# Petition — Chayes Virginia Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_1361%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1976 - **Citation:** 423 U.S. 1087 ## Text 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. /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 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. 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 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. ; — 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 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 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, --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_1361%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.