee err

: ELLIOTT MOORE,

¢ : Deputy Associate General Counsel,

National Labor Reiations Board.

Washington, D. C. 20570

THE CASILLAS PRESS. INC —1717 K Street NW —Weshingson, D. C.—223-1220

ee ee

a OT CR OOP SB ee -

Me env ors we

(i)

INDEX

Case No. 25-CA-5606

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES .

DECISION AND ORDER,

Dated November 6, 1973

APPENDIX — Notice to Employees Posted by

Order of the NLRB. . .

SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER and

CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE,

Dated February 7, 1973 . woes

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT,

Dated June 29, 1973 .

- 3

14

32

es

5

APPENDIX

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

REGION TWENTY -FIVE

CHAYES VIRGINIA CORP, A WHOLLY

OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF BCC INDUSTRIES,

INC,

and * Case No.

' 25--CA--5606

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRI-

CAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS,

a/w AFL--CIO--CLC

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES

In the Matter of: Chayes Virginia Corporation, a Wholly

Owned Subsidiary of BCC Industries,

Inc.

Case No.: 25-CA-5606

10. 2.72 Petition filed.

10.16.72 Notice of Representation Hearing, dated.

10.30.72 Hearing opened.

10.30.72 Hearing closed.

11.14.72 Regional Director's Decision and Direction of

Election, dated.

11.14.72 Notice of Election, dated.

12.14.72 Tally of Ballots, dated.

12.14.72 Certification on Conduct of Election, dated.

12.18.72 Respondent's Objections dated.

2. 7.73 Regional Director's Supplemental Decision and

Order and Certification of Representative, dated.

11.

6.73

Respondent's Exceptions received.

Board's telegram denying Respondent request for

review, dated.

Respondent's letter requesting a decision why

Respondent's request was denied, dated.

Board's letter stating why the request for review

was denied, dated.

Charge filed.

Regional Director's Complaint and Notice of Hearing,

dated.

Respondent's Answer to Complaint, dated.

General Counsel's Motion to Strike Portions of

Respondent's Answer and Motion for Summary

Judgment dated.

Regional Director's Order for Motion for Summary

Judgment, received.

Board's Order Transferring Proceeding to the

Board and Notice to Show Cause dated.

Respondent's Response to Notice to Show Cause,

dated.

Board's Decision and Order, dated.

(Dated 11/6/73] (D --8045

Evansville, Ind. ]

DECISION AND ORDER

Upon a charge filed on June 1, 1973, by International Union

of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, a/w AFL--CIO--CLC,

herein called the Union, and duly served on Chayes Virginia

Corporation, a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of BCC Industries, Inc. ,

herein called the Respondent, the General Counsel of the

National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for

Region 25, issued a complaint on June 20, 1973, against Respon-

dent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging

in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning

of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National

Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, com-

plaint, and notice of hearing before an Administrative Law Judge

were duly served on the parties to this proceeding.

With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint

alleges in substance that on February 7, 1973, following a Board

election in Case 25--RC--5155 the Union was duly certified as

the exclusive collective -bargaining representative of Respondent's

employees in the unit found appropriate ;+ and that, commencing

I

*/ Official notice is taken of the record in the representation

proceeding, Case 25--RC--5155, as the term "record"

is defined in Secs. 102. 68 and 102. 69(f) of the Board's

Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, See LTV

Electrosystems, Inc., 166 NLRB 938, enfd. 388 F. 2d

. , ; Golden Age Beverage Co., 167

NLRB 151, enfd. 415 F.

° ; Inte

Co. v. Penello, 269 F. Supp. 573 (D. C. Va., er

Follett Co i

., 164 NLRB 378, enfd. 397 F. 24 91 (C.A,

7, 1968); as 9(d) of the NLRA.

on or about February 14, 1973, and at all times thereafter, Respon-

dent has refused, and contimes to date to refuse, to bargain col-

lectively with the Union as the exclusive barg2ining representative,

although the Union has requested and is requesting it to do so.

On July 1, 1973, Respondent filed its answer to the complaint

admitting in part, and denying in part, the allegations in the

complaint.

On July 9, 1973, counsel for the General Counsel filed directly

with the Board a motion to strike portions of Respondent's answer

and Motion for Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on August 6,

1973, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to

the Board and a Notice To Show Cause why the General Counsel's

Motion for Summary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent

thereafter filed a response to Notice To Show Cause.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National

Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations

Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-

member panel.

Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes

the following:

Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment

Respondent's answer to the complaint and response to the

Notice To Show Cause herein contend that the complaint should

be dismissed and summary judgment denied because the Board

made erroneous determinations in the underlying representation

case.

Our review of the record in Case 25--RC--5155 indicates

that, pursuant to the Regional Director's Decision and Direction

of Election, an election was conducted on December 14, 1972,

~ + entender

in the appropriate unit. Of approximately 80 eligible voters,

34 cast ballots for, and 31 against, the Union, 1 ballot was

challenged, and 1 void. Thereafter, the Respondent timely filed

nine objections, which alleged, in substance, that the Union had

interfered with the election by polling employees, intimidating

them, waiving its initiation fee, and making various misrepre -

sentations, and requested, in view of the closeness of the election,

either that the election be set aside or that a hearing be held.

After investigation, on February 7, 1973, the Regional Director

issued his Supplemental Decision and Order and Certification of

Representative in which he overruled the objections in their en-

tirety and certified the Union. The Respondent then filed a re-

quest for review entitled "Exceptions with Brief Annexed, " in

which it reiterated all the aforementioned contentions and renewed

its request for a hearing. By telegraphic order dated March 19,

1973, the Board denied the request for review, "as it raises no

substantial issues warranting review." Subsequently, on March

28, 1973, Respondent filed a request for an explicated decision

why Respondent's request was denied. By letter of April 5, 1973,

the Board's Executive Secretary replied that, under Rule 102. 67(f)

of the Board's Regulations, a denial of review constitutes affir-

mance of the Regional Director's actions, that the Board does

not issue an explicated decision unless review has been granted,

and that the Board did not contemplate issuing a further decision

in the matter. Thereafter, by letter dated April 10, 1973, the

Respondent wrote the Board in which it contended that the Supreme

Court's decision in Metropolitan Lite2/ required the Board to give

an explicated decision in any matter.

27° pekropotien Life Insurance Co. v. N. L.R,B., 380

10

Respondent now raises again the same issues it raised in

the underlying representation proceeding. However, these issues

have already been decided adversely to it. Further, where no

substantial and material issues of fact and law are presented,

no due process issue can properly be raised and, therefore,

no hearing is warranted, 2/ despite the closeness of the election. 4/

Finally, with respect to the Respondent's request for a Board

explication of its decision to deny review, we are of the opinion,

after review of the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision

and the Respondent's request for review thereof, that our con-

clusion that the request for review raises no substantial issues

warranting review is a sufficient explication of the decision to deny

review, and that the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision,

articulating the reasons for his overruling of the Respondent's

objections to the election and his certification of the Union as the

exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate bar-

gaining unit, sufficiently discloses the basis for our Order herein

so as to afford a proper basis for judicial review. 5/

It is well settled that in the absence of newly discovered or

previously unavailable evidence « r special circumstances a respon-

dent in a proceeding alleging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not

entitled to relitigate issues which were or could have been litigated

in a prior representation proceeding. 8/

37 Farah Mamfacturing Company, 203 NLRB No. 78; Reeves-

Bowman, Division a Cyclops Corporation, 194 NLRB 155,

and cases cited in Ins. 3 and 4 thereo!.

4/ Henderson Trumbull Supply Corporation, 205 NLRB No. 8;

Modine Mamilaciring Company 203 NLRB No. 77.

5/ The Metropolitan Life decision does not require more.

6/ See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S.

146, 162 SELIOE Rules and Regulations of the Board,

es

Secs. 102. 67(f) and 102. 69(c).

a at i te

1]

All issues raised by the Respondent in this proceeding were

or could have been litigated in the prior representation proceeding,

and the Respondent does not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly

discovered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege

that any special circumstances exist herein which would require

the Board to reexamine the decision made in the representation

proceeding. We therefore find that the Respondent has not raised

any issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor practice

proceeding. We shall, accordingly, grant the Motion for Summary

Judgment. v/

On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes the

following:

Findings of Fact

I. The Business of the Respondent

The Respondent, a corporation duly organized under, and

existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Indiana, maintains

its principal office and place of business at Evansville, Indiana,

and a satellite facility at Loogootee, Indiana, where it is engaged

in the mamfactyre, sale, and distribution of dental chairs and

equipment and related products.

During 1972, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its

business operations, purchased and delivered to its above-named

locations goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which

wére transported to them directly from States other than the State

of Indiana, and also manufactured, sold, and delivered products

lf In view of our determination, it is unnecessary to con-

sider Geneial Counsel's motion to strike.

12

valued in excess of $50,000, which were shipped from the Evans-

ville and Loogootee locations directly to States other than the

State of Indiana.

We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Respondent is,

and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged

in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act,

and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris-

diction herein.

I. The Labor Organization Involved.

International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,

a/w AFL--CIO--CLC, is a labor organization within the meaning

of Section 2(5) of the Act.

I The Unfair Labor Practices

A. The Representation Proceeding

1. The unit

The following employees of the Respondent constitute a unit

appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes within the meaning

of Section 9(b) of the Act:

All production and maintenance employees of the

Respondent at its Evansville and Loogootee establish-

ments, but excluding all office clerical employees, all

professional employees, all guards and all supervisors

as defined in the Act.

2. The certification

On December 14, 1972, a majority of the employees of Re-

spondent in said unit, in a secret ballot election conducted under

| the supervision of the Regional Director for Region 25, designated

the Union as their representative for the purpose of collective

_—

be eee Bhs te

13

bargaining with the Respondent. The Union was certified as the

collective -bargaining representative of the employees in said

unit on February 7, 1973, and the Union contimes to be such

exclusive representative within the meaning of Section 9(a) of

the Act.

B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's Refusal

Commencing on or about February 13, 1973, and at all times

thereafter, the Union has requested the Respondent to bargain col-

lectively with it as the exchisive collective -bargaining represen-

tative of all the employees in the above-described unit. Com-

mencing on or about February 14, 1973, and continuing at all

times thereafter to date, the Respondent has refused and contimes

to refuse, to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive

representative for collective bargaining of all employees in said

unit.

Accordingly, we find that the Respondent has, since Feb-

ruary 14, 1973, and at all times thereafter, refused to bargain

collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of

the employees in the appropriate unit, and that, by such refusal,

Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices

within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.

IV. The Effect of the Unfair Labor Practices Upon Commerce

The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, above,

occurring in connection with its operations described in section I,

above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship 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.

14

V. The Remedy

Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging

in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and

(1) of the Act, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom,

and, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the

exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit,

and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding

in a signed agreement.

In order to insure that the employees in the appropriate unit

will be accorded the services of their selected bargaining agent

for the period provided by law, we shall construe the initial

period of certification as beginning on the date Respondent com-

mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as the recognized

bargaining representative in the appropriate unit. See Mar-Jac

Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785; Commerce Company

d/>/a Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229, enfd. 328 F. 2d 600

(C. A, 5), cert. denied 379 U.S, 817; Burnett Construction Com-

pany, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421, enfd. 350 F. 2d 57 (C. A, 10).

The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts and the

entire record, makes the following:

Conclusions of Law

1. Chayes Virginia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary

of BCC Industries, Inc. , is an employer engaged in commerce

within the meaning of Section 2(5) and (7) of the Act.

2. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine

Workers, a/w AFL--CIO--CLC, is a labor organization within

the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

3. All production and maintenance employees of the Respon -

dent at its Evansville and Loogootee establishments, but exchiding

ee ee

15

all office clerical employees, all professional employees, all

guards and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a

unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within

the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.

4. Since February 7, 1973, the above-named !abor organi-

zation has been and now is the certified and exclusive repre-

sentative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for

the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section

9(a) of the Act.

5. By refusing on or about February 14, 1973, and at all

times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the above-named

labor organization as the exclusive bargaining representative of

all the employees of Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respon-

dent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices

within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.

6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respondent has

interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with,

restraining, and coercing, employees in the exercise of the rights

guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en-

gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the

meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor

practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)

and (7) of the Act.

ORDER

Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations

Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby

orders that Respondent, Chayes Virginia Corporation, a wholly

owned subsidiary of BCC Industries, Inc., Evansville, Indiana,

its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:

16

1. Cease and desist from:

(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of

pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employ -

ment with International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine

Workers, a/w AFL--CIO--CLC, as the exclusive bargaining

representative of its employees in the following appropriate

unit:

All production and maintenance employees of the

Respondent at its Evansville and Loogootee establishments,

but excluding all office clerical employees, all professional

employees, all guards and all supervisors as defined in the

Act.

(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-

straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights

guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.

2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board

finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:

(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named labor

organization as the exclusive representative of all employees in

the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages,

hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if

an understanding is reached, embody such understanding ina

signed agreement.

(b) Post at its Evansville and Loogootee, Indiana, facil-

ities copies of the attached notice marked, "Appendix. "°/

57 in the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of

a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice

reading "POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS BOARD" shall read "POSTED PURSUANT TO

A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

eee ee

17

Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director

for Region 25 after being duly signed by Respondent's repre -

sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon

receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days

thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where

notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps

shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not

altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.

(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writing,

within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been

taken to comply herewith.

Dated, Washington, D.C, , November 6, 1973.

Edward B. Miller, Chairman

John H. Fanning, Member

John A. Penello, Member

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

(SEAL)

~- (Contimed) APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, "

18

APPENDIX

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES

Posted by Order of the

National Labor Relations Board

An Agency of the United States Government

WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively concerning

rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of

employment with International Union of Electrical, Radio and

Machine Workers, a/w AFL--CIO--CLC, as the exclusive

representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described

below.

WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,

restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights

guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.

WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above -named

Union, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the

bargaining unit described below, with respect to rates of pay,

wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment,

and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding

in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:

All production and maintenance employees of the

Respondent at its Evansville and Loogootee establishments,

but excluding all office clerical employees, all profess-

ional employees, all guards and all supervisors as de -

fined in the Act.

CHAYES VIRGINIA CORPORATION

~ (Employer)

Dated By

(Representative) (Title)

19

This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone.

This notice nmst remain posted for 60 consecutive days

from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or

covered by any other material.

Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with

its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 615 ISTA

Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204,

Telephone 317 --633 --8921.

20

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

REGION TWENTY-FIVE

CHAYES VIRGINIA CORP., a wholly

owned subsidiary of BCC INDUSTRIES,

INC,

Employer

and Case No.

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL 3S-RC S188

RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO-

CLC

Petitioner

SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER AND

~~ CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE

Pursuant to a petition filed on October 2, 1972 and a Decision and

Direction of Election issued by the undersigned, an election was

conducted on December 14, 1972 among certain employecs "of

the above named Employer to determine whether they desire to

be represented by the Petitioner for the purpose of collective

bargaining. The Tally of Ballots served upon the parties at the

conchisions of the election shows the following results:

Approximate number of eligible

voters 80

Void ballots 1

Votes Cast for the Petitioner 34

t The appropriate unit was found to be: "All production

and maintenance employees of the Empioyer at its

Evansville and Loogoote, Indiana establishments:

BUT EXCLUDING all office clerical employees, ail

professional employees, all guards and all supervisors

as defined in the Act.

ot se tee 8 seeds

21

Votes Cast against the

Petitioner 31

Valid Votes counted 65

Challenged Ballots 1

Valid Votes Counted Plus

Challenged Ballots 66

The Challenged Ballot is not sufficient in mmmber to affect the

results of the election. On December 20, 1972, the Employer

filed timely Objections to the election. 2/ Pursuant to Section

102. 69 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Rela-

tions Board an investigation of the issues raised by the Objections

was conducted under the direction and supervision of the under -

signed who after considering the results thereof, reports thereon

as follows:

THE OBJECTIONS?’

The Employer's Objections read as follows:

Comes now the Employer in the above case and files its

Cbjections to the Conduct of the Election and/or Conduct Affecting

Results of the Election held herein on the 14th day of December,

1972, as follows:

= All parties were requested to furnish and have furnished

various evidence in support of their respective positions

in regard to the Objections.

3/ Attached hereto as Exhibit 16-75 is Petitioner literature

distributed to employees anc as Exhibits 1-15, Employer

literature similarly distributed. All Exhibits issued on

or about the dates they bear. Set forth in parenthesis

after each Exhibit mmber is the mmber designation

assigned to them by the Employer and used in the Em-

ployer's Objections. (The Employer made no mmerica!

designation of Employer published literature)

22

That Petitioner, close in time to the date of the election

held herein, conducted an illegal polling of Employer's

employees, in that it asked them through a planned

telephone campaign how they were going to vote in the

election.

Petitioner engaged in an unlawful campaign of threats,

intimidation and coercion among Employer's employees

in that during the pre -election period it informed certain

employees of Employer that their jobs were in jeo-

pardy, and that if they failed to vote for the Petitioner

they would be laid off, and/or if the Union (Petitioner)

came in and they had not voted for Petitioner they

would lose their jobs because of their physical dis-

abilities.

Throughout its pre-election campaign at Employer the

Petitioner indicated to Employer's employees that were

it designated as their representative these employees

would automatically obtain substantial wage and fringe

benefit increases in excess of those allowed by federal

guidelines, thereby indicating that an automatic ex-

ception to the law would be made.

During the course of the pre-election campaign Peti-

tioner obtained without Employer's permission, certain

financial documents which were in turn misrepresented

in a series of handbills distributed shortly prior to the

election, to the effect that Employer was making in-

credible and unbelievable profits, ignoring certain other

aspects of the information it "had taken" from Employer,

which would have made the figures disclosed more

meaningful.

23

Throughout the course of the campaign and in a series

of handbills Petitioner indicated to Employer's em-

ployees that were they to designate Petitioner as their

representative they would not have to pay any form

of Union obligation until such time as the Petitioner

was designated as the employees’ bargaining repre-

sentative. This amounted to an unlawful inducement

to Employer's employees to designate Petitioner as

their representative.

In handbills distributed to Employer's employees, the

Petitioner indicated that as me..wers of a local of

Petitioner the employees retained complete control

over their own decisions, neglecting to inform these

employees that they have no right to strike without

approval of the International Union, as set forth in

Article XIV of the Constitution of Petitioner.

In a series of handbills attached hereto as exhibits 1

through 52 the Petitioner engaged in a campaign of

misrepresentations so extensive as to substantially

interfere with the Section 7 and 9 rights of Employer's

employees in that they could not make a well informed

choice of representative because these misrepresen-

tations related to substantial and material issues

of fact, among which are the following, as shown by

the handbills annexed hereto:

(a) Exhibit 2 is a misrepresentation of the law

and also indicates that Employer was stealing money

from its employees.

(b) Exhibit 4 indicates that all religious sects back

the Union, thereby interfering with the constitutional

rights of Employer's employees.

24

(c) Exhibit 9 indicates that Employer was illegally

discharging its employees.

(d) Exhibit 13, wherein Petitioner misrepresents

the profit obtained by Employer when it sells a dental

chair.

(e) Exhibit 23, wherein the Petitioner makes sub-

stantial misrepresentations about the boms available

to supervisory employees of Employer.

(f) Exhibit 25, wherein the Petitioner misrepre-

sents the position taken by Employer in the repre-

sentation matter involved in this case, in that it

indicates Employer was delaying an election. Also

see Exhibit 30 on this issue.

(g) Exhibits 28 and 29, which would indicate that

employees control their local, failing to mention the

fact that the International Union has a great deal of

control over local matters.

(h) Exhibit 34 shows Petitioner's unlawful fee

waiver.

(i) Exhibit 38, in which Petitioner misrepresents

Employer's profit position as it relates to some of

the largest corporations in the United States. Also

see Exhibits 39 through 41.

(j) Exhibit 43, wherein the Petitioner states that

Employers cannot do anything with respect to economic

benefits during a Union campaign.

(k) Exhibit 45, falsely indicating to Employer's

employees that all religious and famous Americans

support the Union and inferring that the federal

government supports the Union.

ee ee

25

(1) Exhibit 52, which Employer believes was not in

fact prepared by LU. E. members at Indian Industries,

by by a representative of Petitioner.

8. The 52 handbills attached hereto, when fairly read, would

indicate that Petitioner stepped out of bounds during this

election and that when combined with the activity referred

to in the Objections set cut above, clearly indicate the

lack of the atmosphere necessary to reasoned employee

choices. The above-mentioned conduct, the conduct

contained in this objection, and other conduct clearly

shows that the election held herein should be set aside.

9. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set out above and other

reasons, Employer asks that the election held herein

be set aside; that in light of the filing of these objections

the Board investigate fully and completely all conduct

engaged in by the Petitioner during the election cam-

paign held herein; that the election be either set aside

or a hearing involving substantial and material isgues

of fact be held and for all further and proper relief

in the premises.

Objection 1

In support of this objection the Employer proffers a statement

from one employee stating that prior to the election he was

called at his home by an individual claiming to be an agent of the

Petitioner and asked how he intended to vote in the forthcoming

Representation Election. The Petitioner denies this conduct.

Assuming that the conduct did occur it is not objectionable.

Springfield Discount Inc., d/b/a J.C. Penny Food Department,

26

195 NLRB No. 157, (enf'd. 7th Cir., November 30, 1972.)

Additionally the Employer has adduced no evidence the caller

was in fact an agent of Petitioner. Accordingly, Objection 1 is

overruled.

Objection 2

On December 20, the undersigned by letter requested the Employe1

to submit all of your evidence (statements, affidavits, letters,

handbills, etc.) in support of said Objections to this office on or

before the close of business December 27, 1972." The Employer

submitted certain affidavits of A, C, M, N, and o, 4 on December

26, 1972, and requested of a Board agua!’ an extension of time

to January 10, 1973, "as a final date in which to file material in

support of our Objections." After that time the Board agent in-

terrogated the affiants and other witnesses proffered by the parties

on January 16, and 17, also at this time the Employer submitted

affidavits of its President Edward Fritz and Operations Manager

William Sherbrooke, which contained only hearsay testimony with

regard to Objection 2, It also proffered witnesses as to Objection

2, employees A and C for whom it had previously submitted

affidavits and who it stated would support employees D, E, F, and

G who had executed no statements or affidavits but the Employer

nevertheless proffered them as witnesses supporting the case.

The Evidence of A

In the original affidavit submitte+ by the Employer on or about

December 26, A stated:

a7 The statements of M, N, and O did not relate to Objection 2.

5/ Lindsley Industries of Sarasota, Inc. , 199 NLRB No. 83.

27

"(Employee B] called me a 'chicken' if I would not vote for

the Union. I was riding to work with [her] before the

election. [She] talked to me about the Union during these

rides. [She] became very angry with me at these times.

She was ‘fussing’ and yelling for a long time.

[She] said that all of the deaf people would be laid off if

the Union lost the election. I understood [her] meaning

from reading her lips partly, and partly from the signs

she made,"

Essentially B denies A's testimony in relevant part. When inter-

viewed by the Board agent on Jamary 16, 1973, "A" testified:

"I know 'B'. She never told me she would hurt me. I

talked with 'B' about the Union frequently. She told me

that the Union was good and paid lots of money.

"B' never discussed with me how I would vote. But 'B’

saw that I did not take the Union literature, so she knew

I was against the Union . . . 'B' did tell me to vote for the

Union. 'B' never told me I would lose my job by voting

no. She never told me my vote would affect my job in

anyway.

"B' told me I might be laid off, but she did not say the

Union vote had anything to do with it. The lay-off had

nothing to do with the Union.

I did not say that [B] said the deaf people would be laid

off if the Union lost. 'B' did not tell me I would lose my

job if the Union won. "

28

The Employer's Operations Manager Sherbrooke states:

"Regarding [A] some weeks prior to the election I

had a written conversation with [her] at which time

she told me [B] had told her that if they did not vote

for the Union, all the deaf people would be laid off

. . . Lassured her not to worry that such was not

the case. "

On its face the remark B attributes to A is a prediction and not

a threat since the statement "deaf people would be laid off if the

Petitioner lost the election" deals with a matter, which on its

fact, lies outside the power of Petitioner to control, particularly

if it lost the election. At worst, therefore it was a misrepre-

sentation which if true, Sherbrooke on behalf of the Employer

effectively rebutted and negated. Additionally A's expressed

denial in her affidavit of Jammary 16, that B said "deaf people

would be laid off if the Union lost" invalidates any prior con-

trary testimony and leaves this aspect of the Objections bereft

of probative evidentiary support. Finally, the Employer has

not submitted and investigation has not revealed any evidence

B was in any way an agent of Petitioner® for whose conduct

Petitioner is responsible. LU

5) The fact B subsequently served as union observer is

irrelevant. McFarling Bros. , Midstate Poultry & Egg

Co. ; 123 NLRB 1384.

7/ The determination of the validity of Objections based on

ine conduct by strangers to the proceeding and rank-and-file

employees stands on an entirely different footing and is

judged by entirely different criteria than the conduct of

the parties and their agents. Allied Plywood Corp., 122

NLRB 959. Apart from the fundamental rule that a

party is normally held responsible only for his own

and his agent's acts, there would be little finality to

29

The Statement of C and E

C's December 26 statement stated:

“E told me that ‘other people' were forcing him to vote

for the Union, but he did not say who. No one tried to

force me."

:

1

t

:

(Contimed) elections if misconduct by rank-and-file em-

ployees anonymous persons and other strangers to the

proceeding (any and all of whom can with equal facility

threaten reprisals and promise benefits) were given the

same effect as the acts of the parties and their agents.

Orleans a. Co., 120 NLRB 630. Additionally the

simp 8 employees do not give the same signifi -

cance and weight to the remarks and conduct of their

fellow employees and strangers as they do to their Em-

ployer or collective bargaining representative. Orleans

ey. a ern Accordingly, the Board has frequently

rec ehement advocacy on the part of rank-

and -file employees [that would constitute misconduct if

engaged in by a party or his agent] does not warrant

setting an election aside where the advocates do not resort

to violence in attempting to obtain converts to their con-

victions, and the partisan activity is not part of any con-

certed effort to coerce or intimidate employees. ";

A. Werman & Sons, Inc., 106 NLRB 1215, 1216; White's

va 8 278; cf. Diamond State Poultry

Co., Inc. 107 NLRB 3; or “unless the conduct Is so

aggravated as to create a general atmosphere of fear and

reprisal rendering a free expression of choice of repre -

sentatives i ssible."" T Crown Distributors, Inc.

118 NLRB 1450, T42T- (Onderacortng supplied]

Applying the nonagent or stranger criteria and assu ming

et mee the incidents involving A and U occurred, it does

appear that these alleged incidents can be equated with

violence or constitute an integral part of a concerted

effort to intimidate employees. Nor can it be fairiy said

that they created such a general atmosphere of fear and

reprisal as to render a fair election impossible. Accord-

ingly, even if contrary to A's statement B engaged in the

conduct complained of and the unidentified fellow employee

engaged in the conduct alleged, it would not constitute cause

to set aside the election absent a showing of agency.

30

On Jamary 16, the Board agent interviewed E who in his affidavit

to the Board agent gave testimony as follows:

"No one made me vote one way or the other. No one told

me I would loose (sic) my job or be laid off for voting

one way or the other. No one ever talked to me about

voting for the Union. 8/

Since C's statement is hearsay of an alleged declaration by E

which was not in fact borne out by E it obviously is incompetent

and cannot support Objection I.

Affidavits of D and F

Although the Employer proffered no evidence which would suggest

their testimony was relevant, the Board agent nevertheless at the

request of the Employer interviewed D, F, and G, when the agent

was conducting the field investigation on Jamary 16 and 17,

whom the Employer proffered in support of its Objection 2. None

gave the slightest support to the Employer's contention that

Petitioner or anyone else engaged in an unlawful campaign of

threats, intimidation and coercion or engaged in the other con-

duct described in Objection 2.

Statements of P, Q, R, S, T and U

During the field investigation at Evansville, Indiana, on Jamary

16 and 17, the Employer requested the Board agent to interview

witnesses concerning the content and/or effect of Petitioner

campaign literature on them. This the agent refused to do, sinm1-

taneously advising the Employer it could submit statements from

7 E like A, C, D, F andG, is a deaf mute,

31

employees embodying any testimony it desired to offer on this

subject. Following the completion of the field examination in

Evansville, the Employer submitted to the Regional Office six (6)

signed statements of employees P. Q, R, S, T and U. The state-

ment of R dealt exclusively with describing the content or alleged

content of Petitioner's literature; the statements of P, Q, S, T

and U dealt with the contents of Petitioner's literature and Ob-

jection 2. To the extent the statements deal with Petitioner's

literature they will be treated as an offer of proof. As such, the

offers are rejected for the reason Petitioner's literature (which

is attached) speaks for itself. To the extent the statements deal

with Objection 2, they are rejected as untimely, 2/ having been

a7” A further reason for rejecting such proffered affidavits

is that insofar as they refer to Objection 2, the affidavits

are in all cases, except as noted below, rank hearsay;

and indeed are for the most part characterized as "hearsay"

and/or "gossip" in haec verba by the affiants. Additionally

they are obviously conchisionary, and not evidentiary as

reflected by the typical statement of P:

"About the only thing I know about that (sic) happened

in the shop during the election is hearsay about the

fact that [B] was ‘on’ [A] about supporting the union.

[B] wanted [A] to vote for the union. About [B] being

on [A] this was what you might call gossip in the

shop since everyone knew about it. "

Additionally the misconduct alleged in the January 18

affidavits all refer misconduct adduced to B or U whose

own affidavits do not establish such conduct. The only

statement relating to Objection 2 other than hearsay con-

tained in the January 18 statements is the assertion of U:

"On one occasion in the restroom I was told by a

fellow employee who is no longer with the company

that if I did not sign a card or support the union I

might have something done to my car or my house

and I was very concerned about this because I live

alone."

32

submitted (1) after the completion of the field investigation and

(2) not only beyond the date established by the undersigned for

the completion of investigation, but also beyond the date the

Employer itself set as the "final date in which to file material

in support of our Objections" (supra) and also (3) beyond the

tender of evidence made by the Employer's President Fritz

at the outset of the January 16 - 17 field investigation, at which

time the investigating examiner included inter alia in Fritz's

statement a detailed description of the proof he had to offer on

each objection concerning Objection 2. Fritz made and executed

the following statement in the presence and without objection by

Employer Counsel:

Regarding Objection 2, I proffer A, C, D, E, F and

G and Sherbrooke. 10/ I have no other evidence to offer

in support of this Objection.

Accordingly Objection 2 is overruled.

97 (Contimed) The statement is obviously incompetent to

establish objectionable conduct binding on Petitioner

since it not only does not establish the "fellow

employees" agency relationship to Petitioner it does not

establish the individuals name's (see note 7 supra).

The statement was submitted by the Employer's counsel

who is well familiar with the evidentiary requirements

to establish objectionable conduct. Thus apart from

submitting the statement belatedly, the Employer sub-

mitted a statement totally inadequate to establish

objectionable conduct or suggest objectionable conduct

fairly attributable to Petitioner. For the above stated

reasons as well as their belated submission, the state -

ment of P, Q, R, S, T and U do not establish the Em-

ployers Objection 2.

10/ As above noted Sherbrookes affidavit insofar as it related

— to Objection 2 was exclusively hearsay.

33

Objection 3

In support of this objection the Employer relies upon the body of

the Petitioner's literature (Exhibits 16-75) which it contends

"indicates" that the Petitioner is promising wtomatic raises and

exemption from federal wage-price control guidelines. A care-

ful examination of the documents reveals no such promise, more

than the typical campaign rhetoric easily evaluated by employees.

Hollywood Ceramics Company, 140 NLRB 221.

With regard to the wage -price guidelines, the literature does not

reveal any misrepresentation of fact. Additionally the statements

concerning the Pay Board regulations do not involve matters

peculiarly within the Petitioners knowledge and increases above

the 5. 5% level have been of sufficient mmber and well publicized

to the point that employees (a) are in a position to know the truth

of the fact asserted and/or (b) possess independent knowledge with

which to evaluate the statements.

Accordingly Objection 3 is overruled.

Objection 4

The Employer bases this objection upon two points, (1) that the

financial figures circulated by the Petitioner in Exhibits 66, 67,

68 and 69 were untrue and; (2) that they were obtained illegally.

Regarding (1), the Employer refused to provide a financial state -

ment, accordingly no conclusion that the Petitioner misrepre-

sented fact can be made, and the Employer had, as set forth under

Objections 6, 7 and 8 below, ample time to correct any material

it considered erroneous. As to (2), the source of the uncontra-

dicted and hence presumably truthful information is irrelevant.

Accordingly, Objection 4 is overruled.

34

Objection 5

The Employer bases this objection upon Exhibit 53, which it con-

tends makes an illegal promise of fee waiver during the election

campaign. The Board has repeatedly held thet such waiver is

not objectionable. DIT-MCO Incorporated, 163 NLRB 1019,

Accordingly, Objection 5 is overruled.

Objections 6, 7 and 8 and [9]

Objections 6 7 and 8 are all based on various union communications

to the employees involved herein. iY Employer specifically cites

Exhibits 16-75 as grounds for its objections. I have carefully

read Petitioner's literature and find that none of the material

is objectionable either as to its content or its timing particularly

in view of the fact that the only cited material issued so close

to the election (Exhibits 70-73) as to possibly preclude response

by the Employer contained information which had previously been

stated by the Petitioner, (Exhibits 66-69). Thus, if the Employer

had deemed these matters to be material misrepresentations

worthy of comment or requiring reply, he had ample time to reply.

Further, this is the type of material that employees have been

long held capable of readily evaluating. Hollywood Ceramics,

140 NLRB 221; Gong Bell Mfg. Co., 114 NLRB 342; Ralston Purina,

147 NLRB 506. —

tT The Employer's contention that witnesses should be examined

for their subjective understanding of the Petitioner's liter -

ature is hereby rejected. Pinkerton's National Detective

Agency, Inc., 124 NLRB 1076, 1077 tn. 3; The Lord

Baltimore Press Division of International Paper Company,

» ae Ve

12/ Indeed the literature complained of in Objections 3 and 4

is unobjectionable under the Ralston Purina rule, supra,

as well as for the reasons above stated.

er ed

35

Accordingly, Objections 6, 7, and 8 are overruled, as is [9] inas-

much as the Employer proffered no evidence, nor was any adduced

to support the allegation of "other reasons" set forth in its

"Wherefore" statement.

DECISION AND ORDER

For the reasons herein above set forth it is ordered that the Em-

ployer's Objections be and hereby are overruled in their entirety.

CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE

IT IS HEREBY certified that a majority of the valid ballots have

been cast for International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine

Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, and that pursuant to Section 9(a) of the

National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the said labor organi -

zation is the exclusive representative of all employees in the unit

found appropriate herein for the purposes of collective bargaining

with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and

other conditions of employment.

DATED AT Indianapolis, Indiana this 7th day of February 1973.

/s/ Wm, T. Little

Wm. T. Little, Regional Director

National Labor Relations Board

6th Floor, ISTA Center

150 West Market Street

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Append’ x sy

36

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

REGION TWENTY-FIVE

CHAYES VIRGINIA CORPORATION,

A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF

BCC INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Respondent

Case No.

wast 25-CA -5606

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL,

RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, a/w

AFL-CIO-CLC,

Charging Party

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Respondent herewith files its Answer to the Complaint filed

herein as follows:

1. Respondent admits the allegations of rhetorical para-

graph 1. of the Complaint.

2. Respondent admits the allegations of rhetorical para-

graph 2(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the Complaint.

3. Respondent admits the allegations of rhetorical para:

grach 3. of the Complaint.

4. Respondent admits the allegations of rhetorical para-

graph 4. of the Complaint.

5. (a) Respondent admits the allegations of rhetorical

paragraph 5. (a) of the Complaint.

fb) Respondent admits the facts contained in rhetorical

paragraph 5. (b) of the Complaint, but would affirmatively deny

any legal intendment or allegation to the effect that the Union law-

fully represents its employees or that the Union was lawfully

designated as their bargaining agent for any purpose; and further

37

Respondent would allege that any form of certification of the results

in a companion representation case known on the records of the

Board as Case No. 25-RC-5155 was unlawfully issued and is void

and of no legal effect upon Respondent because:

(1) As shown by Exhibits A through D annexed hereto,

Respondent was denied an explicated decision from the

Board on its exceptions to the Board's Regional Director's

Supplemental Decision and Order and Certification of

Representative, and thereby denied due process of law.

(2) The Board erred in refusing to hold a hearing

on Respondent's objections to the election filed in Case

No. 25-RC-5155 in that said objections raised substantial

azd material issues of fact requiring a hearing, as further

set forth in Exhibit E annexed, being Respondent's Ex-

ceptions and Brief to the Regional Director's Supplemental

Decision and Order and Certification of Representative;

and as further shown by Respondent's Objections as set

out in Exhibit F annexed, 6 affidavits in support of said

Objections annexed as Exhibit G, 5 affidavits annexed as

Exhibit H, the affidavit of William E. Sherbrooke annexed

as Exhibit I with Exhibits A through H attached, with

Union handbills annexed numbered 1 through 52, and the

affidavit of William E. Fritz annexed as Exhibit J,

referring to the Union handbills numbered 1 through 52

annexed to Exhibit I.

(3) The election held herein should have been set

aside as shown by Exhibits E through I annexed hereto.

(c) Respondent denies the aliegations contained in

rhetorical paragraph 5. (c), and for the reasons stated in para-

graph 5(b) of this Answer, denies any legal intendments or

38

allegations that it has violated the Act or that the Union is the law-

ful representative of its employees for the purpose of collective

bargaining within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (d) of the Act.

(d) Respondent admits the facts contained in rhetorical

paragraph 5. (d), but for the reasons stated in paragraph 5. (b) of

this Answer, denies any legal intendments or allegations that it

has violated the Act or that the Union is the lawful representative

of its employees for the purpose of collective bargaining within

the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) or (d) of the Act.

(e) Respondent admits the facts contained in rhetorical

paragraph 5. (e), but for the reasons stated in paragraph 5. (b) of

this Answer, denies any legal intendments or allegations that it

has violated the Act or that the Union is the lawful representative

of its employees for the purpose of collective bargaining within

the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) or (d) of the Act.

(f) Respondent admits the facts contained in rhetorical

paragraph 5. (f), but for the reasons stated in paragraph 5. (b) of

this Answer, denies any legal intendments or allegations that it

has violated the Act or that the Union is the lawful representative

of its employees for the purpose of collective bargaining within

the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) or (d) of the Act.

6. Respondent denies the allegations of rhetorical para-

graph 6. of the Complaint.

7. Respondent denies the allegations of rhetorical para-

graph 7. of the Complaint.

8. Respondent denies the allegations of rhetorical para-

graph 8. of the Complaint.

9. Respondent denies the allegations of rhetorical para-

graph 9. of the Complaint.

Hin. ann snemateealalil

eee

39

WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that the Complaint herein

be dismissed in its entirety, and that findings be entered in favor

of the Respondent, and for all other proper relief in the premises.

Respectfully submitted,

KAHN, DEES, DONOVAN & KAHN

By /s/ Joseph A. Yocum

Toaeph rs Yocum

Attorneys for Respondent

June 29, 1973

Evansville, Indiana

KAHN, DEES, DONOVAN & KAHN

305 Union Federal Building

Evansville, Indiana 47708

—

STATE OF INDIANA)

) SS: STATEMENT

VANDERBURGH CTY )

My name is Beatrice Anderson and I am employed at the Virginia gorporation

in Evansville, Indiana and I make this statement as my free and voluntary

act with the undertanding that anything I say or do not say will have no

effect on my job with the company.

L. I makw this statement with reference to events relating to the

NLRB election held at the company on December 14, 1972 about which I

have the following to relate.

2. About the only thing I know about that happened in the shop during the

election is hearsay about the fact that Donna Head was “on" Charlotte

Grey about supporting the union. Donna wanted Charlotte to vote for the

union. About Doona being on Charlotte this was what you might call

gossip in the shop since about everyone knew about it.

I have read the foregoing statement and it is true to the best of my

knowledge and belief.

la

EXHIBIT G

STATE OF IBDIANA :

VANDERBURGH CTY )

My name iskdrrg, Mariana I am employed at the Virginia

corporation in Evansville, Indiana and I make this statement as oy

free and <aeeary act with the understandin g that anything I say

on do not say will have any effect on my job at the company.

SS: STATEMENT

1. I make this statement with reference to events taking place before

the NLRB election held at the company on December 14, 1972 about which

I have the following to report.

2. I do not know directly, but it was hearsay in the plant or at least

there was alot of talk about it that Donna Head was placing alot of

pressure on one of the deaf girls to sign a union card and this was

the reason she was wissing work. At leat I heard this at lunch time

when people were talking about it.

whine stn weK

Cc

3. Earlier I do know that one girl Dorothy MecClear e

=the people in her department were placing so much pressure on her to support

the union. By this I mean they would be critical of her work and so on.

4. It was talk in the shop at the beginning of the union campaign that

employees were going to get a $1.00 an hour raise if the union came in

and I do remember that in the last union handbill it looked like were

eey to get big raises from the wage scales set out in the handbill

rom another company that had a contract with the union.

I have read the foregoing statement and it is true to the best of ny

knowledge and belief.

oe se »

STATE OF INDIANA ;

VANDERBURGH CTY )

My name tat) Lesa Lx breif, and I am employed at thy Virginia

corporation in Evansville, iana and I make this statement as ay

free and voluntary act with the understanding that anything I say or

do not say will have no effect on my job at the company.

SS: STATEMENT

1. I make this statement with reference to the events taking place

before the NLRB election at the company on December 14, 1972 about

which I have the following to state.

2. About all I rembeber about the election campaighn is the fact thac

the union put out alost of materials in its handbills, among some of the=

things in these handbills were the following:

a. One handbill said you might lose your pension if the union

lost the election, hut 1 have never known of the company going back

on its promise on something like that.

b. I did understand from the handbills that no one would have .

to pay any money to the union if it won the election. , a oa

c. I have a sister that works at Indian Industries and\when t

handbill about Indian came out I called my sister and asked r about

what she made and she had five years seniority at Indian&w a

$2.38 am hour putting geathers Gm arrows. This was less than anyone

set out in the union handbill and so 1 figured what it said was not

true.

d. There was alot in the handbills about the big bonuses the fore-

men were getting.

I have read the foregoing statement and it is true to the best of ay

knowledge and belief.

STATE OF INDIANA)

)SS: STATEMENT

VANDERBURGH CTY )

My name is_ tLucille Kruse and I am employed at the Virginia

corporation in Evansville, Indiana and I make this statement as sy

free and voluntary act with the understanding that anything I say

oe do not say will have no effect on ay job with the company.

1. I make this statement wtth reference to events relating to the

NLRB election held at the companynon December 14, 1972 about which

I have the following to relate.

2. About the only talk in the shop before the election that I

know about is hearsay on the fact that Donna Head was on the little

deaf girl to support the union by digning a card. This was shop talk.

3. There were manny things in the union handbills that I read that

I rewember amd they impreseed me, some of these were:

a. You would not have to pay anything to the union if

it cape in.

b. The foremen were getting big bonuses and some employees said

wny should they get all these bonuses when we the workers are wanting

more money.

c. One union handbill said we could lose our pension plan if

we didn't get the union in at the company.

@. I thought the union probably had some support from religious

leeders since they put out a big booklet with quotes from some then,

including Billy Grahao.

e. Everyone was talking about the big company profits set

out in the handbills and the price the company was getting for its

dental chairs.

f. One handbille from Indiara Industries employees showed some

wage rates at that company and ait looked like they wee all getting

big mosey there.

I have read the foregoing statement add it is true to the best of my

knowledge and belief.

STATE OF INDIANA)

) SS: EMENT

VANDERBURGH CTY ) —

“iL

My name i Loeenn Lilt ana I am employed at the Sirginia

corporation ansville, Indiana and I make this statement as ny

free and voluntary act with the understandi that anythi I

do not say will have no effect on ay job with the comme. _—

1. I wake this statement with reference to events occuri ju

- ng just prior

to the election held at the company on December 14, 1972 by the NLR

about which I have the following to say. : “

2. One of the strong union supporters named Donna did place alot of

pressure on one of r deaf putes emplo ed at the company, since the

deaf girl would write on slo#s of paper about what was going en. Another

girl Dorothy MacClear had to move out of her department during breate

and lunch because of the pressure being placed on her. When she cawe

to our place for breaks and lunch she would talk about how she was tolé

the air woul.d be let out of herflires or they might be slashed or that

her house might be set on fire and so on by the union people. I guess

they were trying to get her to go unio n by signing « union card,

3. Many things were said in the union handbills about 411 sorts of things,

but somethings that I remember were the following:

@. If the union won the election would not he

initiation fees to the union. _ i ow

b. There was such talk about the bormmses the foresen were supposed

to be getting add this turned into alot of talk about the fact certein

employees who were not supervisors were getting secret bonuses froe the

coepany. There was alot of talk about this.

_¢. The last handbill put out by the union «showed the wezee st

Indian industries and from the locks of the nancbill it wouil¢ teen

that the employeees tere at Virginia would be getting very large wage

orcreases, at least it looked that my.

: ¢. The hancbills also saic sowething about losing wr pensions

if we did nct vote the union in here.

@. The union sace it look like to alot of the yourg yecvle working

out im the plamt that Mey were going to get tte same cing + wages that

the dig companies in Evansville pay lice Whirlpool, tut I tooe sil

This witm a grain of salt. 1 dic not see tow this cole te tue.

?

i nave reac tne foregoing statesent aid it is true to the teat of sy

mmowlecge anc beliel. Gn

Ramen. tattle

STATE OF INDIANA )

) SE: STATEMENT

VANDERBURGH CTY )

My name is Leche 27 Clawwand I am employed at the Virginia

corporation in Evarisville, Indiana and I gmake this statement as my

free and voluntary act and understand that anything I say or refuse to

say will have no effect on my job at the company.

1. I make this statement with reference to events occuring just before the

NLRB election held at the company on December 14, 1972 about which I have

the following to say.

2. On one occassion in the restroom I was told by a fellow employee who

ie no longer with the company that if I did not eign a card or support the

union I might have something done to my car or my house and I was very

concerned about this because I live alone. Another girl in my department

informed me that she had been placed under alot of pressure too. I did

not report this to the company because I wanted to try to get along and

not cause any trouble.

3. The union put out alot of handbills during the period before the

election, but I do rembeber some of the following things in them:

a. I think they used untrue reference to support by religious

leaders particularly Dr. Billy Graham.

b. I remember the handbills said a great deal about the price

of dental chairs without saying what was deducted from the costs.

c. 1 would also like to say that there was much talk about the

bonuses certain formen were supposed to be getting.

d. I vagely remeber a reference to the fact that if the

union did not get in we might lose our pension plan.

ef I also rember some reference to che wages the employees at

Indiana archery were getting which looked like they were really highly

paid people.

4. I would also like to say that people in favor of the union pushed

getting union carxs signed on working time and I do not believe they

were supposed to be doing this.

I have read the foregoing statement and it is true to the best of ay

knowledge and belief.

fepenardl

> yhpetereman aw2z arto

Ay'tls Ne R e+ 122 Versi fb Tw .

JS A Sus thet Lo wo? tt LB Leb GE hn.

Layne Lhe blew — A rE Sn. ce tla J)

—o i aon as Real Battie an

Deer?) LL

sg

kha heJa~d sure £ byes a

ON Ag 7 Panel, JF 72.

4

= Stud L had nee

WerTAaary .

L9 id 2

ee oP)

d otha of. Becbrer, of i57/

buvewar~Lhe . a +o. Ad ar Abdi Lhy Lee

ard rithr, on

pra Ae

AOD ay a

YotL, took the Catls.

yes) As }

OA _ 4

a ae

sah

te kha hauls from

ae

Pn LOR

Aer cvs

Garam L

DP oasn

Leb PR Mat

HE NLRB. fle fob Ledbave that S loner

0 G ) 4 . ”

Avda. coth. SY .o frus d the

wd bel] Senther afro cau. :

SH wo! j > ae

_—

yt es A ae Oe Loe

Dain whe, /772

Woke 25, /976

ns Lis Tati»

P di } Q/

Let roel pruntagh

~ ?

Nofary PuBt/e.

<q eee - enaeeoaa -

| EST GAM

Atti hndianrea ‘ fee

a eens Re oe

ee Aiport ond | . ee 7 . a

: ethics dst Banal Rate 3 Box 432 Taarbog,

Ale 11630. Darn senplogdl at Be Lingual

‘mien aw wie bawrkics, on Blache f

MB Leo fe wha. bias Laid off, Saw. a Lob- -

a het mot pressured Le voG tla, cay au

_ he ret ala Ler, but Lh get . Onl

___. hafort Whe sha Te, ore ih tha on /24 of Dawr—he

entcitienale 2, ot abe 7:10 p.m. SP Atewsewhs. thot Ae)

anaes oie ade ane 9 Anodynas MO6~d Lo bro’

eave bone SP fill ant ned andut, Ze he.

(mone Mot BAD pat core D WY Ln ot

Leth :

SD ob bes fargo il all

; pny > Ste ,

ark. col, Lfinh Hah. aba idoDipad ban -

‘ate Bt Hii pot. S the S

awd thet S fous wight Bb rspuae te ole to.

10

er’ of tho Lave Laney This one.

sansa hee ape daa wale etic sg gee

aay . ‘e oa e / | ‘ | : Z

=)

halons ane thes co“

-_

meee ae ee

Pt pane ——-—

___---.-- Phebe. 2S, /776

oe, , 2°

— ee Te “a Se ee ee na

’ “’« . .

| / a OW aes q Deen he, /7702, ko Bod

e Awe )

—-—--— Ahan ashing aro? As Union on ase~db te that .

—

Abs hid addr & hefors ove hls 320

hg eg Praementian, 9%.

cia 7 NoTARY Pubere

Wey C : ~ : 5 .

Orbos. 25, /776

a BEST GOPY_ AVAILABLE

ee

bo rcerttniea Low

ot? Dor~a Karo

CAG 0 conden. Lf creuld

AAred .

Catladimne a “Chinhen°

Whe sherk. Downe Lhd Lone about tka

tie bY Od ptt pun be

| " oping fm aa Lowy

mutts Miata dan dake

shee Lr. . a ar) try ape ;

fromm Atadiing An. k pa pad partly |

atte Apacs t

objiatnr Fh nat of

arn Charl dor rot hawt Bar

fiw. A ABLe 2

qinng Lins AlAte ry Arobing

4 An

ooth, ithouwr CARrAd em CN

12

a—el SS ee tee, Sn eee

die adee sees as _- Cnartette Gro | Rams

nee 7 tare we ear Yee A

aaekaiiel 020% Day oy Daas hie 972.. - eae eer

| se _ a aerday poeere, an

ge ate A a al

ee

ee

esata, enna 7.

acon Me progeny aeetent.Z- ——— e

Peer

bhi hed ah tera Ls hifemt ons Loe

ovo ; oe $97 2

“1 7 7 Zab hak

Mefary peblsie

Wey Orne ae

O/ehanr 25, /772

13

ben /2 —-7°-72

: re Riche. Bonsit, of RR Y, Boon -

_ pL, ween dltunentt» : | ah Minvron—~,

itn Ditittnenhi, O77, 1071. bdmeer box and

Var. | And Mawr pins —y Mhece saleby -

ths Bape S

aa Sy eo ae 7

frie Lo, haa Diae Ae beg ong

red! Nar destad thot ba ole,

get gia a sib nt a ABS

nla fihthnn. ate |

— -~ ae oe Boat Ke

ke

—

inthe gplea 1 tayelh mo),

oot Dew te. >

“97 zh,

2 ; . | WCTAa y

25) /926

14

Mats

oy tandenbongs

LD, Marhaions K Clan, fms finatdoly rt

thy AD —4 or Aha

all ° B-fuo—h

TOY Ornament oe oy aod 5s

Dhithn. 25, 19-76 es

a

i)

STATE OF INDIANA ) AFFIDAVIT

)SS: asi nad

VANDERBURGH COUNTY )

William ©. Sherbrooke, being duly sworn upon his oath,

deposes and says as follows:

1. That he makes this affidavit in support of the Employer's

Objections filed in Case No. 25-RC-5155, and also states that he is

Operations Meneger at employer.

2. That throughout the election Campaign the Union, or the

I.U.E. put out a series of handbills stating that various religious

Organizations favored unionization. In this respect I wouid refer

the Board to Exhibits 4, 35 and 45 attacned to the origina) Employer’

Objections filed in this case, with parcicuiar reference +4 the

quotation from Billy Graham contained in Exnibit 45 at page ll of

that exhabit.

3. I was somewhat Surprised at the above matter, ard necause

By Curiousity was arcused I took the Opportunity to write ts Ur.

Biliy Graham concerning this matter and attached ty this affidavis

as Exhibit A is wy letter of anguary, and attached nerets as Bsr ibis

3 is the reply from Mr. 7. W. Wilson, an asevciate of Ur. Biliy

a)

"

w

i

4

al

u

0

> .

'

fi]

ss

wo

it

r

wv

at

ad

'

”

wy

wo

at

N

eynibits spear for +tnerselves,

anc they Sc indicate that the material used “yy the nile «as carer

3

Sst of somtert and was unauthorized 4% Geel words, &? a2% 4

sst.e form of risrersresentaticr

s < Maght 2150 teke tris cpereunicty e% state 2

SaP@ 2.5 Oryone from <his copscary acterize .

3

San@l5.8l cata contained is. Ex ‘ * t, 4.4, & s 6% «

oe ee -- . s Te-«- - ee - ¢

we ettactet tc s Zaei Z

EXHIBIT I

16

After much investigation, we can only conclude that this material

in fact was stolen or taken from company files. The reason for

saying this is the simple fact that the figures used by the Union,

particularly with reference to profits, are work sheet figures

which were at a later date adjusted downwards by $6,500.00. Because

of this it is clear that the information was not obtained from pub-

lished material of any kind, and in fact, the use of same was

unauthorized and misleading, in the sense that the figures are

incorrect. In addition, and although it may be of no legal con-

sequence, I must take this opportunity to state that it would seem

strange that the National Labor Relations Board would be interested

in having employees represented by a labor union that would resort

to tactics of this type and of the type mentioned in the above

paragraphs with reference to religious backing for labor unions.

It seems incredible to me that any type of relationship based on

what amounts to theft and improper conduct would be of any value.

5. Along the same lines I would refer the Board to Exhibits

22, 28, 29 and almost every handbill put out by the Union, to the

effect that local employees, meaning the employees of this employer,

have complete control over all union matters. I have attached

hereto as Exhibit C a copy of Article XIV of the I.U.E. Constitution,

indicating that this is not the case, since all strikes must be

approved by the International President or his designated repre-

sentative.

6. I should also add that the employer has already submitted

five affidavits to the National Labor Relations Board with reference

to what we believe were threats and intimidation of our employees

by Union representatives prior to the election. It would serve no

17

useful purpose for me to repeat in my affidavit what the affidavits

already submitted contain, except to observe that we believe that

were the employer given an Opportunity to have a hearing on these

Objections with the right to subpena witnesses, that the employer

would be in a position to produce much more evidence, since it is

our experience that the employees are somewhat frightened about

any statements, and since we have no means at our disposal to

compel them to give statements, we have experienced a great deal of

difficulty in obtaining information. For example, we are advised

that the Union conducted a very extensive poll of all of our

employees by telephone shortly before the election. We are also

advised that these conversations involved point-blank inquiries

into how employees would vote and that this poll took place quite

close to the election date. However, when we press employees as

to giving statements we seem to get little cooperation. Therefore,

upon the basis of what I know, we have a real need for a hearing

to bring out all the facts in this case. This would be particularly

true of our deaf employees, who have to work through an interpreter

and are quite reluctant to relate anything.

7. I would like to set to rest, however, some erroneous

data put out by the Union in several handbills, including but not

limited to Exhibits 13, 15, 18, 20, 21, 32, 37 and 52 concerning

the price we received for chairs. Our average price per chair is

$1,181, not the amounts claimed in the Union handbills. This can

be shown by the invoices attached hereto, and the cost of same

which are shown on the accounting sheet, which Ws the first page

of Exhibit D, consisting of the invoices referred to in the

preceding.

18

8. Of cour@ the handbills attached to the Employer's

original Objections are filled with data relating to the fact that

all the employees of the employer need to do is designate the

I.U.E. as their collective bargaining agent and they would auto-

matically gain substantial increases. However, it should be pointed

out that at the time many of these handbills were circulated the

small employer exception as well as the $2.75 an hour exception to

federal wage controls had not come into effect and therefore these

handbills are misleading.

9. Also it is the employer's position that misrepresentations

were made to our employees in Union handbills numbered 49 and 34,

attached to Employer's original Objections in the sense that we

feel that in light of recent law the statements made in these hand-

bills amount to an unlawful waiver of fees, conditioned on the

Union's election victory, since the entire thrust of the 50 some

handbills attached to Employer's original Objections indicate this

was the case. Certainly in handbill 34, when the Union says "You

do not pay a penny in dues until after your first contract is

signed,” the Union is saying, when we are elected you will not

have to pay until a certain date. When this is read in relation

to a later paragraph in the same handbill which states that every

worker in the plant on election date will not have to pay any

"initiation fees” it would seem clear the Union is continuing its

“bargain basement offer" on winning the election, since otherwise

the matter makes no sense.

10. Finally, I would like to make a few statements with

reference to the false impression that the Union created with

reference to the employer's position at the representation hearing

19

held on October 36, 1972. Ina series of handbills issued throughout

the campaign, including !ut not limited to the following handbills

attached to the Employer's original Objections filed herein and

numbered 19, 25 and 30, the Union charged that it was the company's

tactic to delay the election. However, as shown by the transcript

in Case No. 25-RC-5155 at pages 8 through 10 it was the Union's

position that the employees in question -- leadmen and employees

located in Loogootee, Indiana -- should not be allowed to vote.

The Board held that the employees were eligible to vote and the

company's position on this issue was affirmed. Therefore, any

Gelay caused as a result of a representation hearing wan

Gelay caused by the Union, not the employer. I can make these

statements because not only does the transcript support i te

this respect, but I was present at the hearing and in fact

testified on these issues.

Paurther affiant sayeth not.

Wahlen — Z. Neher.

Wallaam E. tnernrvire

STATE OF INDIANA

w

ita)

VANDERBUPSE COUNTY

Subscribes and sworr to before me, a MOAT Y peblic is. et Lor

Lic is, et4 fe

fc ,

Cotteg, jhe ad

ne - inns 5 tin

Putaty Fimiic #

Hy COMM. SSic= exrires:

sf-/Ve- <

20

Decem>ver 4, 1972

Dr. Billy Graham

Vinnoarolin, linnesote

Dear Dr. Grahart

1 thoucht you micht be interested in how your words and

pieture ere being used. I am curious to know whether or not

the 1.U... has your permission for this.

1 believe it is extrenoly important for you to know thet

todoy thore are many good soople who choose not to velene to

@ union.

This hancbill was distributed to erployes of the Virrinia

Corporation on tiovember 27. ihe I,U.i. is usinr this and other

leaflets in their attem;t to exganize the employes of Virrinis

Cor; oretion.

You continue to heve ry respect and gratitude for your

work.

Sincerely,

William «. sherbrooke

Operations henerfer

WES* jek

Enclosures

21

T. W. WiLson

Mowrerat, Nowrn Canora arroer

December 28, 1972

Mr. William —. Sherbrooke

Operations Manager

Virginia Corporation

5600 Upper Mt. Vernon Road

Evansville, IN 47712

Dear Mr. Sherbrooke:

Your letter of December the 4th to Dr. #11)

- . Billy Graham in Min

wes forwarded to his home here in North re Ay vty n Minneapolis

= is unfortunate that Mr. Graham {s quoted by people many times

= = their own cause. This statement attributes ts or. Gratan

s en completely out of its context and was uted without nis

permission or knowledge at all.

I'm so sorry.

Thank you very much for your letter.

Most sincere! Ly

& A phn»

,

Tr ¥. wilsor

Associate to Billy Greren

Twa: S=

22

COneEeiELION

INTERNATIONAL UNION

ELECTI.ICAL, RADIO

6 MACHITE V/ORKERS

AFL-CIO-CLC

(As Amended January 1, 1969)

PAUL JENNINGS

ARTICLE XIV

Strikes and Collective Gargelal=g

Agreemonis

Section A. Each Local sh=!! send to

the President of the Icternational Union

a copy of any notice to an employer ter-

minating or mo ifyizg a collective bar-

gaining agreement. Each Local skal,

whenever a strike is contemplatzd, noiify

the President of the impending strike in

sufficient time to etiord the President or

his designated representative an oppor-

tunity to adjust the dispute. No strike

shall be called without the prior autho--

zation of the President or his designer

e 4

7

’

ae PT

; , 4

ate}

’ ESE we 7-0-4

; '

¢--—---

A eet eee

Lares

wri

.

Soe © 5

i i

———+-+-+ t+ }

' ' i

-—— - 4-9-0 > 8 | ~~

i

a

oare H

*eeROVLO oF

Somme

awit “4

—' ; ++ on i

ri

'

a oe

om |

+ ©

rasa d | Li | uJ

aaa

wali

+ + o-oo

24

ARCINV

VIRG a i‘. CORPORATION

4TER CENTAL SUPPLY CORF.

MAIN SIiREET

KENSACK, NEWYERSEY 7601

! ‘ce.

1/15 h/30

uo73e5 EY |

OESCMIFTION

24/72 4226 1S

‘ec

1-V62 CHAIR, SPLIT BACK, ARTICULATING

HEADREST

JADE GREEN NAUGARYCE

SER. NO. V-4ESI

2-872 BASE

SER. NO. 8-2225

FOR DR, DOHERTY

INVOICE

$600 UPPER MT. VERNON RO

EVANSVILLE, INDIANA 47712

612

423.6469

wonvcr O4226

ao." ~G

EASTER CXFRESS B/i 6762 __

ermce ¢ sc amount

2170.00 35% 1410.50

|

INCL.. .00

"o

ERSITY OF ILLINOIS

“GE OF DENTISTRY

2. PAULINA RECEIVING PLATFORM

25

VI R G | N iA CORPORATION

PHASE |

aGO, ILLINOIS 60612

P Te

. SASLOW COMPANY, NC,

“ORTH ORLEANS

AGO, ILLINOIS 60610

———— + ee

INVOICE

5600 UPPER MT. VERNON RO

EVANSVULLLE

INDIANA 47712

- 423-6469

INVOICE

ro---—_—— — — .

wmeer 03949

a ~~

2/22. _ so C 097934 1/15 N/30__| CENTPAL IA _ B/t 6602 __ fe:

Le ae — .. aa: +> a

1-V62 ss CHAIR, SPLIT BACK, ARTICULATING

HEADREST ‘ |

SE eas

| \TTACHED LIST FOR COLORS AND SERIAL

WUMBERS | 1162.00) | 7785u.0¢

- 1*V62 | LESS INSTALLATION DISCOUNT - 60.00

jeer UNIT | 60.00) | 4020 . OC

‘Seeenion HEADREST W/SLIDE | 85.00, | 1275.00

| | | 75109,00

GEE ATTACHED LIST PCR REPLACEMENT PANTS ._! | te

yA \ é ; ~ awh =. ds heed afer — | | - - |

$HIESED NO CHARGE hy ry + | | 7¥887% /

| Upeeee

: Cr, No , ? a.

; — <a bel

4 tite

26

VIRGINIA

y OF MLINOIS

Ege DENTISTRY PHASE 1

S, PAULINA RECEIVING PLATFORM

“AGO, ILLINOIS 60612

_. SASLOW COMPANY, NC.

NORTH ORLEANS

~AGO, ILL INOIS 60610

a T

vee . c rN Ud Soded _cus’ ro §8O

are . |

OL sce PTION

1-V62 CHAIR, SPLIT BACK, ART LCULAT ING

rICACREST

WITH B-72

BASE

SEE ATTACHED LIST FOR COLORS AND SERIAL

NUMBERS

, UNIT

lsu. t u97914 a 1/15. N30

LESS INSTALLATICN DISCOUNT - 60,00 PER

INVOICE

CORPORATION

$600 UPPER MT VERNON RO

EVANSVILLE, INDIANA 47712

ei2 . 423-6489

nese c3761

routs ne

‘m —

cee een

1162.00,

w

@

oe

~

cS

=

oS

oS

60. 00;

27

INVOICE

ee

CORPORATION

$600 UPPER MT VERNON HO

sala VIRGH SIA

ERSITY cr ILLINOIS VA ' INDIANA 4 '

EGEOF DENTISTRY FHASE I wr a

5. PAULIRA RECEIVING PLATFORM

“AGO, ILLINOIS 60612

> TO

-. SASLOW COMPANY, NC.

NORTH ORLEANS

ZAGO, ILLINOIS 60610

Iinvorce

weer 03670

are VinvOce wo cust ND” tant cust #0 NO me ees sa eouTiKe

T1272. 3670. _ 125. ¢ 97914 4/15 u/30- rt _ CENTRALIA. B/L 6502

=. SS tt

i-V62. ss CHAT, SPLIT BACK, ARTICULATING | |

HEADREST

- WITH 8-72 BASE |

SEE ATTACHED LIST FOR COLORS AND SERIAL |

NUAIBERS 17€2,00 976UE .CU

1-V62 LESS INSTALLATICN DISCOUNT - 60.09 PER

UNIT , 60,00, SUMO UU:

| 92568 U0

245 OF

G7 fz 7

t-4' Jy ’

R27 i

: d = . = 74

VIRGIN.

“GE, OF OF TIstat. FHASE, I

a fi (

UL Lhe eying FLAT FOR

to, ILLINOIS 60612

oath CRLEANS

—60, ILLINOIS 62610

135 .C G375i4

1/15 N/30

otsc error

28

INVOICE

CORPORATION

$400 UPR MT. VERNON RO

EVANSVILLE, INDIANA 47712

O12 . 423.6489

INVOICE

NUMBER 03562

caus Roun»

"CENTRALIA 6/4 672

} rece crec auounrt

1-V52. ss CHAIR, SPLIT BACK, ARTICULATING |

HEADREST

WITH BASE

FEOO - 2)

ADULT - 64

fs Le

1-V62 LESS INSTALLATION CISCOUNT + 60,00 PER

UNIT

pee ATTACHED LIST FOR COLORS AND SERIAL

| 1162.00 | 97608 ..0

50480 ,00-

| 60,00

92568 . (10

VERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA

FH ROOM

29

INVOICE

VI RG | N lA CORPORATION

$600 UPPER MT VERNON HU

EVANSVILLE INDIANA 47712

* To

tar. L bon Ar SUEZ,

..€. SCKOOL OF DENTISTRY B12 423-0489

DENTAL ENUCATION &0G.

PEL HILL, N.C, 27514

*MPSON DENTAL CO., GREENSBORO, NC.

CHURCH ST.

-ENSBORO, N.C, 27401

invoice

wwoer 04569

pare _[invo 2 vo ever so [rene T ever #0 so” ‘. ew +s

‘18/72, 4560 Ss) BID 591 3/15 N/3. ROADWAY EXPULSS 64 é Hi)

vee 50 510, 7899) _ or rece t som"

tv

uw

-7* 1*V61

> —

_--o a ee

1-V61 CHAIR, SPLIT BACK, STANDARD HEADREST

Biecatne BLLe NALS. rare

SER. NO. V-4832

THROUGH V-4863 1291.06 41212 v3

2-872 BASE IMCL... er

1*V61 CHAIR, SPLIT BACK, STANDAPD HEADREST

OC+12 SEASAND KA

SER, KO. V-4ESY

THROUSH V-4897, v-Su51 1291.0" WS1ES.

2-B72.—s BASE INCL. . we

“BASE MUMSERS AS FOLL

Bese Tai on 3353° BS b 50, B-2339, B-234),

B-2343, B-2349, 28-2352, B-2355, 6-2555,

B-236% THRU B-2416

LESS INSTALLATION DISCOUNT © 110.tss FER

CHAIR

IN This PLANT we HAVEN'T HAD To LAY Otte WORKER wi YEARS!

Today is Election Day. All over our great nation American

citizens are taking advantages of their right to vote.

Voting is an American Tradition.

In the near future you will have an opportunity to decide

ancther important issue affecting your life in the American

Tradition, That will be when the NLRB conducts your secret-ballot

election on Union Representation,

The way you vote in your NLRB election will determine if you

will continue to practice the American Tradition of voting on

-*

matters affecting vour job,

~ I- 2 -ee - ee e 27° wS'6 2.e3/% afew fe on a - - a

If vou listen to the Company and vote against your Union, Owt sf vos. I2's sleeves "MC22°* xe oS Wo, GSTE “hE BOtt enges*s

the } ew ° = se the las? : a..° : - —=> So BA°ter “te Wat” sos are Get? >

the Casat’d V ¢ av be tne 4as* 2 Set, st "ever seems 2%: =e #--.3° a7 -*

anythicg sfenctiss vour fob, The Conpany will simp Y go on being ~~

= rs > a ra. 4 a= ve ee.

your eos A TRY ++ using its DICTATORIAL POWER to 33 YOu So8" yourself ars get s.t &@ Little esre. B-4 war 2 .

decide everyinang tor you. 238 sav? dint 2e. : a* met tre

On the ether hand, when you vote for your Union you are voting Tat’s sight << "MORE: *

to decide veur waces, benefits and working conditions in the

traditicral Avericar way of voting and letting the majority rule. St ise’: that wav is 3 Uric - act mere 2 ‘

<a - i rn 2 oe Se yest cor tsece

en the TLE Beess <°* Sisses frm ceracci-y ttre art cere 4.. ts

an tHe Ave ee -2ne = 4a* .% e754, 20204 a $3.2 as rise &e ‘ - ”

— , SO. 55-32 525es 2 74.> 2 aire 5507 RP CA 7

You VOTE tc decide the centract you want! $.72_é. - Ss .

You VOTE ts select your Union Officers! of wos ere sizes sf *-@ 8255 aleevs wactics WEE. sete or8ee a

1 ; "e@pctiate t-@ tc-tratt srtte-+.-- hae” Bae +l

You VTE to select your Stewards! 3OO%.°5 °C Serars : “.* “ " 7 ,

** > ¢

‘ ; . i ~Tr oe a a maectietan an

eS Ss I sisbod SP Es eRe Sei INTERNATIONAL SOM OF RecTeIceL

RADIS 4 MATHIOTE WORKERS. AFL Os

sae

We-ari cro

In the IVE, you and your fellow Members run your Union.

You select your Union leaders the American Way, in secret-

ballot elections.

You have a right to be a candidate or support the candidate

of your choice for any of the offices in your Union, Here ar?

some of those*offices:

PRESIDENT -- Your Local Union President has the ~

responsivility of serving as chairman of your Union

meetings ana carrying out the posscies you an3 your

fellow Members elect *° estabiisn at those meetings.

3 y Vi i he job of

VICE PRESIDENT -- Your Vice President has the

assisting the President in performing his duties and

taking his or her place in the event the President

ie absent because of illness of some other reason.

TREASURER -- Your Treasurer takes care of your Local

unds.

RECORDING 5S

SECRETARY -- Your Recording Secretary keeps a

writtei recor

d of your meetings and Local corresponcence.

TRUSTEES -- Every Local has Trustees who serve 4s the

“watchaogs” over your Union's property and funds.

STEWARDS -- Your Stewerd serves in a capacity similar

to the policeman on a beat. His job is to see to it

that the Company doesn't violate your contract rights.

When it comes tire to negotiate a new contract, you elect your

NECOCTIAT LN ““ITTSE, You may wish to be a candidate tos tnis

import At ¢ -iittee -- it’s your right if you want to exercise

it.

You and your fellow Merbers must approve of the contract

cropesal your Negotiatina Committee presents fo tne Comsany. And

YOU AND Pei Lod MEMsERS MUST APP=CVE OF YOUR CONTRACT BEFORE

3g°S $ Ev

Cor hire propaganda artists who rave about "Union

Bosses” in their scare letters.

As you can see, you are the “toss” of your Union when you

belona to the IVE -- tel. t° ‘ompany to quit running you

down when it starts ta*king sebout “Urior Bosses.”

33

In the IVE, you and your fellow workers decide the gains you want

to achieve in your negotiations.

Throughout the yr process, you make the decisions

by majority vote. UE M R, OFFICIAL OR R=EPRESENTATI

’ **

The IVE will assign EXPERIENCED NEGOTIATORS and a in

such fields as insurance, pensions ana job evaluation to ASSIST

your Negotiating Committee.

That's their role -- ASSIST! They do not “boss" or vote on

n u_make.

You elect your Negotiating Committee. It will be composed

of Members from your plant only. If you want to be a Member of

ge Negotiating Committee, you have the right to be a candidate

n the election.

Here are a few examples of situations that could come up as

you negotiate your IVE contract:

You and your fellow Members decide that you need three

more paid holidays in order to catch you up with what the

Company can afford. Which three? New Year's Eve? Good

Friday? Christmas Eve? The Day after Thanksgiving?

Those are all paid holidays that were won years ago for

thousands of IVE Members. Other IVE contracts provide

for the worker to get his Birthday off with pay. Some

others provide for Veterans Day. Any way you go at it,

you and your fellow workers will decide the paid holidays

you want to negotiate into your contract.

The Company starts giving your Negotiating Committee

a lot of doubletalk on the pension plan you propose.

The IVE EXPERT on pensions is called in to helo your

committee get the discussions back on 4 sensivle basis.

The Company's negotiator tries to pull a slick one on your

committee, saying a certain inadequate Company proposal

is about standard in most contracts. Here the EXPERLEICED

NEGOTIATOR assisting your committee is valuable Cecause

he knows better.

Last, but not least, YOU AND YOUR FELLOW WORKERS MUST APPROVE OF

YOUR CONTRACT WITH YOUR VWiE> LS siGiED.

“ae

~— he

That's how you negotiate your contract.

So who's the “boss”?

A company's financial health is measured by the percentage of

clear profits it makes on sales. Im 1971, America’s top 500

industrial corporations made a clear profit of 3.8% on their

sales. That's clear profit, after all taxes, Big Shot salaries

and bonuses -- after everything.

Here are the percentages of profits made by some of the

giants of American industry:

General Motors .... 6.8% General Mills ..... 3.9%

Shek Gbl .cccccccse 6.3 BOMEAGA ccccoccces ~- 6.1

PONGR cccsccecceses >. 8 Inland Container .. 2.4

Whirlpool .......... 4.0 General Electric .. 5.0

NOW GET THIS! For the year ending July 31, 1972, Virginia Corp-

ration had Sales of $2,480,700 and a clear profit of $352,108

after paying everything -- meterials, wages, salesmen's commissions,

Big Shot salaries and bonuses, taxes and anything else it spent

money for.

R PROFIT OF 14.2% IN COMPARISON TO THE 3.8%

THAT'S A CLEA S

R AMERICA'S TOP 500 CORPORATIONS!!!

f

AVERAGE PROFIT F

Ee

=

a

&

The financial success of Virginia Corporation is nothing less

than amazing. It is also nothine less than amazing that an outfit

so successful and m3ki such fantastic profits on its sales could

>

,

think so little of its workers.

‘ha

By every measure applied to a company,

Virginia Corporation comes out at the very top.

Except one -- that is the cheap level

of wages and benefits paid to the workers

who are making it such an amazing success.

The money is there -- THE IVE HAS MANAGED

TO OBTAIN THE FACTS AND FIGURES TO PROVE IT! 7

4 » | a » a j

OW, vou Pan Jive yourself 3s cnance | ‘

to get your share | |

‘

s

+ "yes" i sur ry: x

. VO.E | ry nr i | 4 .

€eieé > Vv i t ; ;

;

Our > to 4 e xs \ / \

A23 ; ben 3 \

35

ME WT UE Erszeras

‘so <* - tim s.e d avy *

ae

Ck «8 TT TA

oe SCMDZCLs COS SE MAKI 44.54 AN

baie NOS £3 & PAINTIR. CCNTECLS DO NOP APPLY TO

Iie 500, wos S \PORATION

= e Sana e712 | (91% 36a

BOOK.

November 29, 1972

Dear Employee:

I think most of you know the history of Virginia's growth and the many

financial problems we had seetimy payrolls, getting machinery, and pay-

ing our suppliers. Even so durin, the past four years, (since the fire)

we have added fringe benefits and Taises as we could afford thea.

Not until we were paid for the hig college order in September, did we

have enough money to safely foresee operating our plant during smal! re-

cessions or a decline in sales. In fact the company didn't have enough

money to pay for all of the machines in our plant and in order to get

them, I paid for many with my own money.

R

7

«

‘a

Think of the numerous raises you got and you'll agree your company was

: “7 y

trying to upgrade your pay whenever it could. As we progressed, so did —

you, even during Phase Two, we gave raises to the limits in effect. We ‘ O

are still under Phase Two and I wonder how the Union would violate that ' +P

J -* »*

ar )

Since July, the Pnion —_— Pod

in on your steacy exp)

Would you like to have DESPITE ALL THE MONEY PILED UP

cisions affectirg your BY LAST JULY -- A 77% INCREASE

J IN COMPANY WOXTH SINCE DECE'SE 71

We've come a 1 way @-- YO WESEB PCRCED TO GO ANCTHER

ference both you and t SUMMER WITHCQUT A VACTION. '3. PRITZ

hard before voting or MUST HAVE A FROG IN HIS POCKET dHEN

your freedom of Mirect HE SavS "WB"

through steward.

Don't you think fyour best bet is with a management that has proven its

concern for you .and has now firmly established the company as a reliable

supplier of quakity dental chairs and stools.

You'll fare beter voting NO!!

Cordially yours,

ALL Wa3ES UiDE2 $2.75 AN QUE ARE

BXOEMP? FECH awe serBeCS as ?Cz

TECSB CVEZ 32.7

PCS atD wCN 2alSEs WAY CVEE THE 5.5%

PES YEak GUILiuriS

5, THE IVE HAS PCUSHT LE. E. Fritz, President

Sa e565 ae

—_ aes Pe me Sta ste se (A SSE UFCCL

SSS*SLE8 KAITIG $32.48 AT THE Stnet

-

—— ee oe we

PECMCTICNS AID ELACHIND TOP BRATZ PCH

JCB CLASSIPITATIC.’) LD PEITZ CCULD

HAVE LOM THE Sale PO YOU 7?" 2 Po LLY

en SESS

rAMIE TC;

ANG HAS @1,

f he

Of all the amazing facts and figures t

IUE has obtained on Virginia Corporation's

success, these are the ones that stand

out the most.

The value of the common ‘stock invest-

ment in the Company is listed as

$26,500.

That's the total value of all the

stock.

With all the stock valued at just

$26,500, the Company made $352,108

during the one-year period ending on

July 31, 1972.

-- after

Don't you agree that a clear profit +

taxes er everything -- of $352,108 on a

stock investment of $26,500 is truly

F-A-N-T-A-S-T-I-C!!!1

ious year -- no

2,000 clear profit was way up from the prev

he eee profit for the present will be even more fantastic.

Union.

i fits are good news for you -- if you win your

Tie CONEY fS THERE! This means that your Union can peupesete See:

good wages ana benefits and the Company can still make huge p

on that $26,500 worth of stock.

$ tastic success will

ecord has proven that the Company's fan

a oe until you get your Union, The wages and oe

Virginia Corporation are at the very bottom of the list o va

i ake for

lants. The huge profits, salaries and bonuses you m

these ahs run this Company should place you at the top of that list.

THE MONEY IS THERE!

GIVE YOURSELF A CHANCE TO GET YOUR SHARE!

ia \

(ti) f

WY GY Uist

.

\ AU rea

PY | )

GEST COPY ANMABLE |

Small plant owners -- such as Mr. Ed Fritz -- like to use the size

od ae plants as a handy excuse for paying cheap wages and

enefits,

However, common sense will tell you that the PROFIT PER

EMPLOYEE is much more important than plant size when you determine

whether a company is paying its workers what i+ can afford,

When it comes to profit per employee, Virginia Corporation

stands right up at the top of the list. Here is a comparison of

the Virginia Corporation's profit per employee and some of the

profits big corporations are making on their employees.

CORPORATION CLEAR PROFIT EMPLOYEES AVERAGE PER YR,

General Motors $1,935,709 ,000 773,352 $2,504

Whirlpool 50,387,000 25 ,687 1,961

General Mills 43,856,000 32,556 1,349

General Electric 471,800,000 363 , 000 1,025

Swift 34 ,094 ,000 34,900 977

VIRGINIA CORPORATION 352,108 80 4,401

Note -- Virginia Corporation figures are from financial statement

obtained from the IVE. All others are from the May 1972

tssue of Fortune magazine.

As these facts and figures prove, Virginia Corporation is in a

better financial condition for providing its employees a good raise

than Whirlpool -- or General Motors for that matter.

Of course, that's what you would expect when you consider that

Whirlpool is paying its workers way over four dollars an hour to

build refrigerators for prices that start at about $200 -- while

Virginia Corporation gets that much for some stools and the price

of a small auto for its chairs.

The money is there!

Mr, Ed, Fritz can't show you a plant in Evansville that's in

better shape to sit down with its workers‘ negotiating committee

and provide a contract that pays high wages, good benefits and

fair working conditions.

Give yourself a chance to get your fair share of the Company's

amazing profits -- VOTE "YéS"!

IUE

LTS IT. L\ RV f 7

| VOLE MMEALFLCIO

38

mr

|

OU

The $352,108.00 CLEAh PRCFIT racked up by

Virginia Corporation in the year

ending July 31, 1972 is so huge that

it has to be compared to the

profits uade by other corporations

in order to grasp the full

Bignificance of tne snmount. of zoney

the Company is caking while holding

teed wages down st the bottom of the

ist.

For example, Kaiser Steel -- with ote

employees -- cleared $355,000 in 1y7l.

That's right. After all that poor-mouthing and outright lying about

not being able to pay you the wages and benefits you need and deserve

-- we learn that Virginia came within $3,900 of making a8 quoh in a

year a8 Kaiser Steel wita 12,055 employees!

That just about takes the cake!

And don't forget -- that $352,109 was clear ofter everything -- Big

Shot salaries and bonuses, aepreciation on equipment «.- the whole

works, (There is no telling how quoh the Big Shots raked off the

top.)

It's aleo after all taxes and this is important because your pay and

raises come out of gros a bo e . When Virginia or any

other profit-making coupany gives a raise, only pert of it comes out

of the clear profit -- the rest comes out of the taxes the company

would otherwise pay.

In 1971, American corporations had a gross profit of $83 million and

paid taxeo (Federal, state, eto.) of $37 million. This amounts to

eooh dollar of gross profit breaking down into 55 cents clear profit

and 45 cente taxes, So, on the average, every dollar in additional

wagee only takes 55 oents from a oorporaticn's Oleear profit.

A 50¢ hourly raise lest year would have cost Virginia $1,000 ver year,

os person i about $20, 000 out of tts grose rofites and S48, 000 out

of that $352,108 clear profit. THIS WCULD H.VE LEFT A CLEAR PROFIT

OF $308,000 arTEn YIV13 EVERY MAN aND WOMEN AT VIHGINIA A PIPTY-CENT

RAISE FOR THE BNTIAE YEAR,

Vor ae a> iS DOTS ance

39

Why don't those union handbills brag about “The Union through N.L.R.B. regu-

lations has stopped the company from giving any more benefits or promises of

wage increases curing our union organization drive.” This is what the unions

have done as printed in N.L.R.B. reg. 8, paragraph (c).

4

—S — oO ———

You can help the IVE nail down the above Company whopper which

appeared in a Company handout dated December 4,

Go to the officiel election notice the NLBB hes required

tne Company to post in the plant and look at the "RIGHTS OF

BMPLCYEES* section on the right-hend side, About half wey down

Ou will read that it is a violation when a party capebdle of

Oing so is guilty of

*Proaiging or granting prozotions, pay raises, or

other benefits, to JPLUENCE en employee's vote...*

The key word is "ID ice.*° Wheat it toile down to is tnie:

ng can't BE aD enployee with a reilee, prosotion, or

nefrit.

There is nothing to keep e Compeny from giving its exzoloyees

@ reise or other benefit $ be. JE tne Virginie

Corporation nec scnedulec @ generesl reise curing tne election

Pio@, it couls go anes? end give it to you. jf the Virginie

orporetion nas e policy cf soving peocle up to tne top say for

e@eech Classification, it cen cerry out tnat pelicy sy giving you

@ reise to tne top gow. ff you ere orossted, tne Cospeny cas 20

ehead and give you tne raise thet @noul¢d come with tne promotions.

This Cospany stteapt to blaze tre NLHB reguletions tnat

protect you from losing elections secause some *eters ere crisced

with reises is juet tne leteet leme excuse it nas offeret for tne

Cheap weges it pays.

gemesber bow the Company ooor soutnet ent *)

La

efforé to pay sore? Tne IVE enct t-st one fon sy &

lebdor cost end tren isfersing you adtst tre $362,.°°

v @ . . ¢

*

Ané ten, it tr

a of tne Bvenseilie iiet. 36 tne UB

TR egein ee Seising you 2 Jou

21806 wo starting wit toe Sect tnat

- .

Se akB LARSPT Pat’ nde 20M:

ooo

7?

neé ts Scose sece wht!

w\r to of

.

Weet ezSuse ili tne Seapesy scoc< sp next?

You sem cet i: won't se tne resl reason yrse eezen o2.4

sesel:te are 6c icw 0 _ ZE2n SE YO SK PA

Zour °YES® were will txve sare sf tnat eitestion trie

Tharetey scornisg!

THE CAT'S OUT CF THE BAG!

The IVE hes the documents to prove that Virginia Corporation

is enjoying fantastico success while peying you the cheapest of

wages and benefits.

The IUB aleo hae the full text of the wage control laws and

Girectives whioh prove the Cornany hasn't been telling the truth

about giving you all the raises sllowed,

Those dooumente will be available for your personal

inspection at your IUB Meeting to be held this Wednesday at the

Central Lebor Temple -- 210 North Pulton. (Meetings are set for

right after work and again eat 7 p.s. Br a friend or relative

with you if you wish, everyone is welcome.

Win or lose, the IVE is not going imitate Mr. Ed Pritz's

gutter campaign of mudslinging and whoppere. However, it is

obvious thet notning will inspire him to conduct nis ant-Union

Cemtpaign on a higner level -- not even the nugerous times the

IUB hee caught hic telling those whoppers,.

The initiation fee lie orovidee a good example. Over and

over, the IVE has exolninea that you will pay NO initiation fee.

Ca November 28 the IVB devoted an entire leaflet to the truth

about initiation fees and dues,

And you mow what hapoened -- Mr. Pritz came right back in

hie Decenber 4 letter with the @ame old whopper!

It will be impossible to keep up with all of those whopoers

trying to @care you out of your VUpiog between now and Thursday.

SQ CONSIDEK THE SOURCE Alb HOw CPTEN HE HAS BE AUGHT.

The IVE belicves that the cen and wocen at Virginia have

the intelligence to make their decision after lL oking at tne facts

end figures. we will continue -- in tnese last few days <-- to

pregent those facte and figures,

g

All Virginia workers are reminded to attend

their last IUB Meetings to be held before

your eleotion.

Same place -- Central Labor Temple at 210

North Pulton -- that's between

Preanklin and Illinois.

Bring any friend or relative you wish. Bvery-

one is weloome,

REMEMBER AT THESE MEETINGS, THE IVE WILL

gHOW YOU TES DocuUlgNTs PROVING

THE PACTS THE IVE BAS TOLD YoU

ABOUT THE COMPANY'S PINANCIAL

CONDITION AND OTHER ISSUES

SBE XOU AT XOQUR MEETING!

Throughout your organiz Grive the Company has been s "The

Union can't get you more than Virginia Corporation oan srresd..

Of course, the Company — y @ 114 of secrecy on its fantastico

rofits while poor-mouthing orying all the way to the bank. Ar.

Pritz (while handing the Big Shots those whopping bonuses) even

had the gall to say he was having trouble meeting the payroll!

Then the IE came up with the facts and told you the truth about

Virginia Corporation's huge profits.

apn aL set -- and the Company doesn't mow how to explein

away ite cheap wages and benefits while making more money per worker

than any Bvansville employer it oan name.

A fifty-oent reise would give you and your family

another $1,000 per year to buy the things you need but

must do without because of the cheap wages Virginia pays.

A fifty-oent raise for 30 workers would cost the

e+ ey! about $80,000 out of jts gross profit -- not that

$352,108 olear profit, The average corporation pays about

45% of ite grose profite in taxes, leaving 55% clear.

This means that out of that $80,000, Virginie would

ay $36,000 lees in taxes -- and take 344, 000 out that

See Ste Rae aad riet,

about $ OPIT APT" -

GIVINO EVEAY WOKKEE A 50¢ BAisul " n N74

oI 3 \ 3°

The money is there. Your vote ' Lj | ; \

will determine if you give yourself 7 yy, a7 i a 4

@ charce to get your share,