Appendix — Textile Workers Union v. Schwarzenbach-Huber Co.

Supreme Court brief1969

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

. . . .

‘

, . ! .

e ‘ ? ‘

; P A ~ i

. : ‘ ;

. - ; ;

cL § ¢ i

‘ i) F

3 : \ « “

rs 3 r } ‘ ; ;

- Pt ,

‘ .

; ’

; :

, .

P “< . ,’ ®

ar . ? ;

. ® ‘ ;

a e

; s

; .

e .

—— .

- .

. . 2

os s : f

yews j= ee Ae

. . 2 .

‘ v* 5

* 4

: c

o - : .

‘ . \ > :

. °

S a) ,

: ‘

’ ; :

} .

‘

‘ . .

s .

. e 7

? > e

. oO ° y

n ‘

| e 4 t .

* . , ;

A, Y 4 :

. ‘ / :

z F : “ '

;

| 2 ° -

. 2

P ‘

;

= ‘

° ‘

IRREME COURT. Us &

‘IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1968-1969

‘

7 | . | ioe

TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,

Petitioner,

THE SCHWARTZENBACH-HUBER COMPANY,

and |

: | NATIONAL LABOB RELATIONS BOARD,

_ Respondents.

APPENDIX

——

Patricia EK, Hames

JorL Ronatp Ax

Attorneys for Petitioner

Textile. Workers Union

of America, AFL-CIO

99 University Place _

_ New York, New York 10003

. ” j ; ,

° ,

- .

. ec

; °

: r

ie . *

Ps “

. -

- . 4

< . “

é = ’

j ,

2 .

; ’

’ ~ e

: ‘

j .

fe ‘ . ‘ 7

: °

« a : :

. . :

‘ e :

r: .

: >

* -

S ‘

we ®

- ¢ e

S a

. °

° >

< ? .

. 2 }

3 °

’

, &

H oy -

. >

‘ ‘

$ 3 ;

, .

’

$a,

har

i .

<TABLE OF CONTENTS

: | . “PAGE

Opinion of the Second Cireuit :," oe 28, roe aaa Aerie,

° Sh : i y a

| \e nat f eee

National Labor Relations Board Decision and’Order 75a

Trial Examiner’s Decision .................. ee eo eee

National Labor Relations Act | .°...2es......... ene

\ :

. ® e

; | j

° se

‘ | ee

. é } |

. E ay ” meyer erty sate -

FUND sr sent ae

‘oe | .

v6 :

. ram ‘ ~—,

/ :

s @

7 °

, . : |

- \

°. |

ae |

, |

) | :

. a

- | ,

“ , . if |

a ; |

. |

: -

- |

fe :

e .

. ., |

. | | |

7 B ;

.° ,:

2 Py : | |

; r .

é : . |

= on

® ee

hee! |

wn o\ ; | | |

. XS : |

. 8 : |

é 7 }

Ye t

* : ‘ |

Pe : }

‘

APPENDIX

Opinion of the Second Circuit -

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

* For tHe Seconp Circurr

No. 130_September Term, 1968.

-(adgnea Nov ember 8,- 1968 © Decided March 5, 1969,

Docket No. 32286

eo.

THE ScuwanzenBacu- Huser Company,

Pelitioner,

J —vV.— ’

CY ‘.

Nationa Lasor Retations Boarp,

¥ Respondent,

and

TextTiLe Workers Union or America, AFL-CIO, .

Te ‘ Intervenor.

ao.

Be f ore: | fie

fa Mepina- and Waxiensiaar. Circuit Judges,

and LevEt, Distriet Judge.*

ee.

. 2

Petition for review and cross-petition for enforcement

of an order of the National Labor Relations Board.

Schwarzenbach-Huber Company petitions to review and

set aside an order of the National_Labor Relations ‘Board

finding the Company in violatid: Sections 8(a)(1)(2).

and (5) of the National La ations Act, as amended,

yi Of the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion of the Second Circuit

U. S. C., Sections 158(a)(1)(2) and (5), Setting aside —

‘representation election, and directing the Company to ~

\ bargain with the Union. Tle Board eross-petitiois for en-

— foreement. The decision and order of the Board are. re-

ported at 170 N. L. R. 3. No. 176 (April 17, 1968).

x s- Petition’ to r®&iew granted: crogs-petition for enforee-

ment granted in part and denied in, part.

Marsitan. C. BDercer, New York, N. Y. (Robert

Abelow and Weii, Gotshal & Manges, New

York, N. ¥., on the brief), jor petitioner.

_Ricuarp N. Cuarsax, Attorney, National Labor

Nelations Board, Washington, D. C. (Ar-

nold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. f

Manoli, As<ociate General Counsel, reel

Mallet-Prevost, Assistant General Counsel,

and Lawrence M. Joseph, Attorney, Na-

tional Labor Relations Doar, Washington,

~D. C., on the brief), for respondent.

Daniev B. Jorpax, New York, N. Y. (Cornelius

J. Collins, Jr., New York, N. Y., on the

brief), for intervchor.

Meprna, Circuit’ Judge:

Schwarzenbach-Huber Company, a textile manufacturing

concern with its principal piace of business in New. York

City, petitions this Court to review and set aside an order

of the National Labor Relations Board and the Board

eross-petitions for enforcement. —

This case presents a sQ\uence of events in a familiar

pattern. The Textile Workers Union of America AFL-CIO .

——

3a .

Opinion of the Second ou

used what is now commonly called the “representation”

eard method of obtaining the support of a majority of the

production and maintenance workers in the Company’s

Juniata plant in Altoona, Pennsylvania. Claiming to have

cards signed by a majority of the workers in the unit, the

' Union by letter of February 9, 1967 demanded a recogni-

tion of the Union and immediate collective bargaining. On

February 13, 1967 the Union filed a petition for an election.

On February 14, 1967 the Company by letter expressed its

doubt that the Union represented “most or many” of its

employees in the unit. The letter also joined in the Union’s

request for an election. On March 16, 1967 the election was

held and the Union lost by a substantial margin. There-

after proceedings were instituted by the Union to set the

election aside,.to establish various alleged unfair labor

practices by the Company and to order the Company, With-

out any new election, to bargain with the Union, These

proceedings were consolidated ; and, affer a hearing and

findings by the Trial Examiner, the Board set the election

aside, held the Company's doubt that the Union had a ma-

jority was not a good faith doubt, sustained in toto all the

claims of unfair labor practices; and, finally, on the ground

that the unfair labor practices were so outrageous and

pervasive as to dissipate the Union's majority prior to the

election and that they made any new election in the fore-

seeable future impracticable, the Board ordered the Com-

pany to bargain with the Union.

We hold that neither on February 9th nor at any time

prior to February 14th did the Union have in its posses-

sion valid cards signed by a majority of its production and

maintenance employees, We set aside as not supported by

‘substantial evidence on the record as a whole the finding

that the Company’s doubt that the Union had in its pos-

session cards signed by a majority of its production and

Tew SD >

Opinion of the Second Circuit

maintenance enfployees was not a claim made in good faith.

We sustain the Board's finding of two of the’alleged unfair

labor practices. As tothe other findings of allege? unfair

labor practices, we set them aside and refuse enforceme nt

on the ground that such findings of unfair labor practices .

are not supperted by substantial evidence on the-record as

a whole. We set aside and refuse to enforce the bargain-

ing order as the Union did not have a majority, as the

Company’s doubt that the Union had a majority, was made

in good faith and as the making of a bargaining order

under the-cireumstances of this case would clearly not

effectuate the purposes of the Act. 3

Part I

The Bargaining. Order.

The propricty of enforcing an order to bargain after

a union has lost a representation election depends on the

resolution of three questions: (1) whether the Union in

fact iad a majority; (2) whether the employer refised to

bargin because of a good faith doubt of suely majority,

if thé Union had a majority; (3) Whether on all the facts’

of the election situation a bargaining order is an appro-

priate rewedy for enforcing the policy of -the National

Labor Relations Act.

—_ . :

Did the Union Have a Majority?

The initial inquiry must, of course, relate to the number

of employees in fhe unit. The Trial Examiner, all of whose

findings were adopted by the Board, finds the unit was

composed of 197 employees. This included Joan laia and

-, “ho a

‘

: 5a

Opinion of the Second Circuit

Ruby Evans, to the inclusion of whom, says the Trial Ix-

aminer, the General Counsel “takes no serious exceptions.”

Indeed, there was no basis for any objection whatever, as

these two women were classified as weavers, they spent

most of their time on the floor operating the looms and

only a part of their time teaching the others how to operate |

the looms: The name of Marjorie’ Krise is apparently

omitted, as her name “does not appear on the eligibility -

list as prepared by: the Company for the March 16 elec-

tion.” Mrs. Krise should have been included in the unit.

The uncontradicted evidence is that she dnd her husband

had worked in the plant for a long time. In November,

1966 she told the Company “I’d like a layoff for medical _

and personal reasons.” While she considered her personal

health a private matter, there is other evidence in the ree-

ord to indicate thatthe layoff Wes due to an allergy she

had for silk and silk. was then being worked in the plant. —

In February of 1967 her husband noticed that certain jobs

were indicated on the Bulletin Board and she told him that

she was interested in going back to work and would he see

Mr. Kozak, the Personnel Manager. He saw Mr. Kozak

who said he would be glad to see her. This was reported

to Mrs. Krise. She saw Mr. Kozak and went back to the

plant on February 20th. She had previously worked as a

erecler but came back in a different department as an ex-

aminer, clearly within the eategory of a production or

maintenance worker. If the fact that her name was not on

the eligibility list has any significance, it is sufficient to

say that the eligibility list was prepared as of the period

“ending February 11, 1967,” prior to the time when Mrs.

‘Krise came back to work, As the name of Joyce Jewell,

who quit work after the preparation of the eligibility list,

was eliminated, it is clear that the name of Marjorie Krise

should have been included.

EETURERR IRR

Opinion of the Second Circuit. i,

ghey

Thus the unit becomes 198. The name of Vivian Beeker,

who was a regular worker but who was laid off temporarily

in the early part of February because she had to find a new

babysitter to take care of her children while she worked,

should also have been-included. This brings tlie total in

the unit to: 199.

The next consideration is the cut-off date. The Board

concedes in footnote 20 on page 23 of its brief that “it does

not rely on cards signed after February 14.’ ”. The Trial

- Examiner does not clearly state the fact that on F ebruary

9th,-when the initial demand for recognition was made,

the Union did not have a majority. But he finds that be-

tween February 9th and February 14th “4 additional. em-

ployees signed representation cards, Aw he says the Union

thus “obtained a majority of 103 cards ont of a total of

199 unit employees, even assuming that bcd and IXrise

are to be included in the unit.” This is on the theory that

the Union’s demand was of a continuing nattres

We hold that under the circumstances of this particular

“ease the cut-off date is February 9, 1967, when the letter

claiming a majority was sent by the Union. Since we find,

as is disclosed in the « sping discussion, that the Union had

no majority on February 9, 1967, 4 compelling reason for

1 This “concession” seems to imply that ecards “signed” on or before

February 14 should be counted. Of course, the date of the signing of

the cards has no significance. Many of the employees signed cards and

‘ retained them at home or in”their pockets or elsewhere for periods of

several days, as appears in the Appendix to this opinion. They did

this, we have no doubt, because they had not. yet-made up their minds

to make the cards effective ‘by delivering them to the Union. The

significant date is the date on iar the signed card is delivered to-

the Union. f--" ¢@

Moreover, in no event could covis delivered to the. Union on Feb-

ruary 14 be counted, as the Board itself has ruled that the cut-off

date cannot be later than the day before the date of the refusal to

bargain. Gotham Shoe Manufacturing Co., 149 NO L:-R. B. No. 80,

enforced, 359 F. 2d 684 (2d Cir. 1966).

Opinion of the Second Circuit

this ruling is afforded by the fact that Frazier directed a

wholesale distribution of copies of this letter at the plant

gates on February 10. The intended effect of this wide-

spread diffusion of the Union’s false claim that it had a

majority was undowbtedly to bring the reluctant sheep into

the fold by telling them the fight was over, the Union had

won and they might as well get on the’ bandwagon. No

cards handed to the Union after the making of such a mis-

representation ‘could, possibly be deemed: valid.’

We turn to the cards: During the oral argument of this

case we made a request that the cards be sent to us. When

they arrived they had been thoroughly shuffled . and

scrambled. It did not seem possible to arrange them in a

meaningful way. But continued study of what appeared |

on the face, and what appeared also on the reverse side of

“each eard, finally led to a solution which perhaps we should - .

have noted in the beginning. The key to the ecards is to be

found in the symbol appearing on the’reverse side of a

ecard on the right near the top. When these cards aré ar-

ranged in sequence from 1 to 122, in accordance with the

symbols appearing on the reverse side of the ecards, we can

* get a completely dependable factual pattern of the order in

whith the ecards w ere counted. So that this may be checked

by any ‘interested person, we have added as an Appendix

to. this opinion a complete list of the 122 cards, arranged

in the order just abgve described, together with the data

appearing both on tlie face and on the reverse side of each. —

ecard, including the da and time of filing with the Board.

The Examiner finds that the 4 additional employees

above referred to are represented by cards numbered 101,

2 See N. L. R. B. v. Philamon Seietitivies Ine., 298 F. 24 176, 179. 180

(2d Cir. 1962); -N. L. R. B. v. H. Rohtstcin § Co., 266 F. 2a 407 (1st

Cir.1959). J _

en:

~ *

Fo GE LITE SALT ORT

‘

Pad

8a was o3

Opinion of the Second Circuit

96, 100and. 102 and he thus reaches the erroneous conelu-

sion thit the Union had 103 cards on February 14,,1967.

Card No. 96 is.particularly interesting. It is the card of

Helen AcKendree. The date is ‘2 1967.” It was

received at the plant ¢ gate on February 10, 1967 at the very

time tit copies of .the Union's letter claiming a ‘inajority

were bing distributed. But it is erroneously given the

number96. It could not properly be eounted as constitut-

ing oncof the majority referred-to in the letter of Febru-

ary 9tl as the card \ Was not received by the Union until

Kebrury 10th. By seine strange method of eMuputation '

the Hewing Examiner counted this card as one of the °99

ards” he savs were held by the Union at the time of the

deman. And he-counted this card again as one of the “4

additioal employees.” The cerrect number of cards in the

possession of the Union on February 9, 1967 was US.

The other 5-supposedly “additional” cards are also in¢

teresting. Card No, 100 was signed by Maury LL. Delozier

on February 13 but.it was not delivered to the?Union until,

February ‘This is after the cut-off date, sogwe still have

only 9S, eed Ne. 101 was signed by John cone on

February 14 and (live ‘red to the Union on the same day.

This was too late: we still have 98. Card No, 102 wag signed

by Calsie D. Gearhart on February 11 but was not‘ received

by the Union-until February 13, after the cut-off date of

February 9, 1967. °

Accordingly, we-are’ compelled to conelude that on the

eut-off date of I ebruary 9th the Union did not have a ma-

jority. -And this remains true even if Krise and Becker

are not included in the «unit.

: 94 |

Opinion of the Second Circuit

Are Many. of the Cards Vitiated by Deceitful and

Fraudulent Misrepresentations by the Union?

The chief professional union organizer was Carl Frazier,

an International Representative of the Textile Workers

Union. Working as his lieutenant and next in command

was James Meyers. 35 cards were signed at the meeting of

January 29, 1967. A few were signed at later meetings

sponsored by the Union. Most of the cards were obtained

by personal solicitation, which varied from visits to the

homes of the workers to the passing out of the cards with

or without an explanation of.their purpose. :

A very considerable number of. those ‘who signed the - ©

ecards testified at the hearing, The result, however, was

that the Trial Examiner counted all 122 ecards which he

characterized as “an overwhelming majority.” The way .

this was done can be described as nothing short of extra-

ordinary. Relying on Cumberland Shoe Corp., 144 N. L.

R: B. 1268 (1963), enforced, 351 F. 2d 917 (6th Cir. 1965)

_ and Joy Silk Mills,Jnc. v. N. L. R. Be 485 F. 2d 732 (D. ¢.

-Cir. 1950), the Trial Examiner held that unless a ecard

signer had been told that the “sole” or “only” purpose of

the card was to-obtain, an election, the signing of the card

was a sufficient demonstration of an intention to appoint

the Union as bargaining agent and~-that there was thus

established an irrebuttable presumption which eould not be

neutralized by any testimony by the employee. as to what

he or she understood by the various representations made

by Frazier or the other Union solicitors. In‘one or two in-

stanees where the testimony indicated that the representa-

tion was that the “sole” or “only” purpose of the cards:

“-

+ 10a

Opinion of the Second Circuit -

was to get an election, the Trial Examiner.accepted these

‘éards also 0, as he found the testimony not eredible.

We turn first to the 35 cards signed at the meeting ‘of:

entire printed matter on the ¢ ard, word for w ord, and that

he. mide the following representations at the- meeting of

January 29, 1967: (1) if the Union lost the election the

cards would be returned; (2) that the U nion must have 30.

per cent “of the people” before the Union ‘can petition for

an election; (3) “there has. to ber51 per cent of the people -

vote for a Union.” There was considerable testimony by

employees to the effect that they aw ere told that by signing

the ecards they would save $5. This seems to have been on

the theory that, as no payment. whatever was necessary to

validate the card, they’ would save the payment of the

initiation fée or dunes generally .required. What Frazier

omitted ‘to tell those present at the meeting is similarly -

established by Frazier’s testimony that he did not. tell

those:. present that, even. if the* Union lost the elee-

tion, it could still demand recognition/and the right to bar-

gain upon the basis of the cards, That he knew this to be

so is clear from his testimony that; while he made no such

statement at this particular meeting, he did make such a

statement at other meetings. We think these flagrant-mis-

representations and this wilful omission were deceitful and

that the effect of making them-was ‘to perpetrate a fraud

on those-present at the meeting who signed the cards. saci

While none of the employees was permitted to testify to

“ what these misrepresentations meant to him, w e think the

"inference is pe rfectly plain. Hach man present at the meet-

ing must have concluded: “we employees are not accepting

Union membership unconditionally. If there are enough

cards to get an election, and an election takes place, I can

Opinion of the Second Circuit

vote for the Union or against the Union as I choose. And,

if the Union wins, I save $5. If the Union loses, that-is-.

the end.”

_ Frazier was especially emphatic in insisting that he had

nevér-said to anyone, at the meeting or anywhere else, that

the “sole” or “only” purpose of the cards was to obtain an

election. :

Thus becafise of these flagrant dishemeeeiieions —

‘this wilful concealment, we have no alternative other than

- to invalidate the entire 35 cards signed at the meeting of

January 29th. ; :

Against this background it is, we think, of no significance

that none of the signers of any of the cards demanded the

“return of his card by the Union. The ex parte action of

the Union in sending union membership cards and union

literature to each person who signed a ecard is likewise of

no significance in the. light of the representations made by °

Frazier. De

To cover the matter of the cards more thoroughly we

specifically invalidate the ecards of six employees. Three

of these, Jonas Corbin, Jr., William Slone (whose card was

erroneously recorded by Frazier as Stone) and Walter

Delozier, attended the meeting on January 29, 1967. The

Other three, William Nolan, Ronald Taddy and Patrick

O’Hara, so far as appears, did not. attend the meeting of

January 29, 1967. .

- Jonas Corbin, Jr. was an active supporter of the Union .

who, after signing his ecard’ at the meeting, distributed ~

_ cards to other employees and urged them to sign for the

_ Union. He was asked what Mr. Frazier said at the sian

A. Mr. F razier said that the cards were—that we were

signing the eard$ so that we could ge¢ an election down

at the plant. i ‘

Opinion of the Second Circuit

Q. Did you ask any questions? A. Yes, sir.

—-Q. What was the° question you asked? <A. I asked

why, I asked why. it said on the ecard that” we were

signing to become a member of the Union; I asked

whether we were actually a member of the Union, were

they going to collect dues from us if the Union wasn’t

voted in and Mr. Frazier then told me, he said, “No,

- you will get your ecard back if the Union isn’t voted i in.’

- Q. Did he answer your question in any other way?

A. To-the best of my recollection,’ all he wanted was

to get 30 per‘cent of the ecards signed, 30 per cent of

the people to sign blue cards so we eould get an 2 eee

tion. Si re eae

——,

He also testified that after the meeting as people were

picking up and signing the blue ards, “the w ord came to

me” that the people sigaing before the election “would save |

five bucks.” ¢

His understanding: of what the cards meant is demon-

strated by his statement, in turn, to those ten people to

whom he distributed cards:

Q. Did you tell them anything about the purpose

_of the cards or what théy meant? ~ A. I told them that

we’ had to sign 30 per cent of the people in the plant

before we could even get an election and get the thing.

over with one way or another. re

* Vee, the exposition ‘that Corbin generated and ‘that

“Frazier had generated in Corbin was that there would be

an election to “get the thing over with one way or another.”

If the Union: lost, the cards would be returned and no dues

‘would be owed; if it won, an early. -signing would have

saved five dollars. Signing the cards was meant to bring

an election. To gain signatures by telling the employees

~w : nae

13a

Opinion of the Second Circuit

_ that there would be an election, without also ‘telling them

that the cards alone might be used/to gain representative.

2 Status, is a sufficient misrepresentation to invalidate the

cards. When the employees .were told, in effect, that they

had nothing to lose by signing and could, by signing, save

money and\get an election to “get the thing over,” this indi-

cates that there was no intention to unconditionally au-

thorize the union as the representative of the workers.

William Slone attended the meeting and signed his card.

there. He testified that at the meeting “they said they

‘needed 30 per cent of the cards to have ou be also

that by signing the card the initiation fee would be saved.

He specifically remembered Frazier stating: \“if the Union

was not voted in, that these cards w ould be returned to you

_ in the mail.” In obvious reference to the election, he re-

~ ealled that Frazier had said: “We need cards.to get the

ball rolling.” — ees

. Walter Delozier. recalled that when Frazier was asked

= the meeting about the language on the cards that Says

“vou belong to the U nion when you sign it,” he replied:

“This is just to get the show on the road, so we can get a

* vote in your plant.” W her pressed on cross-examination —

he recalled an.éven stronger statement:

Q: What did Joness (sic) Corbin say at the meeting

that vou attended? “What questions did he ask Frazier?

A. He stood. up and said, “I have a question” and he

‘said, “O.K.,” and he said, “Is this card just to get a

vote in the plant or company ! ?” He said either one, I

don’t know which. : é

Mr. _ Fraziér said, “Yes, it is.” But it doesn’t say

that on the card. Then he explained that it only takes

33 per cent of these cards to get a vote and the ques-

tion was dropped right there.

~ 4a

Opinion of the Second Circuit

As Delozier’ testified suecinetly: “I read~the card but I

ao took Frazier’s word.”

‘ When we ttrn to the testimony of employees who did

not sign.at the meeting of January 29, 1967, we find the

same pattern of misrepresentation, half-truth and rrasie-

ness by the Union organizers.

William Nolan had signed a eard at his home. When

sked what Harry MeGraw, who had given ‘it to him, said,

he replied: - =

A. He said they had to have a certain percentage to

join the Union, to get a, Union started.

Q. Did he say anything about an ‘election? A. Yés,

he said there would be an ea \

He also recalled that he had been tgld that the Union needed

1 30 per cent of the cards to get the Union started and bring

about an: election. The single, positive representation that

there would be an election, ‘without any indication that

eards alone could bring in the Union without or despite an

election, i8 sufficient to invalidate this card.’

Ronald T addy was given a card by James: Meyers, Fra-

zier’s assjstasit. When he asked Meyers about the ecard,

Meyers replied that they had to have 30 per cent to have

an election. When pressed on cross-examination, as to

whether he had been told -that signing the edrd “would

; help vou get the Union,” he replied instead tliat “It would

help us get an election.” He testified that Meyers had

said nothing to hiky about dues*but that “it was rumored

around the mill—” and then he was cut off. --

- "Patrick O'lara was told:) © y

_ A. Well, it would save you the first year’s fee and that

they would use the card to get the alors of the

. -—j-— ~ ‘

3 MTR, B.S. EEN hols Co., 380 F. 2d 438 (2d Cir. 1967).

. + @ ;

+ . ,

15a.

Opinion of the Second Circuit -

- eards signed, you know, but it was to get a’ vote going

in an election. ‘

Guella, also told him that the first year’s fee was five dol-

lars, and that “the purpose of the card wag’to have enough

cards to get a vote.” When he was agked if he had ever

asked for his authorization card back, he responded:

A. No, I didn’t. May I ask one thing? I was under

the understanding when I received—.

’

He was not permitted to testify to his understanding but

from the testimony in the record, it is clear that he like j

the others thought that signing the ecard would bring an

election aml, ifthe Union sueceeded. in the eléetion, would

save dues for a year. |

_ We specifically invalidate the cards of Jonas Corbin, Jr.,

William Slone, Walter Delozier, Willtm Nolan, Ronald

Taddy and Patrick O’Hara.

We do not find in the testimony of these witnesses the

“conglomeration of self-contradictions and inconsistent

statements” to which the Trial Examiner makes reference.

On the contrary, the testimony of these witnesses is clear

and entirely consistent with the testimony of Frazier as

described in Part I B of this opinion.

C4).

The Aftermath and the Balance of the Cards.

As the Board in its brief, footnote 20 on page 23,

States: “the Board does not/rely on the cards signed after

February 14,” no explanation is required’ of the large

number of cards that came into the possession of the Union

-, thereafter. But the Hearing Examiner counted all 122

~~ ecards. So, for the sake-of-completeness, we shall go into

the question of how the Union procured this large number

of cards.

“16a =

- Opinion of the Second Circuit

It will be recalled that, despite the demonstrable lack

of a majority on February 9, the Union distributed at the

plant on February 10 copies of the letter of February 9.

asserting the Vnion’s false ‘claim that it possessed a card |

majority om February 9. The’ effect of this additional mis-

representation is shown in the Appendix. Indeed, this

new maneuver worked so well that the Union on March 3,

_ "mailed the following letter (Respondent’s Exhibit

22-a) to each employee who had not already signed a card: .

TEXTILE WORKERS ‘UNION OF ‘AMERICA

Affiliate of the AFL-CIO and CLC

1060 Broap Street

Newark 2, N. J.

March 3, 1967

Dear Friend:

We have just received the complete list of Schwarzen-

bach-Huber employees from the Labor Board. Accord-

ing to our reéords, you have not signed a’Textile Work-

ers Union Membership Authorization Card.

We regret that we could not write: to You sooner be-

cause our mailing list was not complete.

With the Secret Ballot Election just a few days away,

we want to take this opportunity to ifivite you to join

with the MAJORITY of your co-workers who have al-

ready signed Union cards.

The Textile Workers Union and your TWUA Local

UNION is open to all Schwarzenbach-Huber employees.

The TWUA is here to help all Schwarzenbach-Huber -

workers—not just a select group. —

Even though we are confident of victory, since a MA-

JORITY have pledged to support our Union—you

17a.

Gpinion of the Second Circuit

_._know as well as we know that a big Union vote will

mean a strong local union ht Schwarzenbach-Huber—

which will result in HIGHER WAGES, MORE BEN-

EFITS and BETTER WORKING CONDITIONS fo

YOU, THE WORKERS! :

’ Be a chartered member before the election—please

come to the planned rally that will-be held before the

election.

REMEMBER—“IN UNITY THERE

IS STRENGTH’’

Fraternally yours,

' /s/ Cart E. Frazier :

Carl E. Frazier, Int’l] Representative

« . 2 D : ;

’ The Law.

It may be doubted that the courts deciding Cumberland‘

and Joy Silk® ever intended the rules enunciated in those

~ eases to be applied “so woodenly” as the Board did in this

case and others, to use the expression of Judge Wisdom in

N. L. R. B. v. Southland Paint Company, 394 BR, 2d 717,

725 (Sth Cir. 1968). See the reinterpretation of Cumber-

land by the Sixth Cireujt in V. L. R. B. v. Swan Super

Cleaners, Inc., 384 F. 2d 609 (6th Cir. 1967). In any event

this per se approach has been very generally criticized®

4 Cumberland Shoe Corp., 144 N. L. R. B. 1268 (1963), enforced, 351

F. 2d 917 (6th Cir. 1965), supra et passim. :

5 Joy Silk Mills, Inc. v. N. L. BR. B., 185 F. 24 732 (D. C. Cir. 1950),

supra et passim. .

6 See Lesnick, Establishment of Bargaining Rights Without an NLRB

Election, 65 Mich. L. Rey. 851 (1967)’; Comment, Refusal-To-Recognize

Charges under Section 8(a)(5) of the NLEKA: Card Checks and Em-

ployee Free Choice, 33 U.. Chi. L. ‘Rev. 387 (1966); Note, Union

18a

\ Opinion of the Second Circuit

and the rulings of these two cases have suffered — ero-

sion.’ In this Circuit the Cumberland rule has been re-

jected. Bryant Chucking Grinder Co. v. N. L. R. B., 389

F. 24-565 (2d Cir. 1967) concurring opinion of Judge

Friendly, at page 569, citing N. L. R. B. v.S. E. Nichols

Co., 380 F. 2d 438 (2d Cir. 1967).

The Nichols rule, at page 444, is succinct and compre-

’ hensive:

The decisive question is whether the employees “meant

to make the Union their representative” or instead

“understood the cards not\to be votes for the Union”

but rather requests “that an election should be called

at which they# *woukl vote. for or against the” Union ag

they then pleased.” ,

And again, at page 445:

Employees * * * who were willing to be represented by

a union if the employer-acquiesced on a showing of a

majority might well not cavil over the union’s being |

able to force recognition without an election if the

_ Authorization Cards, 75 Yale L. J. 805 (1966). See also, R. Winter,

Judicial Review of Agency Decisions: the Labor Board and the Court

in 1968 The Supreme Court Review 53 (P. Kurland ed. 1968).

7 See, e.g., N. L. R. BRv. Texas Electric Cooperatives, 398 F. 2d 722

(Sth Cir. 1968); Benson Veneer Co. v. N. L. BR. B., 398 F. 2d 998

(4th Cir. 1968) ; N. L. RB. B. v. Lenz Co., 396 F, 2d 905 (6th Cir. 1968) ;

N. L. R. B. v. Southland Paint Co., 394 F. 2d 717 (5th Cir. 1968);

2 N. L. R. B. y. Lake Butler. Apparel Co., 392 F. 2d 76 (5th Cir. 1968) ;

N. L. R. B. v. Arkansas Grain Corp., 390 F. 2d 824 (8th Cir. 1968) ;

N. L. R. B. v. Dan Howard Mfg. Co.,.390 F. 2d 304 (7th Cir. 1968) ;

Crawford Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 386 F. 2d 367 (4th Cir. 1967), cert.

\ denied, 390 U. 8.1028 (1968); N. L. R. B. v. 8. S. Logan Packing Co.,

; 386 F. 2d 562 (4th Cir. 1967); N. L. R. B. v. Swan Super Cleaners,

Inc., 384 F. 2d 609 (6th Cir. 1967); N. L. RB. B. v. Southbridge Sheet

Metal Works, Inc., 380 F. 2d 851 (1st Cir. 1967); Engineers and

Fabricators, Inc. vy. N. L. BR. B. 376 F. 2d 482 (Sth Cir. 1967);

Bauer Welding and Metal Fabricators, Inc. V. N.« L. BR: B., 358 F. 24

766° (8th Cir. 1966). ,

\ . Me gt «-

Ay heh .

19a

‘Opinion of the Second Circuit

employ er: did not. It is quite a different matter to_

~~" permit-a. a union to. “attain recognition by authorization

cards procured on the affirmative assurance that there.

would be an election without a further clear explana-

tion that the cards can and may also be used to ob-

tain recognition without any subsequent expression

of preference by the employees; such a half-trut S,

the employees the false impression that they will have

an opportunity:in all events to register their true pref-

erences in the secrecy of the voting booth.

This would also seem to make it improper in eases to

come before us in this Circuit to exclude evidence of under- :

standing | and intention as held in Joy Sik. Thus, whether

an ambiguity appears on the face pf the card, or as the

result of a statement made by the union solicitor, and in

all cases of misrepresentation-and omission such as we have

in this case, the burden rests on the General Counsel to

establish by a preponderance of evidence that the signer

of the card intended to do more: than merely to indicate

,his desire that there be an election to decide whether or

not the Union should be the bargaining ‘representative. of

the employees in the unit. See N. L. R. B..v. Peterson

Brothers, Inc., 342 ¥. 2d 291, 224 (Sth Cir. 1965). Without

such proof the eards subject to such infirmities must be

discarded as invalid. ;

The cases indicate that the cards used by the various

unions are worded diffgrently. Some of them, as mentioned

by our Brother Friendly in a footnote: to his opinion in

Nichols, 380 I’. 2d at page 442, contain in the printed matter

a statement that the signer of the card accepts membership

in the Union. Such a statement appears on the cards used

by the Union in this case. In the context of the misrepre- ““*

sentations and omissions by the Union representatives a

20a. GC

Opinion of the Second Circuit

solicitors in this case we think the precise wording of the

printed matter on the cards cannot change the result in

those instances where we have invalidated the cards:

Was the Company’s Claim That the Phion Lacked a

Majority Made in Good Faith or in Bad Faith?

From the background we have already sketched it would

seem that‘any doubt concerning the Union’s majority would

have been clearly. justified as made in-good faith. It was

Brooks Taylor, the plant manager, who wrote the letter

of February 14th, in which it was stated that the Company

doubted the Unidh’s majority status as asserted in its

letter of February 9th. This letter was prepared after con-

sultatigqn with the Company’s counsel in New York who

either supplied the wording’ of the letter or the contents

before it was written.

In the part of his decision stating his reasons for reject-

ing the Company’s claim of a good faith doubt that the

Union had in its possession cards signed by a) majority -

of the employees and could prove it, the Trial Examiner

quotes the following excerpt from Taylor’s testimony:

Q. Isn’t it true that you received General Counsel’s

Exhibit No. 8 [the Union’s demand letter] on Febru-

ary 10, Friday? A. I believe so, yes.

Q. What was the first thing you did when you got

that letter? Didn’t ygu contact your eis in New

York? <A. Probably, yes.

Q. I show you General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 9, which

is a letter signed Dyyvou written to the Union dated —

February 14, 1967, and ask you “that isn’t it true that

your attorneys either gave you the wording or the

contents of that letter before you wrote it?’ A. Yes.

21a

’ Opinion of the iescund Circuit

Gas would suppose that this indicated Sidhipiovel by the

Trial Examiner of the seeking of legal advice by an em-

| ployer. But the Board, in footnote 1 to its decision, says:

Respondent asserts in its brief that the Trial Exam-

iner relied on the fact that the Respondent consulted

its attorney before replying to the Union’s request ‘for. $

bargaining in finding that Respondent had no good- © *

faith doubt of the Union’s majority status, We do not

believe that the Trial Examiner relied. on the fact that

Respondent consulted its attorney, nor “do we.

This is not the first time this has happened. “We wish

to make it plain that employers as well as unions have

a perfect right to consult their lawyers. That is what law-

yers are for. If consultation with counsel indicates any-

thing, it shows a desire to conform with legal requirements,

to obey the law. It. is quite reprehensible: and wrong to

insinuate, or to imply or to state that an adverse or dam-

aging inference or deduction is to be made from the fact

that an eniployet ‘onsults his lawyer in connection with

any matter involving the.relationship between an employ er

and. his employ ees or a Union or in connection with: any

“labor. dispute or controv ersy.

To back up his contention that the Comins? S iela of

the Union’s majority ytatus was genuine. Taylor testified

to a number of significant circumstances that had come to

his'attention, some of which. ‘were hearsay. As he was testi-

fying to his own. State of mind; this hearsay was clearly

admissible. Thus® ‘he. said that he’ ‘heaifd the Union started

or ganizing not in late January, as’ asserted. bythe U nion.

but i in October or Nov ember, passing out a pamphlet. which

had a detachable card on the back that persons could cut

. out and return to the Union expressing their interest. He

. ¥.

. " a

WA ‘ > tt “A ‘

a. Oy: ,

ey ES Rp YPN RETO

22a

| ‘Opinion. of the Second Circuit

also heard of meetings on Sunday afternoons in November

and December but heard there never were more than 17

present and the earlier effort. seemed to have. died down.

-He heard about the meeting in late January and thought_

; there were about 35 to 40 persons there, most of whom -

‘signed cards. As he calculated, adding this number to‘ ‘the

17 who had attended meetings in November or December,

»,,_ would bring it up to about 45. This was an inconsiderable

$number in view of the size_of the unit. He also testified

that the Company ‘had many older employees who had been

with the Company at the time this very Union had gone

through prior elections, which ‘the Union had always lost.

He also testified that he heard that cards were being signed

‘by employees just “to get people off their backs” and he

did not feel that they were signing “without this pressure

on’ them.”

Tay lor's doubt was not soles because the Trial Exam-

- Iner did not believe him. Indeed, his testimony was direct,

responsive and frank, so far as we can tell from the record.

The rejection by the Trial Examiner of the Company’s

alleged good faith doubt.seems to be based on some theory >

of punishment ‘for the alleged unfair labor practices which,

even though most of them happened after the period”

February 9—February 14, are supposed to eviderice a de-

termination “to gain time in which to dissipate that major- »

ity.” <A finding based upon any such theory cannot stand.

Moreover, the Trial Examiner erroneously placed the bur- }

den of proof to “demonstrate the good faith required to

justify his failure.to bargain” upon the Company.®

gy ¢ ;

8 Lane Drug Co. v. N. L. R. B., 391 F. 2d 812 (6th Cir. 1968); Textile

Workers Union v. N. L. R. B., 386 F. 2d 790 (2d Cir. 1967) ;-N. L. R. B.

v. River Togs, Inc., 382 F. 2d 198 (2d Cir. 1967); N. L. Rh. B. v. Great

Atlantic § Pacific Tea Co., 346 F. 2d 936 (Sth Cir. 1965); Hercules

Packing Corp., 163 N. L. R. B. No. 35 (1967) ; Aaron Bros., 158 N. L.

R. B. 1077 (1966). y

23a

Opinion of the Second Circutt

These alleged unfair labor practices will be discussed in

detail later in this opinion. It will suffice to say now that

we find most of them not supported by substantial evidence

on the record as a whole. The two that we do sustain and

will enforce relate to the Clyde Brown incident which hap-

pened on February 21st ayd the formation of the Com-

mittee in violation of: Section sl watch took =

after the election. ) ; :

‘That the Board’s rejection of the Company’s good faith

doubt finds. 10 substantial support.in the record as a whole

is further demonstrated by some of the réasons given by

the Trial- “Examiner for rejecting it.

On IF ebruary 2nd Walter Delozier, Rodger Protier and

Donald Craig*cxme in and told Taylor that many employees

Were signing cards because they weré tired of being pres,

-. sured both at work and at heme to sign the cards and

Because they were tired of listening to pro-Union and anti-

Union discussions at every turn.’ On the advice of his

counsel Taylor made a memorandum which is Respondents

Exhibit o, signed by him and also signed by Delozier,

Trotter and Craig. A somewhat similar memorandum 1s

-Respondent's Exhibit 6 dated Febr uary 7th. These memo-

randa are given no weight by the Trial Examiner begause

they are “largely self serving” and beéaiise they are not

corroborated by the employ ees “who. supposedly were so

pressured.” The fact that the memoranda, prepared on the

advice of counsel to serve as corroboration and to refresh

Tavlor’s: recollection, are self serving is a strange sort of |

objection. Of course, they are self sérving and their \ “alia.

ity depends only upon Taylor's credibility, which is unques-

tioned on the point of good faith and which 4s corroborated

by the.signatures of Delozier, Trottér and Craig. At least

as to the signature. of Walter Delozier this can be compar ed

Oe :

‘by the Board that we ec

24a

*. Opinion of the Second Circuit

‘ - With the signature. on his card. Moreover, there.is ample

testimony-in the record that pressure jwas. -Rronght to bear

_ on many of the employees.

The > Hixaminer adds as a further eason that : %

the employee witnesses produced at the aes ng had been’

first interviewed by counsel for the Company only a few

days before the hearing. The Trial Examiner evidently

* thought that counsel should have interviewed the employees |

some time. in ‘February or March. Had he done so, it is

easy to imagine that this would have been alleged as an-.

other unfair labor practice. This i is-just another instance’

of the “damned if’you Ren if you don’t” approach

Transportation Company. Inc., decided January 9, 1969,

Slip Sheet p. 863 at p. 878: ‘Moreover, when the interview-

ing was done, scrupulous care: was taken to advise the. per-

sons interviewed that they were not required to answer

the questions if they did not wish to and that whatever

they said would have no effect whatever on their continued

employment.

~ A further argument on the good: faith issue is that the

ei nion in it» letter. of F ebruary 9, 1967 offered to prove

_ it had a majority and the Company did not accept this

2. offers A similar. argument isfound ir. Board rulings and

court Opinions in many cases: of the:same type ‘as the one

before us. We hope: this opinion will help. to expose the

unreality and complete futility of such alleged offers to

prove possession of a card majority. Of course the Union

does not mean that it proposed to let the employer see

the original cards and do its own counting. If the Union--

had meant: to pre a cross-check by the employer, it -

would have said so. "If what is meant:is to submit the cards

to some impartial person for a count, where could. such a ~

eized“in.V. L. R. B. v. Dorn’s ..

Opinion of the Second Circuit

person be found with the requisite knowledge and exyieri-

ence to make a proper count, in view of the fact that the

count as made by the Board itself was full of errors, mis-

calculations and ambiguities, as we have already demon-

strated? How would the im artial person, perhaps a priest,

. a minister’ or a rabbi, knéw whether to go by the dates

on the face of the cards’ or the dates on the back? . How

would he know the correct, number of persons in the unit?

If he counted as of February 9, 1967, which is the most

natural date to select, he would /éome out with the answer

that the Union did npt have py gemsony Above alll, low

would he know what je presen ations had been made, and

what ‘relevant factors Had been concealed by the union

organizers? The whole thing is absurd. The plain truth

of the matter is that the offer of proof is of no. conse-

yiuence whatever in this ease: The emplover had no alterna-

tive other than to disregard it.

“While the Trial Examiner concludes that the asserted

reasons for withholding recognition “have no basis in fact,”

we are of ae ontrary V lew. ;

Remedy for Enforcing the Poliéy of the National Labor

Relations Act? |

What do all these miscalful:

law by thesBoard ad

tions and errors of fact and

A Surely they do not support

the widely *held suppositiog that the Board and the Trial

Examiners: have a special! expertise to handle this type af

case. ‘This “representation”: card business is an abomina-

tion. As presently administered it is a- -pro-Union, device

that serves no other purpose than to afford a method by

which elections can be by-passed and the Unions ushered

—

~ 26a

Opinion of the Sgeond Circuit

‘ : oe Pee

in without giving the employees individually or. collectively

any voice‘in the matter. ‘And - is-accomplished by the .

invention of new per se’ rules of/evidence and new stand-

ards by which-the proofs are to be evaluated, that fly in- -

the face of common sense and elementary concepts of jus-

tice\and: fair play.

Th e very keystone of the Act is Section =

. | Rights of Employees

See. iz ‘Employees shall have the right to self-

organization, to form, join, or assist labor organiza-

tions, to bargain collectively through representatives

of their own choosing, and to engage in other con-

certed activities for the purpose of collective bargain-

ing or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also

haye the right to refrain from any or all of such ac-

tivities except to the extent that sucli right may be

affected by an agreement requiring: membership.in a

labor organization as a condition of e mploy ment as

norms j in section ’8(a) (3).

The invention and implementation of a scheme by: which:

employees can be befuddled into thinking they are asking

for a free election at which each can cast a secret ballot

either for or against the Union, whereas they are in fact. |

held to be signing away this very right without knowing

they are doing so, seem to us to be a clear Violation of

Section 7. By the same token the bargaining order in this

case nullifies the beneficent purposes of the Act and ini.no -

possible way can be said to effectuate the purposes of the

Act. Tlie forgotten man seems to have been the employee

who was oné of those who comprised the unit of produe-

tion and maintenance workers in. the- Company’ S Juniata

Plant.

: am, * :

27a

Opinion of the Second Circuit

Paste II

The Unfair Labor Practices.

-We sustain and. will enforce the Board’s finidlirige of a

'. Section 8(a) (1) violation for havi ing reprimanded employee -

Brown for Union’ activities during working hours, and we

also sustain and will enforce the Board’s finding of a See-

tion 8(a)(2 ) and: (1) Violation for establishing, and then

dominating and supporting the Employee Committee after

the election. We set aside and refuse to enforce all the

other findings of unfair labor practices by the Company as

not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a

while. Each of these findings will now be discussed in some

wee

The Meetings With Small Groups oe Employces.

*. detail.

ie Ww sii before the hii, and w ith the election in

mind, the management of the Company decided to hold a -

_ Series of meetings with small groups of the employees,

sometimes with 5 to 7 employees, sometimes with as many

as 8 to 10 employees in attendance. The issue js whethe®

or ‘not the discussions at these jnectings interfered with,

restrained, or coerced. the employees in the exercise of their

’ Seetion 7 rights.

In this Cireuit the controlling authority “is Bourne y.

N. L. R. B., 332 F. 2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964), where we held,

at page 48: “Under our decisions interrogation, not itself

threatening, is not held to be an unfair labor practice. un-

. less it meets certain fairly severe standards. ” Five factors —

. are frequently relevant: (1) whether there is a record of

employer hostility; (2) is.the information such as to have

a potential use against an individual employee; (3) the »

ET ONT AO I NN I IT SS

t wf a

‘ ea eee ae ad

— of the Second Circuit

identity of the peer (4) is s there unnatural formality

in the place and manner of interrogation; and (5) the

truthfulness of the replies.

Before applying these standards it is well. to bear in

_ mind that the nieetings with small groups of employees

were dialogues rather than interrogations. What manage-

ment was trying to accomplish had a double aspect: (1) to

ascertain from the employees what. their gripes and com-

/ plaints were; and (2) in the éontext of a discussion of what

~ the employees thought the Union could do for them in the

light of these complaints, to counter the arguments put

forth by the Union in its books and pamphlets and by word

of mouth. The employees had no reluctance to voice their

complaints. Indeed, in many instances these were stated

with some enthusiasm. Randy Thompson, one of the ™em-

bers of the Union Committee and a strong Union supporter,

testified that the method pursued by Taylor was to read

__ fropm_a book that had been passed out at the gate by the

Union “something about the booms are dropping,” and then

comment on what he had read in order to give the Com-

pany’ s point of view on the particular subject covered by _

_ the quotation. Naturally and properly the Company took

the position that the employees should cast their secret

ballots for the Company and against the Union... Under —

these circumstances, assurances against reprisals would |

have been wholly inappropriate.. Moreover, the fact that

the discussions were held with small groups rather than

with individuals is a further support for the Company’ Ss

position. ie

We proceed to apply. the Bourne standards :

(1) In this ¢ ease there is no record whatever of hostility

tothe Union. - . . gett Se

29a

Opinion of the seas Circuit

of (2) There were no threats, direct or indirect, to dis.”

charge amy. employee nor was any employee discharged.

Indeed, we can find notiting in this record to support the

view that any. of these dialogues was designed to probe

for information that could be used against any.of the em-~

ployees. There was no grant of benefits. to the employ ees,

(8) Those who siniilloeaia these discussions varied, gen-

erally Taylor, the Plant Manager or Vice President Elden.

or -both were present. Lewis and Rabenstein were also

present at some of the meetings. Lewis-was the training

,manager and foreman of the third shift. Rabenstein was

' Standards engineer and responsible for the “method.time

measurement” system. Both. were properly found by the

Board to be supervisors, Taylor, Lewis and Rabenstein

Were in constant day-to-day contact with the employees,

Elden also but to a lesser degree. There is no indication. .

that any one of these three appeared as a formidable per-_

____ sonality who was held in awe by. any, of the employees.

The discussions appearing in the record seem to have pro- °

ceeded on the part of the employees in a natufal and quite

candid: and uninhibited way.

(4) As above’ indicated the dialogues proceeded in the

most informal manner. But the place where they were

held’ was the subject of extended testimony and discussion

at the hearing. This was becaus¢ the Union was trying to

make it appear that the room had the stamp of high-level

management and discipline upon it in such fashion as to

overawe the employees.- While in one sense this room could

be called the conference room, ‘this. is only. because there |

was in it’a conference table surrounded by 8 chairs. ° In

fact the employees were constantly in and out of this room, 3

as it contained the desks of Grossman and Kozak, a Sick

‘

30a

eo: Opinion of the Second Cixeuit

room or + dispengary, the Xerox machine ‘and certain files.

It seems to us¢that the only reason this room was chosen

- for the meetings is that it-was the most convenient room

- in which to hold such discussions. This was a fanitliar and

reasonably~ quiet area and it was certainly nota clearly

_ demarked, seldom-entered management iehaicon 7

(5) The Sata: of the replies to questions is sup-

‘ posed to indicate the fear or lack of fear or inclination

to evasion: experienced by the employee. Here the readi-

ness of the employees to discuss their gripes dispels any

notion of fear. “The whole atmosphere is epitomized in

employee Melvin Kintz, Jr.’s testimony that,-at one of

these meetings he was asked why he needed a union to

speak for him since he* spoke so well for himself, and he ©

‘replied that it didn’t matter how well he spoke for himself

if nobody. in authority would. listen.. °

The finding of interference, restraint or coercion of

employees by these group meetings is wholly unsupported

by substantial’ evidence on the record as a whole. Indeed,

unless an employer can in some such fashion as in these

group meetings put its side of the case before its employees

‘just prior to an election, the Union with its- professional

- organizers such as Frazier and Meyers, and its books,

leaflets and pamphlets, would have the field to itself.

The Alleged Threat to Glose the Plant.

This is the most serious and the closest i issue before us.

Schwarzenbach, the President of the Company, had not,

at least for some years, addressed his employees. In what:

he had every reason to suppose was a critical hour he. ad-

3la~

Opinio of the Second Circuit

dressed them in s eral shifts a few days before the elec-

tion. Here are s me excerpts from his speech: .

To say J am concerned about the future ‘of. the mill

is putting it mildly.

_ That/he had invested a lot of mo y in the plant,

that te could easily sell it or lease it to a company =a

like Sylvania.

That it was an old company, which had been in the

area for a long time, that the plant had gotten along

without a union, and that if the Union got in or failed

\ to get in ety were going ‘to a to make a | 0 of it

either way.”

A few employees testified that Sighinrwedtbeth said

he would try to keep the plant going if the Union won,

but .he didn’t see how he could do it.

: Seliw yrarzenbach also shade referencé tq the permanent clos-

ing in 1953 of the Altoona- Rayon plant.

On March 2, 1967 the Company issued to its employees |

a single-sheet cartoon showing a sketch of its Juniata plant ——

with the following in large print:

We have, here | in ae one of. the finieat _textile

mills in the world . . South Carolina not excluded.

— (Don't let’s wreck it now !)

)

Below .this heading i is a sketch of a plant in ruins, with

the subliead: “Remember ‘Altoona Rayon?”

The gist of what remains to support this charge of

threatening to move the plant is contained ‘in the following

quotation from Schwarzenbach’s letter of March 9, 1967

to the employees:

No matter what the TWUA may promise you, tee

Juniata record, i is a darn good one. Compare your

Brrr rrcseteeney a eee

Opinion “of the, Saged Circuit a

wages, your holidays, your bendats ‘to industries,

to those in our own Front Royal mill for that matter!

_ Look at Juniata’s 20-year record of around-the-clock

employntent. And ‘the TWUA!? Why isn’t there a

single major textile operation left in the northeastern

states? Is that the kind of te security the union soepe

talking about?

' Why is if that today virtually .all our ‘posmpetition is

located in the South? Simple enough! The ‘mills down

* there feel safe from the bickering, dissension and un-.

reasonable demands that come with _. TWUA. Re-

member Altoona Rayon?

Virtually all- of Stehli’s fabric requirements now \

- are being woven down south. These are fabrics which *

for many a year were mounted on Juniata looms. _

Those same southern mills are just waiting to supply ~

Mr. Hommel with every yard. of computer fabric he

requires.. For Juniata there is no alternative but to

again become competitive. (Emphasis in original.)

It was stipulated that Altoona Rayon had closed its: plant |

permanently in 1953 while under contract with the Textile

Workers Union of\ Want the Union involved in this.

case. ¥

There are. occasional references in some of the group

meetings to “the possibility that the mill might, be closed.

The Trial Examiner reports an instance in which Taylor

referred to. the “New England” plant closing down because

’ it could not compete, and Randy Thompson asked him point

blank “if he was saying the Union caused them to close’

down,” to which Taylor replied, “You said that, not us.”

In.a similar incident employee - Kintz testified that Elden —

replied, “I’m not allowed to say that.” In another incident,

employee Wilson testified that Rabenstein was — be-

% ‘33a

Opinion of the Second Circuit

cause, if the Union got in, it could possibly mean his job’

and many others. We give these peripheral facts solely

for the sake of completeness. The real. thrust is in the

speeches, the cartoon and the letter of March 9, 1967, sup-

plemented by Schwarzenbach’s letter of March: 20, 1967,

after the election, in which he stated, “what actually was

at stake was the future of the ‘mill and the long-term se-

curity of your,job.” os ane

We thus approach the sensitive area of First Amendment

rights of free speech where in a variety of contexts the

Supreme Court has urged that these preferential rights

be preserved. In particular we are to decide whether what

was said and. written on behalf of the Company exceeded —

the bounds of lawful expression within the meaning of

Section 8(c)° of the Act, which was a new provision and -

became part of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. We follow |

and reaffirm the rationale of N. L. R. B. v. Golub Corpora-

- tion, 388 F. 2d 921 (2d Cir. 1967), in which our’ Brother

‘of the historical background of Section 8(c). as

Thus, the test is whether the fears expressed by

Schwarzenbach were “shown to have so far transcended

the bounds of reason as to justify the Board in finding them

Friendly illuminated the text with q most helpful sketch

to be disguised threats of reprisal.” 388 F. 2d at page 929, .

Doubtless a good faith doubt or prediction “could: so far

outrun any possible basis for it” as to justify the Board

in concluding that a threat was intended. 388 F. 2d at page

re eae , :

9 See. 8(c) The expressing of any views, argument, or,opinion, or the

dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual

form, shall not constitute or be evidence of:an unfair labor practice

under any of the provisions of this Act, if such expression contains no

threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.

34a ae

Opinion of the Second Circuit

What was the crisis that impelled Schwarzenbach to ,

write in his letter of March 9, 1967: “To say tliat I am

concerned about the futiire of the mill i is putting it mildly”?

- The answer is to be found in the letter, which according to

the teaching of Golub, and of common sense as. well, must

be taken in its entirety. Thus viewed, and we have -repro-

duced the letter in the margin,”° the crisis was an economig

ss 10. . (etterhead of The Schwarzenbach Huber Co.,

res 0 Park Avenue South, New York, N. Y. 10016)

March 9,-1967

Dear Employee: __,.

The Juniata mill has been through : a number of crises in its 54-year

history. None, however, do I consider as Serious as the one it faces right

now. To say that I am concerned about the future of the mill is

putting it-mildly.

About three years ago, after more than a, Jackie of progress and

steady employment, performance at Juniata: began. to slip. To make

matters worse, at about the same time our main product, off-loom acetate

fabrics, began losing favor with the consumer. “Our largest customer,

Stehli, under. severe competitive pressure, began checking around for

another source of these fabrics. A year ago they discovered that a

better quality-piece of goods could be purchased, at a lower price, from

that southern giant, J. P. Stevens. Since that day — orders _

been few and far between. .

Juniata, to survive, now required not only lower costs ak Nis

seconds, but a new product! Fortunately, our typewriter and computer

ribbon sales had been ‘growing slowly but stgadily. Here ‘possibly was °

the product! Last, spring it was decided to Strip Front Royal of these

constructions, and concentrate all nylon weaving at “Juniata. We. be-

lieved a solution had been found, but alas our troubles had only begun!»

Most of you will remember last ‘summer’s chaos at Juniata. Low

‘efficiency, terrible quality, poor earnings, all of which led to astronom-

‘jeal financial losses to the company. Worst of all, we ‘were no longer

delivering goods to our customers. ’

In desperation, our Industrtal Fabrics Division repeatedly. requested y

permission to have their goods woven on the outside. My answer this

time was no for I knew that once these fabrics were handed over to a

southern mill they would mever again be woven - Juniata, Without

this work the mill was dead! ©

_ Just when things look blackest, efficiency and quali? started to pick

up. By the end.of the year the mill was back under MMisonable contrbl

and all of us in New York heaved a sigh of relief. Though costs were

still a long way from what they: will have to be, and seconds still a

burden, we were back in business and -once’ again shipping goods to

<i.

35a;

Opinion of the Second Circuit Pee

_one. The mill had been through a- number of such cyises

-_ in its 54-year history. Th. mill had been losing money, and

Schwarzenbach gives chapter and verse, mentioning details

that no mar in his senses would have dared to ‘state if

they were fabrications, as the employees knew these facts.

as well as he did..-Was it’ mere fiction that virtually all

our customers. Many of u

in which to buckle down a

believed that enough time had been gained

improve overall mil performance,

This was not to be. A ‘group ¥f hotheads among ..you has now decided

to exploit a situation which for ear has been highly explosive.

This group tells you that by joining the ‘UA you will be getting

_ better earnings, better working conditions, bette ‘benefits and, of course,

job security! Me . . Pe ;

; With 20 years of this ‘business and numerous union’ elections (3 of

them right in Juniata) under my belt, I know all- this to be empty

promises. It has long been Company policy to pay at Juniata as well

or better than our competitors. If a raise, additional benefits, pensions,

or whatever are truly in the cards,then you will get them! For this

you need*no TWUA, no $60.06 a year deducted. from your pay-check.

What you will. tiot get and what the TWOA cannot get for you are.

benefits that Jead to excessive costs. No company can survive selling

its, product at a loss, and this is exactly what we have been’ doing these

last 8 months. ae . serie

No matter what the TWUA may promise you, the Juniata record

is a darn good one. Compare your wages, your holidays, your benefits,

to. industry figures, to those in our own Front Royal mill for that

‘matter! Look at Juniata’s 20-year record of around-the-clock employ-

ment. AndAhe TWUA? Why isn’t there a single major textile oper-

‘ ation left in the northeastern: states? Is that the kind of job security

the union keeps talking about? * i ae

Why is it that today virtually all our competition is located in the

South?. Simple enough! The mills down there- feel safe from the

bickering, dissension and unreasonable demands ‘that fome with the ¥

TWUA. Remember Altoona. Rayon? :

Virtually all of Stéhli’s fabric requirements now are being woven

~down south: These are fabrics which for many a year were mounted

on Juniata looms. Those same southern mills are just waiting to supply

‘Mr. Hommel with every yard of computer fabric he requires. For .

Juniata there is no alternative but to again become competitive.

- Not too.long ago this very mill of ours was probably the finest fila-

ment mill in the country. Of late, it has been having’ more than its

share of troubles. In the hope of finding solutions, many a change has’

been made. Occasionally this may have-led to some dissension and

misunderstanding between us. But let us not be discouraged! Like you, .

management seeks nothing other than a better, more competitive mill

2 fo | ‘

- |

“

PE OEP IRM 4 OS

36a = ;

(opinio of the Second Circuit

the Company’s competitors had moved South, and that the

Altoena Rayon mill had followed their example? The em-

ployees knew beiver than that; and it is also a matter of

general common knowledge. The employees knew, as does

everybody else, that union demands often cause increased

costs which render jt difficult or. impossible for manage-

ment to continue operating an enterprise that is already

losing money. |

While Schwarzenbach’ s speeches were made extempo-

‘raneously and were not reported, they also must be taken

as a whole, and there is no reason to doubt that the sub-

stance’ of, the speeches is reflected in the contents of the

letter of March 9, 1967

The Company had taken care to avoid a single statement

by anyone connected. with management that the Altoona

Rayon plant was forced by the Union

of the group meetings: “I’m not. allowed to say that.

fact, the stipulation shows that this ‘bail Union, Tlie Tex-

tile Workers of America, had a contract with Altoona

which can then again offer true job securityrto you all. This i is the way

to achieve better wages and benefits for all.

Many of-you have known me for a long time..I have always been

partial to this Juniatd mill. I have never wilfully misled you. I am

* convinced that the Company record justifies, your confidence. Now, as

in the past, I firmly believe you have aheolytely nothing to gain by

* voting in the union.

Be Sere To Veil) But Let It Be’ & =

Resounding “No” On March 16th. :

Fincerely,

"Tue Scuwarzensach Huser ComPaNy

/s/ Ropert M. SCHWARZENBACH

Robert M. Schwarzenbach

e President

*»

. RMS:MM °

(Emphasis in original.)

37a

Opinion of the Second Circuit “

Rayon for seven years before it moved in 1953. Certainly

that plant ‘could not have closed its doors as a reprisal

against unionization.

We have studied this record, including all the exhibits, }

with the greatest care, and we find absolutely nothing to

indicate antagonism or hostiliy toward this Union or any

union. The most’substantial of the findings of Unfair Labor

Practices we have set aside. Of the two remaining findings

of Unfair Labor Practices, that we will enforce, the first

was the inconsequential Brown incident, to be described

presently, and the other was the formation of the Commit-

tee, after the election and many months after the sending

of the letter of March 9, 1967. And the Committee was

‘ voluntarily disbanded by the Company not long after it

was established and commenced to function. _ Under, all

these circumstances, there is nothing to support an infer-

ence that the references to the possibility of moving South

. Were intended to or in fact did constitute a threat to re-

taliate by closing the plant if the Union won the election.

To paraphrase the statement in Golub, 388 F. 2d at page

928, “The only fair reading is that the employer would take

these steps solely from economic necessity and with regret.”

Nor do we find anything to the contrary in N. L. R. B. vy.

Miller, 341 F. 2d 870 (2d Cir. 1965). There this Court

evidently thought the views expressed by the employer so

_ far outran any possible basis for what was said as to

_ justify the inference that a threat of reprisal was intended.

This is not such a case.- And we teaffirm the statement in

Golub, 388 F. 2d at page 928, that the principle of Miller

as e stated “is a.principle that must be kept within

narrow its.” .

We conelude that the references to the possibility of mov-

ing South in the Schwarzenbach speech. and in the letter :

‘

OTP ge CORRE eR RED SE opt els a TEI ET res

38a

Opinion of the Second Circuit &.

of March 9, 1967 and elsewhere did not constitute, within

_the-meaning of Section 8(a) (1), and Section 8(c), a threat

‘that the Company would retaliate by moving South if the

Union won the election. We set aside the finding of the

Board that these communications violated Section 8(a) (1)

and we refuse to enforce it.

The Alleged Threat to Bargain From Scratch.

Employee Massini testified that Taylor told her that if .

the Union got in “The slate would be wiped clean. The

Company would start bargaining-from scratch with | no paid

holidays or vacations.”

This is an isolated instance. It goes contrary to all the

discussions that had been going on for weeks in the group

_ meetings where the constant subject of the dialogue be-

tween Taylor and various employees related to the bargain-

ing process whereby the Union if’elected would or could

meet the gripes of the employees.

The alleged interview was first with Grossman w ho at

- Massini’s request asked Taylor to come down and they both - .

talked to her. WYhen her affidavit given ¢0 the Board was

produced on ero$s-examination it appeared, so far as we

ean make out from the transcript, that Massini dad at-

tributed to Grossman what she testified Was said by Taylor.

When counsel for the Company offered the affidavit as im-

peachment, this was met by-the objection, which is not

intelligible to us, that sucli matters did not constitute “con-

- tradictions,” and the affidavit was not admitted. Both

Grossman and Taylor denied making any statement about

“bargaining from seratch” but the Trial —. credited

~ /

= . bad ’ j Y

- Ae

39a

Opinion of the Second Circuit

Massini’s version. Nevertheless, it seems highly improb- _

able that Taylor would. make such a statement. , . °

_We think, in the context of the entire testimony, that in

this instance also the Trial Examiner reached an erroneous

conclusion.. We.set- aside and refuse to enforce this find-

ing of Section 8(a)(1) vidlation as not supported by sub-

stantial evidence on the record as a whole.” _ 4

° og ’

: ee f

The Conversation Between ‘Lewis and | i

| Bradley About Bumping.

Just about scraping the bottom of the barrel the Trial

Examiner charges as a separate violation of Section 8(a) |

(1) a conversation between supervisor Lewis and employeé

Bradley. These two were old and constant, intimate friends.

Kach was the best man at. the other’s- wedding. All this

conversation amounts to is that Lewis, in the conversation

| with Bradley, referred to some of the group

which some of the employees got the impression, or it was

rumoured that “there was going to be bumping in every de-

partment on the floor and also, there was going to be several

bosses replaced.” As he knew Bradley was strong for the

Union and he suspected Bradley would be President f the

Union if the Union won the election, Lewis asked B ley

if there was any truth in these rumours. Bradley replied:

“T attended all the union meetings and not once did I hear

any mention of any bosses being replaced.” Bradley also

—_—_—_—_———

11 And see Bauer Welding & Metal Fabricators, Inc.

Vv. .N. L. R. B.,

358 F. 2d 766 (8th Cir. 1966) ; Surprénant Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 341

‘FP. 2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965) ; Hendrix Mfg. Co. v. N, L. R. B., 321 F. 24a

100 (5th Cir. 1963). See also Irving Air Chute Co. Vv. N. L.R. B., 350

F. 2d 176 (2d Cir, 1965).

sessions in

= >

% 2

> Sp eI RE ME Eee Tes ne ENS

STRIATE IO ER RE fy ~

. »

TP pT ee Opt

SO RS ES

ss ate oe

PEON ELLY LTE ELIOT EE RD a Ll MO ee

40a 4

Opinion g)rthe Second Cireuit

told Lewis that he had no intention of being President of

the Union. i ‘y+ oe

How this’ disposition of an ‘idle rumour running around

_ the plant can be inflated into an Unfair Labor Practice is,

beyond our comprehension. We set aside this finding of

violation of Section 8(a)(1) and refuse to enforce it: This

is included in the general catch-all of Conclusion 7 of the

Trial Examiner’s decision, adopted by the Board. The vari-

ous findings of Unfair Labor Practices in violation of Sec-

tion 8(a)(1) are so scrambled and fragmented in the deci-

sion of the Trial Examiner that we may have missed one

or two minor items, but we think not.

5B ;

The Reprimand Administered to Clyde Brown.

While the incident is not one of great consequence, we

think the Company did discipline Brown for soliciting for

the Union in the plant during working ‘hours, whereas it

had previously followed a very liberal policy of permitting,

at least on one occasion, solicitation for other than union

purposes during working hours. We sustain this finding

of violation of Section 8{a) (1) and will enforce it, as modi-

fied by the Board. This is the only one of the alleged viola-

tions of Section 8(a) (1) summarized in Conclusion 7 of

the Trial Examiner and adopted and modified by the Board

that we sustain and will enforce.

The Employee Committee. |

After the election the Company thought it was a eoed |

idea to form an Employ ee Committee’ with rotating groups —

4la

Opinion of the Second Cireuit

of employees to bring complaints of the employees to the

attention of management and assist in a proper, just and

_ equitable processing of these complaints. The Company

chose the employees who were to serve on the ‘Committee,

| paid them for the time. they spent on the business of the

Committee and controled the wliole affair. This was a clear

violation of Section 8(a)(2). There is no doubt that ‘the

Committee was a Labor Organization as defined in the Act.

We Sustain this finding of the Board and will enforce it,

despite the fact that the Company voluntarily disbanded

this Committee on July 27,\1967. This is Conclusion 6 of

the Trial Examiner, adopted by the Board. : ?

We permit the order setting aside the election to stand,

not for the reasons given by~ the Board, but because we

think it is better for all concernéd to have a new election,

if either the-Union or the Company so desires,

aes

Srresb:

. % s

° °

» i

‘ Pe

- ¢

ae”

‘

‘. *

€

EEE EN Se ST Se ee a

a .

oes, RN es % '

cS)

‘

a .

& %

x! .

. P

x : ’

g ‘6 ,

aga s

a -— ———

is J

~ e

\ 7 , ,

° a 3

. ° $° a -

> .

2 ‘ ;

~ =

- > cf

* . '

. Les ,

aes 7 oa

: -

, A

. ; e Pt

a) A

- . a, F « i

- cee male ee

~~ ee F

Y .

‘ eure

ad ‘ is . . . .

Z 2 . =

e .

‘ ° 2 * wn a . “

« \

ony % ;

a e Y ‘

re ase oo rig :

-b & . Y t

* {<

as f Py ; j

v : : h

2 3

: m4 ;

3 te

> > :

° - E ;

¥ 2

ras :

PN ty KOEN ET PT ES

7 Ba

NEON TEL IE LPIA I E A

ei i A ERIE ERA gg EROS Rn RB

. @ r

— 48a Ae

Opinion of the Second Circuit

APPEND IX ;

The “Répresentation” Cards , Ss

~ Reproduction of the‘Front and Back of Card No. 1

> at? (F ;

am: LAVGEVECKER "ron as

_TEXTILE WORKERS. UNION OF AMERICA

Affliste of the AFL-CIO and CLC ee

| (DATE): 7" < 196_7

fe bargaining in respect to

or other conditions of employment...

“ /

Mit Sc * os oe oC - 4 " « &. b ‘

“ we

\ “

Derantment_‘t- ” -

SHIpr. 2

Sia A scale Bais : B's ‘

(00 NOT PRINT) .

/ $T. AND No./Z.2u . + hae

: ; 7 ° ; ra

> City__ ; :

(RECEIVED BY) - OME PHONE we. 7% ae 2

(Back)

Summary of Data Contained on Front and Back of

ae Cards Nos. 1-122 Inclusive .

a -«

‘

OPEC AAC LOST hy

LP TILL LE TOME

PEO ATR

x SRO SEAT

LEE TA TOEE DS TAD LONER ENE I IS, OS ~

- e

TLS ate PE STEIN

an a te

en eng Dawe el « --e

we — erie

° ,

oe i 44a

Opinion of the Second Circuit.

Card No. 1: . ; a ee

! front

David Lengenbacker _ 1-29 1967

received by CEP, a

- back . ;

GCX # 20-1 received Jan 29 1967 . signed @ meeting CEF .

Board Stamp 10:15 Peb1l3 1967 es, oy

Card No. 23

front

Anthony R. Salome | 1/29/67

received by CEP: i

° * GCx # 20-2. received Jan 29 1967 signei 6 aetting CEP.

: / Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13. 1967

Card No. 3:

« Ye , front

. Joyce Jeweil : 1/29 1967

received by CEP, :

wo si = ; 4 ;

GCX # 20-3 ° feceived Jan 29 1967 signed @ meeting CEP.

Board Stamp 10:15 eb. 13 1967

Card No. 4, F ; he

front "

Melvin L. Wyland Jan 29 (1967

received by --- |

back

—GCX # 20-4 = received Jan 29 1967 , signed @ meeting CEP,

Board Stamp 10:15 -Peb 13, 1967 :

(2)

. “ °

4 } 45a eet

tap :

7 ESN > :

‘Leg ;

- ; wa - 5 ¥ y oho , :

_" Opinion of the Second Circiut |

or Ot a cape aie

, f - oN 4

Card No. 5: 0) © a “ BE

ow Bhan ' front aay °

Richard Wiley | Jan 29 1967~* - es

received by --- — xs

back.

GCX # 20-5 received Jan 29 1967 signees meeting CEF.

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967

Card, No. 6:

Naomi Wasmeier l/ 29-1967 ;

received by CEF, __ ;

back us fee

GCX # 20-6 received Jan <P 1967 Signed @ meeting CEP,

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967 \ ee

t © :

Card No. 7: 3 : aie ok

front . ~~

Robert D. Walters 1-29 1967

received by ---

GCX # 20-7 received Jan 29 1967 signed @ meeting CEF.

Board Stamp 10:15 = Feb 13 (1967. ) |

Card No. 8: és

: front

William W Wilson. 1/29: 1967 A

received by --- ;

ae }

GCX # 20-5 = received Jan 29 1967. Signed @ meeting CEP,

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967

‘

ron ~ Ma | or

” Opinion of the Second Cércuit

Card No. 9:

= front

Jessie Walters 4-29 «(1967

received by CEF, ;

, _ back ;

GCX # 20°9 received Jan 29 1967 signed @ meeting CEP,

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967

| b

Card No. 10:

front |

‘Randolph L, Thompson { 1-29 1967

received by CEP.

GOX # 20-10 received Jan 29 1967 ~ = signed @ meeting ---

board Stamp 10:15 - Feb 13 1967 ;

Card Mo. 11: 3a =

{root | Dates v

William Slone 1/28/ 1967 :

received by CEP. | eer Lae

7 en e |

GCX # 20-11 received Jan 29 1967 signed @ meeting CEP»

Board Stamp 10:15 - ‘Peb 13 1967 = 2

Card No. 12: NE ; ‘ . §

Joseph R. Stacey. , 1/29/ 1967

received by CEP. s

GOX # 20-12 received Jan 29 1967 ss gigned @ meeting CEF-

Board Stamp 10:15 “Ped 13 1967

. “i - 7

e ~ Peg’ argh ire

47a

. Opinyon of the Second Circuit : ae

Card No. 13; : | ;

front ° : ee

, Fannie E. Ryan

received by CEF,.

back

GCX # 20-13 received Jan 29 1967

Board Stamp 10:15 “Feb 13 1967

Card No. 14; ; :

front | 3

Paul J Pruznak Ire 1/28/67

Eqnetves by CEF.

- back nat : £

GCX # 20-14 received Jan 29 1967

Board Stamp 10:15 ‘Feb 13 1967

Card No. 15: -

Melvin .Jueller "1/29/66

_Teceived by CEF.

back 4

GOK '# 2015 | received Jan 29 1967

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967

Card No. 16:

, Sxont :

Willian Mayernick ’ _ 1+29 1967

received by CEF,.

‘back :

GCX # 20-16 received Jan 29 1967

( Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967. :

e ; 4)

’ | ’ 7 { h

1-29 ° 1967

; signed @ meeting CEF. -

Signed @ meeting CEF ~

aerranat: “easier mean ieee

signed @ meeting CEF,

e-*d

na eo ee

—

signed @ meeting CEF.

-o

Card No. im:

Opinion of the Second Circuit

7: front

— Prank McGraw Jan 29 1967

recegved by CEP,

ft back

GOX # 20-17 received Jan 29 1967 signed at meeting CEP,

Board Stamp 10:15. Peb13 1967 3 - . ;

1s" - \

; front

John A. Diehl 1-29- 1967

received by CEP. ;

_ back

GCx # 20018 received Jan 29 1967 signed @ meeting CEP,

' Board Stamp 10:15 Peb13 1967

Card No. 19: :

> front /

Walter Segplasior Jr 1-29 1967

received by CEF;

back

GOX # 20-19 received Jan 29 1967 signed @ meeting C2P.

Board Stamp 10:15 Peb13 1967 5

> ;

* Card No. 20: :

front

James Edelblute ~~ Jan 29 1967

_ Feceived by CEP. S/S ¥

back *.

GCX # 20-20 received Jan 29 1967 ‘ gigned @ meeting CEP,

Board Stamp 10:15 Pebi13 1967 — “s

\ 49a .

‘Opinion of the Second Circuit

Card No. 21;

, front

Betty Elders 1/29/ 1967

received by CaP,

back

i GCX # 20-21 received Jan 29 1967 Signed @ meeting CEP,

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb. 1} 1967

Card No.. 1] and ( <n

+ aad front \ |

Paul J. Gardner 1-29 1967

received by CEP.

back |

‘¢ GOX # 20-22 received Jan 29 1967 Signed @ meeting CEP.

soard Stamp 10:15 Peb 13 1967

Card No. 23r

2 front

Raymond R. Guella 1-29 1967

received by ---

back

. GOK # 20-23 received Jan 29° 1967 © Signed 2 meeting cep.

Card No. 24; o

front

Edgar L Langenbacker Jr 1-29 1967

received by CEP.

back

’ GCX # 20-24 received Jan 29° 1967 Signed @ meeting CEP,

Board Stamp 10:15 eb 13 1967

‘

. 50a

Opinion of the Second Circuit

Card No. 25:

front

Warren E .vantz 1-29- 1967

received by CEP,

o back

GCX # 20-25 received Jan 29 1967 stenet @ meeting CEF.

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967 ,

Card No. 26: &:

front a

ther Jr Jan. 29 1967

y CEP,

back

GCX # 20-26 received Jan 29 ma signed @ meeting CEF.

Board Stamp 10:15 Peb13 1967

oe | fp. .-*

Card No. 27:

: front a“

Darel E, Aller 1-29 1967 La. 5

received by ---

back

GCX # 20-27 received Jan 29 1967 ; signed @ meeting CEP,

Board Stamp 10:15 Peb 13 1967

a No. 28: : ee ns

Edward A. Arthurs ? Jan 29. 1967

received by CEP,

beck

GCX # 20-28 received Jan 29 1967 signed @ meeting CEP,

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967 \

EF,

Card

5la

Opinion of the Second Circuit

Card No. 29: oe :

‘John © Bauer Jan 29 1967 ;

_Peceived by CEP.

GCX # 20-29 received Jan 29 1967 Signed @ meeting CEP,

Board Stamp ‘10:15 Feb 13 1967

Card No. 30: *\

front

Ronald W. Bender . Jan. 29 1967

received by CEP,

back ‘

@Cx # 20-30 received Jan 29 1967 signed @ meeting CEP,

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967

Card No. 31:

Lester Bennett ; 1-29 1967

received by --- . e

GCX # 20-31 received Jan 29 1967 Signed @ meeting CEP,

Board Stamp 10:15 eb 13 1967

‘

Bes. 32: | | ) 2

front

-° Jonas Corbin de. Jan 29 1966 WwW

" «received by CEP, .

back

GCX # 20-32 received Jan 29 1967 Signed @ meeting BEP,

Board Stamp 10:15 eb 13 1967"

52a

Opinion of the Second Circuit

Card No. 33: , ee oN

edie front —_

Clyde L. Brown a _ 1-29 1967

received by ---

back

GCX # 20-33 received Jan 29° 1967 ; signed @ meeting CEF,

7 >

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967 _

Card No. 34: ’

, front

; Donald P. Bradley 1-29 1967

‘received by CEF, .

GCX # 20-34 received Jan 29 1967 signed @ meeting CEF.

poard Stamp 10:15 Feb13 1967

front

Card No. 35:

Ronald E Brackbi11 Jan 29 1967

received by CEP.

back | ,

GCX # 20-35. received Jan 24 1967 signed @ meeting CE?.

Board Stamp 19:15 Feb 13 1907

Card No. 36: :

front

Prancie Taddy January 30 1967

received by --- “

back .

ocx #'20-36 received Peb1 1967 |. Left @ Hotel Desk CEP.

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967

vd . 5p

53a :

Opinion of the Second Circuit

Card No. 37: .

front

Kenneth Delozier January 31 1967 Q

received by Committee

; back

GCOX # 20-37 received Feb 1 1967 Left at Hotel desk CEP,

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967

. Me ?

Card No. 36: i.

, front

Donald Dambeck, 1-29 1967

ffi

_ received by, Committee

‘back

SCX # 20-38 received Jan 30 at Plant From R.

Thompson CEF,

Board Stamp 10:15 :- Feb.13 196

g . ’ . ‘

Card No. 39: , - : y

Arthur Jock 31 Jan. 1967

- received by Left 2 Hotel Desk -

back ; ;

GOX # 20-39 received Feb 1 1967 Left @ Hotel Desk CEP,

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967

Card No. 40; ; :

front

iouis”Delozier 1-29-67 ales . on

received by Committee . ;

back .

GCX' 20-40. received Jan 30 1967 "At plant gate Prom

ee R. Thompson CEP,

d4a

Opinion of the Secbid Circuit

Card No. 41: ’

John H. Hamel 1/39 1967

received by Committee i

back :

GCX 20-41 received Jan 30° 1967 At Plant Gate From

Se : R. Thompson CzF.

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967

Card No. 42:

. Pran®

~elvin 5. Kintz, Jr. January 3) 1967

‘received by --- : & :

- back “py

_ :

_3CX 20-42 received Jan 39 1967 _ Prom R. Thompson CEF.

“Board Stamp 10:15 .Feb 13 1967 ?

Card No. 43: :

front.

nxichard Killinger Feb. 1 1967

received by R.?T. CEF.

back y op

3CX 20-42 received Feb l 1967 @ Plant gate CzF.

soard Stamp .10:15' Feb 135 1967 |

ct ° °

Card No. 44:

front

Clinton =. Lane 1-31 1967

received by Committee

back

SCX 20-44- received Jan 30 1967 / At plant ‘gate Fro

: ig . Re Thompson CEFF.

f Board Stamp 19:15 Feb 13. 1967

ad AN

‘55a

Opinion of the Second Circuit °

-- Card Wo. 45: 3

front Pi Te ocreates f

Stephen J Lockard - Jan 30 1967

received by Committee

? GCX 20-45 received Jan 30 1967 ' At plant gate Pros

ae R. Thompson CEP.

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967 . e

Card No. 46;

3 front

Mary no De Bartolome 2-3 1967

received by <--- |

back

SCX 20-46 received Feb 3 1967 » _ ‘Randy Thompson CEP.

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 - 1967’ { _

Card No. 47;

l a front 4

ey Edna Cooper Jan 29 1967

. received by Committee .

Pe : back .

as GCX 20-47 received Jan 30 1967 _, At plant gate Fros

‘R. Thompso#@ ter.

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967 ;

; 3 .

Card No. 48: :

| front

#ilbur J Gensamer 2-1 1967

received by ees

back )

gex 20-48 received Feb 3 1967

ae “Hoara Stamp 10:15 peb.13. 1967

2 IE YES AOE |

SERRA Nera ne é 7

56a mie oe

Opinion of the Second Circuit

Card No. 49: . A

front — Af

Jerry D. Gensazer . : 1/30 1967 er | ;

received by --- : | :. |

; * back : 7 : | é <

GCX 20-49 received Feb 3. 1967 From: Randy Thompson }

° Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967 Pa csc ily

AL: sae ;

Card No. 50: ’ -

—— ° front ; bal ei aan ly Aah

4 Mary J. Dickman — x Jan 30 1967— a one ee

os ‘received by abe | . ane . :

a ; 2 - / pack /- ie | od

Gcx 20-50 vA recdived Bed 1. 1967 Left @ Hotel Desk CEF.

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967

Card No. 51:

mt eae front: “

Richard E. sity Jr > January 30 1967

received by Committee .o ~ ;

GCX 20-51 received Jan 30 1967 At plant gate from

- pete i R. Thompson CEF.

‘Board Stamp 10:45 Feb 13 1967 -

Card No. 52: . , ; ors. ,

April Fahr — January 29 1967 :

“received by Committee >

> back

{ “GOX 20-52 _rpegived Jan 30 1967 - At plant gate From

j ' Re Thompson CEF.

'f Board Stamp 10:15 .Feb13 1967

—T

57a

Opinion of the Second Circuit - |

Card No. 53: | :

front A; #

: Hilee Ruth Pisher ° | Jo ‘1967 ;

received by --- ‘. ’ : tion

j back | Ape. “Sy Se

“ GOX 20-53 received Feb 1 1967 ss Left at Hotel Desk

Board “Stamp ‘10915 Feb 13 1967 ea

Card No. 54: mom

| ry front

Ray. T. Ecker Ray T. Ecker 1-29- 1967

received by Committee °

a back ve

eae - QOK. 20054 = ‘received Feb 2 1967 Prom 4. Salone at

ay Board Stamp 10115 Feb 13 1967 eer

‘

Card No. 55: i

» Eront | : |

Fred Fornwalt ! 2-2 19675 *.

received by Committee.

. aie ;

. GCX 20-55 received Feb 2 1967 ~ “Rec“a from A.: Salome

at Hotel CEF. .

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13. 1967

' Card No. 56: ; : .

et front ‘

' Mary C. McCartney 2/t/ 1967

: received -by Committee

me back : .

GOX 20-56 received Feb 2 1967 - Rec/d from A. Salome

: at Hotel CEF,

“ Board Stamp 19:15 Feb 13 1967 :

: _ ‘ : tr.

» , ‘ ‘

° y

ati 9 wr , R .

Opinion of the Second Circuit

Card No. 57: : ;

Y . front ; é

“Richard ‘E. Brooks _ Ped l, 196% 1967 pi we

. Pa °c .

received by Committee

i | back

gees /

: ; GCX 20-57 received Feb 2; 1967 Rec ’d from A. Salome

ma ; i: at Hotel CEF.

TC te ee Board Stamp. 10:15. Feb 13% , 1967 :

Card No. 58:: =

F ; front

Janét R., Gibbons : 1/30 1967

received by JJM .

3 ‘back ,

GCX: 20-58 received Jan 31 1967 From Myers

? ° my ays CEF.

‘ Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967

~ : we ’

Card No. 59:

\ front >

Walter iLindemer 2/3. 1967

received by Edleblute

' - 5 ; back

Card No. 60:

58a

Gox' 29-59 . received Feb 5° 1967

Board Stamp 10:15 Peb13 1967

- front

: Peb.

‘Mary Lou Davinsizer Jan. 6

‘received by C. Brown CEP.

back -

GCX 20-60 oo

Board Stamp -10:15 Peb 13 1967

Prom J. Edleblute

CEP. :

1967°

‘Rec “4 from C. Brow

at Plamt gate Feb. 6,

1967 CEP.

carg No. 613

—

59a o

ion of the Second Circuit ;

~ back

GCX .20-61 received. Feb 1 1967

Board Stamp 10:15 Peb 13 1967

Card No. 62: - roens en ace

5 front

Rody Ecker . Feb. 1° 1967

Card! No. 63:

received by --=

back

Gex 20-62 received Feb 1 1967

Soard Stamp 40:15 Feb 13, 1967

Card No. 64;

front

Lilia Diehl Jan 30 1967

received by Diehl CEP,

GCX 20-63 received Feb 1 1967

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967

« {font Z

William L corl 30 Jan 1967

received by CEF. @ Plant Gate 2/1/67

back

“GCX 20-64 received. Feb 1 1967

G%ara stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967

Jan 31 1967

> a

By mail CEP..

@ Plant Gate CEF.

‘ @ Plant Gate CEF.

2 Plant Gate CEP.

;

60a

> | Opinion of the Second Circuit

Card No. 05:

frost tit; |

James BE. Lear ; 2/1 1967

received -o-

| GCX 20-65 received Feb 1 1967 At Plant Gate OEF.

Board Stamp 10:15 FPebi13 1967

° ‘

Card No. 66: :

we front

George A Kauffman —1/3o/ «1967

George R. Kauffman (typed)

received by --- . .

back

GCOX 20-66 received Peb 1 1967 Plant Gate CEP.

Board Stamp 10:15 _Peb13 1967

Card No. 67: m:

fret

Wilbur K. Heary Jan 30 1967

received by -=- | :

back

GCX 20-67 received Ped 1 1967 @ Plant Gate CEP.

Board Stamp 10:15 Peb13 1967

ame

R. Gardner ‘Ir.

Card Wo. 68:

1-30-67 1967

received by Wilson CBF. °

Deck

GCX 20-68 ‘received Ped l 1967 @ Plant Gate CEP.

Board Stamp 10:15 Peb 15 1967

6la -

Opinidn of the Second Circuit

Card No. 69: ‘A eA

front

Jerome Green 2-1 1967

. received by Committee

beck

GCX 20-69 received Feb l 1967

Board Stamp 10:15 Peb13 1967

@ Plant Gate CEP.

Card No. 70:

front

Robert D- Zeak 1/30 1967 ro

received by Committee . ¢

back . t

GCX 20-70 received Jan 30 1967 At Plant Gate Prom

R. Thompson. CEP, é

Board Stamp 10:15 pPeb 13 1967

Card No. 71: . ; Pm

front

ante Daniel H. wilt January 30 1967

received by -««

back

3X 20-71 received Jan 31 1967 heed from &.

Thompsoao CEP.

Board Stamp 10:15 Peb 13 1967

Card No. 72;

Robert H. Weaver Jan 350 1967

received by Committee

back

GCX 20-72 received Jan 30 1967 At Plant Gate Prom R,

- Thompson C2P,

Board Stamp 19:15 Ped 13 1967

—

. 62a

Opinion of the Second Circuit

Card Ho. 73:

. front

Carl Wasmeier 1/29/67 1967

re received by Committee

back —

‘ GOX 20-73 received Jan 30 1967

" Board Stamp 10:15 Peb13 1967

Card No. 74: ;

' froot - ahi

Mildred Sith” Jan 29 1967

received by Coan} ttee

_ back |

GOX 20-74 received Jan 30 \1967

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967

Card to. 75: y \

q {root

Gerald K. Settle “Jan. 30, 1967

received by ihe

back

\ GCK 20-75 received Jan 51 1967

Fed 13 1967

Board Stamp 10:15

Card No. 76:

front

James C. Russ

received by Committee

back ‘

received Jan’ 30 1967

GOX 20-76

Board Stamp 10:15 Peb13 1967

At plant gate From

R. Thogpson CEP.

At plant gate From

R. Thompson CEP.

Ree ‘a4 from R. Thoapeapn

CEP.

Jan. 30 th 1967

At Plant gate Fron

R. Thompson CEP.

° 63a

Opinion of the Second Circuit

Card No. 77:

front

Archie Prosperi ot, | 1/30 1967

received by Committee

NC as

GOX 20-77 received Jan 31 1967 nec a from R. Thonpson

- Board Stamp 10:15 eb 13 1967 i

Card No. 78; - ’ gat

front

William Nolan ~ «Jan 29° 1967 ~ : }

, received by Comuittee | VS

GCX 20-78 received Jan 301967 At Plant gate From

. R. Thompson CEP,

Board Stamp 10:15 © Reb 13 1967

Card No. 79:

front

Thelma Nolan Jan 29 1967

received by Committee

back

SCX 20-79 received Jan 30. 1967 e At plant gate fron

R. Thompson CEP,

Board -Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967 .

”

Card No. 30: ,

; front

Joseph Mueller 1/29 1967

received by a? 4

back

GCX 20-80" received Feb 3 1967 From Randy Thompson

CEP

Soard Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967

)

; Opinion of the Second Circuit

64a «

Card No. 31: cy Pe ;

fragt

Rudolph J. Mueller . 1-31 1967 ° =I

‘received by Committee 6

back

GOX 20-31 received Jan 31 “1967 ’ Prom R. Thompson COEF” ;

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13.1967 —

Card No. 82: ee

3 -\front ine s

Judy Massini 1/32 1967

received by --- -

back

CX 20-82 received Jan 31 1967 rec’d from R. Thompson

; CEF.

Board Stamp 19:15 Peb 13 1967

o—~

Card No. 03:

~ a front

Joan Mcintire 1/29’ 1967

received by Committee

back

: _* BOX 20-33 received Jan 30 1967 At plant gate Prok

, R.o Thompson CEF.

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967

Card No. 84: :

. . , > front >

Raynor G. McGinnis * 1/30 1967

received by 2aT 9

- ~~. 4

pack ‘

GOX 20-34 received Fed 3 1967 - Proz xandy Thompson

. ' CEF. 2

Board Stamp 19:15 (Feb 13. 1367

- = : \ : ~ P

wT —

‘ & ad

‘ 65a E

mole t

. Opinion of the Second Circuit -

Card No. 65: : 4

Nancy 1 Wise 2/6 1967 --. F

received by James Zdleblute

back

f GCX” 20-35 ~ received Feb 6 1967 . 11:05 p From James

oor Edleblute @ Plant

Board Stamp 10:15. Feb13 1967 Gate CEF.

Card No. 86: . .

: front :

Robert W. Singer 2-6 1967

received by J. Edleblute CEF.

° < back 4

et eGCX 20-386 received Feb 6 67 1195 pm From James

Edleblute at. Plant ~

Board Stamp 10:15. Feb 13 1967 Gate CEF.

Card No. 37: F

front

”

Ted Mastos °’ 2-6 1967

_ Feceived by Janes Edleblute CEF,

back

GCX 20-37 received Feb 6 1967 1105 P. From James

; ; Edleblute @ Plant’

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb13 1967 Gate CEF, :

‘ Md . ‘ : : ;

Card No. 88: ; : ‘

~ front ,

; Howard C. Shawley sr. Feb, 1 1367"

ie: received by Committee -- f

back och

GCX 20-68 received Feb 2 1967 From A. Salome at

tare vee *Hotel C=F,° oe

Board Stamp 19:19 Feb 13 1967 ee : a

te ; f j

fri ¢

: 66a ©

Opinion of the Second Circuit

Card No. 89:

-Card No. 90:

Card No» 91:

: Clair W. Marshman 1-30- 1967

received by A. Salome CF .

| back

““ GOX 20-89 received Peb 2 1967

Board Stamp 10:15 Peb13 1967*

front

< XX

Melvin McIntire

received by ---.

r back

sak aocee | peneuens-oey 2 -200T .

Board Stamp 10:15 eB, 13 1967

: front -

R.L. Wakefield - af/2h 1967

recejmed by CB’ | .

GCX 20-91 received Peb 3 1967

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967

Card No. 92 ft

front

Ronald Teddy m 1-31 i967

received’ by JJM | hs

x | / ° pack . :

GCx 20-92 “received Jan 31 1967

Board Stamp» 10:15 Peb13 1967

* ynion Stamp: Textile Workers Union of America, A.P.OF L.-C.1.0.

From A. ‘Salome at

Hotel CEF.

1<-31- 6 1967

Left @ Hotel Desk

CzF.

Clarence Brown CEP.

Prom Myers CEF.

1304 High Street Pottstown, Fennsylvania

Card No.

Card No. 94:

r received by mail CEPR,

67a ay -

Opinion of the Second Circwt }

93: : : nas

front }

Donna Markel

January 30 1967

received by JJM

back saiek:

GCX 20-93 received Jan 31 1967 ©

Board Stamp 10:15

Myers CEF..

“Feb 13 1967

Union Stamp: Textile Workers

Union of America, A.P.

1304 High Street Pottstown,

. > : a

Pennsylvania

a”

' front a 2

Margaret Smouse Jan 30 1967

_ back

GCX 20-44 received Feb 1 1967 By mail CEP.

Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967 Sets

Card No. 95;

‘ front

eo received by ---

Board Stamp 10:15

John Mittermeier

~GCX 20-95

2/1/67

back

received Feb l 1967 :

@ Plant Gate CEP.

Feb 13 1967

card Nol 96; :

front

Helen Nexendree P \entes 1967

received by at Plant Gate CEF 2/10/67

GCX 20-96 weeree ee

: Board Stamp 10:15 Feb 13 1967 .

| cere fag rd

OF Le= C.1.0.

’ ‘ ry ° = * Mares 4

precocsinthies nn enon mee reeves t

68a

s ‘

— eS Opinion of the Second Circuit EE iro

Gage Mo. 971 «2 tS ios,

5 front a hg

" Patrick G. 0/Hara ae Be

received.-by-Rv-Guella JeEe oe 3 _*

; back Hi

¥ | °GCX 20-97 apa ee see, P any eo ;

‘Y | Board Stamp 10:15 FeU 13 1967 ‘

‘ : ? ‘tr

Card No. 98: ° ee z Pd

nircay front

‘Margaret A. Van Tries 2/1 2967

received by CEF. at Plant Gate 2/2/67 Bere

ae lee ' i |

ex 20-98 received Feb 2 1967 \ at Plant Gate CEF.

. .' Board Stamp 10:15 ‘Peb13 19677 3) |

| ae eS ee 7 ee

Card No. 99: pa ; he

* front ee . ‘

william P Yingling Jr 2-9-1967, :

F received by C Brown (JeBs, 29-67 ,

e ae back - : :

GCX 20-99 ws--- . o------

Board Staxp 10:15 Feba3 1967

ee *

, Card No. 100: : ~ *

ay Maury “Le Delozier ae Feb. 13 1967 '

"received by JE. | reer S 2

e Gs oes back

* \ - GOK 20-100, received Feb 21 1967 Rrom J. Meyers CE

q Board Stamp °1967 Mar 2 am 9:40 se °

' . a =

| Ge.

S “s ; ie

; Opinion of the Second Circuit “ie

| Card No. 101: ; | eon

John Bianconi , ay 2/14/67

received by JJM *

! | back

GOX 205101 wenn Rec'd from J. Meyers

: 3 2/14/67 CEP,

Board Stamp 1967 Mar 2 am 9:40

Card No. 102:

front aes ,

— : : ns

°-Calsie D. Gearhart “ 2e11 1967 frame

. received by JJM - :

. ’ 2 oe e 2 *

: oc ; aes ~ Dack .

EP. | GCX 202102 =~. Rec'd 2913-67

eS : @ From JJM CEF,

Board Stamp 1967 Mar 2 am 9:40 ° : .

qi - “eara No. 103:

‘ * Roe t ; front —

| ice Gordon Runk . Feb 17,’ 1967

received by J.M CEP.

J back

GCE '20s103 © “evcone 3 Rec'd from J. “Meyerg

ae : 2/19/67-CEF.

Board Stamp 1967 Mar 2 am 9:4) . 4

* Card No. 124: » 1 ‘vi | ee

2 ; front ale . 1 P .*

Jay Nedimyer Pe 2/21/ 1967,

; received by JE ae bo .

Pd “ ° back s ‘ rye

CEF. | SCX 20-194 received Fed 21 1967 From J. Meyers CEP,

ae é ‘Board Stamp 1967 Mar 2am 9:4)

‘ oe .

Pal °

a. ‘

Card No. 105:

Me,

fa ae Ta

Opinion of the Second Circuit

front

Board Stamp - 1967 Mer 2 am 9:40

- @ ra

° —

William R. Potter ° Febr. 21 1967

‘ received by ee ee

back oS o

GCXx* 20-105 received Feb 21 1967 Prom J. Meyers CEF.

5 Board Stamp 1967 Mar 2 am 9:40 :

Card No. 106:

_Harry Lynn Walters 2/21 1967 i

received by JE aw

back

GCX 20-106 received Feb 21 1967 From J. Meyers CEP.

"Board Stamp 1967 Mar 2 am 9:40

card No. 107: x #6

YA dudy Walters 2/21 1967 :

v received by JE a

: Bey, back :

: GOx 208187 received Fet 21 1967 From J, Meyers CEF.

; per Stamp “3967 Mar 2 am 9:40 \

‘Card No. 108: aa ae

, . front - oe .

: Mary Workinger February 21 1967

sissies by JE i: ae ee

if 3 back ; ) - ets bee

GCX 20-108 received eb 211967 ‘Prom J. Meyers cEF.

- Ta 88 “

Opinion of the Second Circuit ove TE

Card No. 109; .

Harold Taddy | es 2=20 1967

received by 02. |

ied beck

GCX 20-109 woenoe Rec “a of James Myers:

De ee 2/23/67 CEP.

Board Stamp 1967 Mar 2 am 9:40 : /

Card No. 110:

trans

_-—-Praneis Long | 2-20 1967

received by C.B. | ome : J «

. “ae ce -

GOX 20h110 seen aec’d of James Myers

. . : 2/23/67 CEP.

Board Stamp 1967 Mar 2 am 9:40

Card Ne. lll:

front

John Hillard a. 2/16/ 1967

received by @ Plant Gate Prom cB

back

GCX 20-111 ------ ur ~~" Ree !d 2/16/67 Prom

flyde Brown @ Plant’

~ Board Stamp 1967 Mar 2 am 9:40 Gate CEF.

Card No. 112: = °

Richard 0. Hamp ~. / Feb. 20 1967 / s

pa ta fe: f

‘ . Peceived by P.P. guy / ~ < P

; back .

GCX ‘20-112 ------ Rec’d from J. Meyers

2/22/67 CEF.

Board Stamp 1967 Mar 2 am 9:40

-_-

' .

72a

; ~ Opinion of the Second Circuit

Card No. ld:

a | {root

Robert J. Hamp Feb. 20, 1967 ;

°c

. ~Egget ved by Wilson Ww CSP.

GOX 20-113 9 =-ee-= | nec’d from W. Wilson

a 2/24/67 CEP.

Board Stamp 1967 Mar 2 am 3:40

Card No. 114: ze

front

j /* Benegict fledler . 2/19 1967

. / vecetved dy P.P. JUM

A te |

. .

GCX 20-114 ited Rec’d from J. Meyers

7 2/22/67 CEP.

- Board Stamp 1967 4ar 2 am 3:4)

Card-No. 115:

BS Nn front

Nick Colella | 2/6 1967 E

received by J. Corbin Jr. CEF.

back

— GOX 20-115 we wenn Rec “4 at meeting

gh 2/26/67 CEP.

7 ~~ ‘Board Stamp 1967 dar 2 am 9:40

Card No. 116: Breen

fhe ~ front :

-\ Annette Steinbugl February 20 1967

*’ received by Paul Gardner CEP.

back

j . * 30x 2-116 S eteteated ‘ Rec’d @ meetine —

- ~ a > 2/26/67 CEP.

; i Board Stamp 1967 Mar 2 am 9:40

. og .

s . a

° a bt c a

° 73a

y “"” Opinion of the Second Circuit

; Caré. No. 117; . ;

r ea! _ Stent

\, Clarence M. Aikens Mar. 6 1967

received by mail CEP.

4 back

ion GCX 20-117 received Mar 6 1967 By wail CEP.

Soard Stamp 1967 Mar 13 am 9:07

Card No. 114;

front

Charles L. Brown 3/6 1967

received by mail CEF.

back '

rs SCX 20-118 received Mar 6 1967 By mail CEP.

Seara Stamp 1967 Mar 13 am 9:07

Card No. 119:

front

Howard p. Mentzer Feb. 25 1967

ee received by C.B. CEP,

back

Rec’4 from Clyde

Brown at Beeting

Board Stamp 1967 mar 13 am 9:06 3/3/67 CEP.

Card No. 120;

| front

Céomeré Wilson Peb 24 1967

| received by R.t.

back

GCX 20-120 on--- Rec “4 from gan

vas

Thompson 3/1/67

Board Stamp 1967 Mar 13 os 9:06

CEP.

T4a

Opinion of the Second Circuit

Card Mo. 121: .

7 {reat

. “Serald Ss. sodnie ~—— 3-2 «1967

. received by JJ Sanello

‘ back

GCK 23-121 ------ Rec d 3/2/67

J Cline myer CEP.

Board Statp 1967 Mer 135 at 9:07 ‘

; oa—

.Cafd do. 122: +

front

Donalrd 8. Pigliola “ ° fet. 27 1967

eal oa JIM."

back :

3CX 20-122 woee-- Rec’d from Janes

ee, of Meyers 2/23/67 CEP.

Board Stamp 1967 Mar 13 am 9:06

CEP.

75a

National Labor Relations Board Decision and Order

On December 29, 1967, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders

‘issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding

that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in cer-

tain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease

and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,

as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.

Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed

exceptions to the Decision and supporting~briefs.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Na-

tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National La-

bor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection

with this case*to a three-member panel,

The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-

iner*made at the hearing and finds that no - prejudicial

error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The

Board has considered the Trial Examiner’s Decision, the

exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case,

and hereby adopts’ the findings," conclusions, and recom-

mendations’ of the Trial Exaniner, as modified herein.

- |

Respondent asserts in its brief that the Trial Examiner relied

on the fact that Nhe Respondent consulted its attorney before re-

‘plying to the Union's request for bargaining in finding that Respon-

dent had no good-faith doubt of the Union's majority status.- We

do not believe that the Trial Examiner relied on the fact that Re-

spondent consulted its'attorney, nor do we.

: * Although the Trial Examiner found that the Respondent en-

xaged in violations of Section S(a)(1) during the preelection period

and recommended dismissing the petition in Case No. 6-RC-4363,

he did not specifically find on the basis of the objections filed that

the Respondent had eugaged in activity warranting setting. the

election’ aside: we deo so fing and hereby set the election aside.

note that the Trial ixaminer found that the Warning

addresXd to employee Clyde Brown for envaging in Union-organiz-

ing activities violated Section 8(a)(1). but did not require the

Respondent to remove any reterence to such-warning from Brown's’

at a il

a. a

National Labor Relations Board Decision and. Order

; ORDER

Pursuant to Seetion 10(c¢) of the National Labor Rela-

tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board

aitopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial

Examiner, as modified below, and hereby orders that the

Respondent, the Schwarzenbach-Iluber Company, Altoona,

Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, suecessors, and assigns,

shall. take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner’s

Recemmended Order, as herein modified:

Ll. Insert the followi ing ¢ as paragraph 2¢c) and reletter the

present paragraph 2(c) and subsequent paragraphs ac- -

cordingly :

a ‘

“(¢) Remove from the personnel records of Clyde Brown —

any and all reference to the warning given him for en-

gaging in union-organizing: activities.”

2 Insert the following as the tenth indented paragraph

in the Notice attached to the Trial /xaminer’s Decision:

We WILL remove from the personnels records of Clyde

Brown any and all.reference to the warning given him

for engaging in union-organiz:ng activities. |

Dated, Washington, D.C. ApR 17 1968°

F .

~ John H. Fannin Member

. ; Howard Jenkins, J1 Member

| Sam Zagoria, Member

(SEAL) “s NationaL Lavor Reiatrions Boarp |

personnel records. We shall amend the T rial Examiner’s Recom-

mended Order accordingly.

77a

Trial Examiner’s Decision

Statement of the Case

PH SAUNDERS, Trial Examiner: Upona charge and four

amended charges filed by Textile Workers Union of Amer-

ica, AFL-CIO, herein‘called the Union, a Complaint issued _

on July 10, 1967, and an Amended Complaint issued on

July 26, 1967—*gainst ‘The Schwaréenbach-Huber ‘Com-

pany, herein called the Company or the Respondent. The

Amended Complaint, as further amended at the hearing,

_ alleges that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor prac-

tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2) and (5)

of the National Labor Relations Act. A trial was held be-

fore ine in Altoona, Pennsylvania, and all parties were

represented by counsel and participated fully at the hear-

ing. Oral arguments wére waived, hut briefs were filed and -

the sdme have, been given due considerations.

Upon the entire revord in this case and my observation

of the witnesses, I make the following:

_°Findings of Fact ®t

I. The Business of the Respondent

The Respondent ‘is a New Jersey corporation with its

principal office, in New York, New York, and is engaged in

the mdnufacture of textile fabrics. During the 12 months

preceding July 1,-1967, Respondent received direetly from

outside Pennsylvania for use at its Altoona, Pennsylvania,

plant goods and materials valued in excess of ‘$50,000 and,

a. -

' To correct a few inadvertent errors appearing in this transcript,

Ll have’made ‘corrections in accordance with the General Counsel's

motion on‘same. xa

ee ee eee eee ee

Gg 78a

Trial~Examiner’s Decision

during the same period of time; Responde nt shipped di-—

rectly to points outside Pennsylvania from its. Altoona,’

Pennsylvania, plant goods valued in excess of $50,000.

The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and T find that

the Company is an employer engaged in commerce within

the mé@hing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

II. The Labor pia mcousetea Involved

4 e +

at-all tinrestuaterial herein, has been a labor organization

within the me: aning of Section 2(5)~of the Act. The Com-

pany denies that the Miaployee Committee, herein ealled

the Committee, is a labor organization within the meaning

of the Act.

Hil. The Unfair Labor Practices

The complaint, as amended, alleges that’ the Conpany

disciplined, ‘threatened, and interrogated employees .be-

cause of their union activities; that the Company spon-

sored, promoted, assisted, dominated, adininistered, sand

contributed support to, the Cominittee : that. since on or

about: February 9, 1967, a Majority of Respondent’s em- -

plovees in.a produetion and maintenance unit designated

and selected the Union as their bargaining agent, and

that since on or about February :14, 1967, the Company

has refused to recognize and hargain with the Union. The _

main and overriding issue in this case is whether or not

the Union, sincé on or about Februpry 9, 1967, has been

the representative of a majority of the production and main-

tenance emplovees at the Company forthe purpose. of

é 7a ’

Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, is, and’

$ . 3

Fis tee 79a

Trial Examiner's Decision

collective bargaining. The General Counsel and the Union

_ maintain that tinder the Bernel Foam decision, 146 NLRB

1277, the Company was obligated to recognize and bargain

with the Union notwithstanding the fact that the Union

lost the election. Other issués concern the” 8(a)(1) allega- .

tions and the Committee and the impact of these factors, .

if any, on the main and central 8(a) (5) allegation. ye

In late January, 1967,’ the Union began an organizing —

campaign among the Respondent's production and mainte-

nanve employees. On January 29, these employees began

sent @ letter to Respondent requesting recog nition. On Feb- .

ruary 14, the Respondent, by letter, réfused to jextend

recognition to the Union. On February 13, the Union filed

a petition for an election among the Respondent’s produc-

tion and maintenance employees ‘and. on F ebruary, 21, filed

an amended petition embracing the- saine unit. Pursuant

toa Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent. Election, .

an-election was conducted on March, 16, in which 82 votes.

"were. cast for the Union, 106 against the Union, and. 43"

ballots were challenged. aay \ oie cia

On March 2 23, the Union filed timely one to conduct”

affecting the results.of the election.’ Following an investi-

“y. gation by the Board's Regional Director on the objections, es ee

~’a number were withdrawn and the remaining were consol-

idated ‘in this proceeding with the unfair labor’: practice

complaint. The : APpropr late . consists: of the following:

—_—_——

“MIP dates are 1967 tnless: Specifically stated otherwise.

‘

ae ; ;

‘

°. 80a

Trial Examiner's Decision.

All production and maintenance employees-at the Re-

spondent’s Altoona, Pennsylvania, plant, .excluding

office clerical, employees and guards, professional em-

ployees and supey visors as defined in the Act.

we ay °

The Respondent’s answer admits the supervisory and

agent status.of Robert M. Sc hwarzenbach; Brooks T aylor,

Gerald Elden and: Merle Grossman, but denies such status

ax to W illiam, Lewis and Glew Rabenstein. a,

Plant “Manager, Brooks Taylor, testified that W illidm

~ Lewis is the training manager at the plant and as,a result

‘was foreman on the third shift, that Lewis’is responsible

for the development and administration of the Company’s

training and retraining proBram, that he directly. super-

vises the work of Joan laia and Ruby Evans when they act

as weaving. instructors, that Lewis has authority. to reeom-

mend the transfer of an emplovee to another type of work

and that his voice in such transfers would be an “important

recommendation.” This record-also shows that prior to the

March 16 clection, Taylor directed Lewis to talk to the

employees regarding the Union and to learn what their

grievances were, in order to ascertam what led to their

interest in the Union. @

Taylor testified that Rabenstein's title is standards engi-

neer, and in this capac ity he is Rep pOnes for the direction

of ‘this!meticd time measurement” system. The standards

ehetks (Terry, “Wray ) and the frequency checker (Chables

— Blair) work directly under Rahe nstein’s: supervision, and

he is also responsible for the work of Wray and Blair: At

cértain times, the weavinginstructors (Joan Laia and Ruby.

Evans) are also subject te lis supervision, Several days -

“,

R oot : e

-talk to the employees about the Union and the election, and

es 8la ne

Trial Examiner's Decision

before the March 16 election, Taylor directed Rabenstein to

to ascertain their grievances, :

The above admissions and testimony by Taylor reflects

that the work of Lewis and Rabenstein Was considerably

more than routine. “Lewis is responsible for training in cer:

tain operations of the plant, he specifically directs the work

of two weaving instructors, and ‘he ean effectively recom-

mend the transfer of employees who do not measure up as

potential weavers, Lewis, therefore, exercises considerable

discretion in making job assignments. Rabenstein-direets

the “M.T.M.” system, and at various times has under his

authority and. control five oy six employees, and, thereby, .

ry oie R ’

directs the work of these people. In view of the fact that

the authority exercised by Lewis and Rabenstein is not of

mere clerical nature, but requires the use of independent

. - Judgnyent coupled’ with -the right to direct: employees in

their work assignments—al] of which was amply demon-

Lewis'and Ra enstein,are supervisors within the meaning’

of the Act, and the Company is respousible for their con-

duct and statéments, Further indicative of the above, is the

admission by Taylor that prior to the.tlection he directed

«strated by me a of the plant manager—I find that

or asked both of them to talk to employees about the Union

and their grievances. In -theip respective capacities_the.

Company obviously felt that these {wo men were in stta-

fegic¢ positions to do so, and the Company would not have

bestowed such’ delicate: missions without thy knowledge or

understanding that they were a ‘part of the management

family. : go:

am : te !

Employee “Donald Bradley testified that. on or about .--

March I4. he was called into the office eceupied by Super-

% :

‘

<A AS OO a apg ms

p. 82a

Trial Examiner's Decision

visor Lewis. On this occasion Lewis—admittedly an old —

fryend of many year s—told Bradley that he and Rabenstein

had “volunteered” to talk to employees and ‘then stated,

“He [Lewis] was concerned about his ow1 job—as to the

future o (if Mr. Schwarzenbach should‘move from town

or close the plant.” Supervisors Lewis and Bradley then

talked about, some of the discussions that had taker place

in the ‘numerous small group. mectings conducted by the

Company w ith ite-employees. Lewis also informed Bradley

that he had heard that if the Union abt in, Bradley would

be +he union president, and that Bradley would leave his

‘job in order to operate his insurance agency on a full-time

basis.. Bradley replied that his work schedule is such that

he could not assume the union pr esidency, and his insurance,

agency. was not large. enough to justify his full time. Lewis

went on to say that he didnot know what the Union was

telling the¢ employees, but was under’ the’ impression that

there would be “bumping” in every department, and that

‘several bosses would be replaced. Bradley replied that he

had attended union meetings and never heard. any mention

of bumping or the replacement of any bosses. Lewis also

asked B radley a as to what he thought ine Union was getting

-for him.

This record shows that several wee oor ior to the March ve

16 election the Company held small group. meetings—tfr om

. approximately 8 fo 10 employees, Such meetings were held.

in.the Respor ident’s general office, at or near the conference

table located’ therein: Ger ‘ald Elden, Respondent’s . v ice

president, anil Plant Manager Taylor conducted. these =

“meetings which were attended by v irtually all the unit em-

plovees durin: worktime. Supervisors Tewis and Raben-

RY pee

——.

88a ‘

Trial Examiner's Decision’

: ae ‘ '

stein also attended and took part in at least some of these\

small group meetings. Employee Gerald Luther testified -

that Elden and Taylor did most of the talking and that

there were discussions as to why: cniployees” wanted ‘the

Union and inquiries as to what thiv eukbloy "ees thought the

Union could get for them. - Employee Randolph Thompson

stated that he attended-two of these small group meet-

ings and on one oceasion Taylor referred to the “New Eng-

land plant closing, down, because they couldn’t compete.”

Thompson then. asked if Taylor was saying the Union|

caused them to close down, and Respondent's vice president

_ Elden ‘replied, “You said that, not us.”* Judith Magsini

testified that at: the small group meeting she attended Tay-

lor asked, the employees why they wanted the Union and

what the! Union could do for them. Taylor then pointed out

the benefits which, the employees currently enjoyed, ex-

pressed the opinion that a union was. not nec Ed said

that he hoped they would vote “no.” Ata small group meet-

ing attended by employee Melvin Kintz, Taylor and Elden.

asked the employees for their complaints, and in response “\

_to such complaints, Taylor or Elden would say, “How do

you think the Union can help you here?” Elden then also

brought up the New Isngland plant andytold the employe es

that atter the Union got in there, “it quit ¢ nd went south.”

‘The parties stipulated. that Altoona isiiiee ppetorced to in

General Counsel's Exhibit No. 6--closed its plant permanently in

of about the vear 1953, and at the time it was under contract with

the ¢ ‘harging Party or the Union herein.

When Kintz asked if Klden was attribu ng to move south °

‘to the Union, Elden replied, “I’m not allowed to say that.”

~ Edden then informed Kintz that he spoke well enough, for

<«)

84a

Tnal.Examiner’s Decision

himself, and asked him why he wanted the Union to speak '

dreas. At the conclusion of this reprimand, Taylor gave

Brown a written confirmation of the warning and had

Brown sign it. Taylor testified that while the Company.

does not have a written no-solicitation rule, they. neverthe-

less, “maintained” such a rule and that he had never in-

formed anyone to the contrary. In his affidavit—General

Counsel’s Exhibit No. 23, pages 8 and 9—Taylor claimed

that the plant did not maintain a specific no-solicitation or

distribution rule, and went on to state that it has heen the

Respondent’s general policy to permit»all kinds of solici- -

tation, but only in nonworking areas. Taylor then testified

that he permitted employees to solicit .in working areas

except when he received a specific complaint ‘about it.

— Credited testimony hy Donald Bradley shows that in late

August, a solicitation of funds for a sick employee was con-

ducted in the plant, anc this. solicitation. was participated -

4 General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 7.

85a

Trial Examiner's Decision

in by a supervisor, Leroy McMullen, in work areas, during ”

working time. It is further significant that during the pre-

election campaign other employees asked Taylor if they

could buy buttons and decorate them with the slogan, “Vote

_ No,” and wear the buttons in the plant. ‘Taylor’s answer to —

thi was that h?did not wish to get involved.” T agree that

these incidents portray the Respondent’s disparate ap- j

proach to union and nonunion activities in its plant. As

_pointed out, it is. clear that Clyde Brown was disciplined

for engaging in union organizing activities in the plant,

. despite the fact that there was no rule-against such activ-

ities, and the making of such an “on the spot” rule by

Taylor, when’ he léarned. of Brown’s activities, was ‘ndt in

furtherance of Respondent’s legitimate interest of s rving

production, order, or discipline,-but was specifically for the |

purpose of huidestion union organization.-

This record also reveals that several days. prior to the

March 16 election, President Schwarzenbach’ came to the

plant and addressed. the employees with each shift being

assetabled in the plant warehouse. James Edelblute, a

12-year employée, testified that this was the first speech

Schwarzenbach had made to the employees as long as

he had been at the plant. Judith Massini: testified that

Schwarzenhach -stated in his speech to her shift that he

had invested a lot of money in-the plant, that it was well

equipped, and he could easily sell it or lease it to a company

like Sylvania. Massini testified he also said that he was

relying, on the employees who knew him best to support him -

in the election, and urged the-employees:to vote “no.” Ran-

dolph Thompson testified that Schwarzenbach remarked to

his shift that the Respondent was an old company which

2Y ANPP VIR TINY

86a

Trial Examiner's Decision.

had been in the area for a long time, that the plant had ,

gotten along without a union, and that if the Union got in

or failed to get in, “they were going to try to make a go of

it either way,” but then referred to “the New England

plant closing down” because it could not compete.

Employee William Wilson testified that the day before

the election, Supervisor Rabenstein informed him that he

* __Rabenstein—-was there to protect his own job, and then

went on to say that if thé Union was to win the election, it

‘could possibly mean his own job as well as “many others.”

Judith Massini testified that in early March, prior to the

election, Supervisor Merle Grossman told her to vote “no,”

inquired. why she wanted a union, informed her that if the

Union was successful the first request would be to ask the

Company to deduct mion dues’ from paychecks, and the

Company would ask the Union “to give up something like

a paid holiday or eliminate a job or employee or something

like that.” Grossman then called Taylor to also talk to

Massini and Taylor informed her that if the Unio won the

Company would start negotiations “from scratch” with no

. paid holidays or vacations, and “the slate would be wiped

clean.” Grossman admifted a union conversation with Mas-

sini, but denied saying anything other than to vote no. |

Taylor testified that he told Massini that in bargaining with

| union, it was his understanding that all benefits remained

the same,-: but if the parties reach a contract, the contract

. an as to wages and conditions.

on March 2, and in letters to employes on March 9 and 20,

the Company threatened employees with the closing and/or

> moving of the.plant. and resultant loss of employment, if

the employees chose the Union as theit collective-bargain-

87a

Trial Examiner's Decision

ing representative. The leaflet of MarSy-1 shows a sketth

of the Respondent’s plant with the following heading in

large printing:

We have, here in Altoona, one of the inost finest textile

mills in the world . . . South Carolina. not excluded.

Don’t let?s wreck it now! ron ts

ts ) ~

Hicbaw: this heading is a sketch of a plant in ruins, with the

subhead, “Remember Altoona Rayon?” As pointed out. ear-

lier herein Altoona Rayon closed its Altoona plant perma-

nently in-or about*the year 1953, and at that time it had

been under contract with the Textile Workers Union of

America, AFL-CIO, the Charging Party in this ease. The

Marchletter sent to employees was signed by Respond-

ent’s president Robert Schwarzenbach. The first paragraph

states in part as-follows: “To,say that I am concerned

about the future of the mill is putting it mildly.” The next

—several-paragraphs of the letter outlines recent economic

and operational difficulties and.conciuding paragraphs con-

tain these excerpts: .

No company can survive selling its products at a loss,

and this is exactly what we have been doing these last

8 months * * * Look at Juniata’s 20- -year record of

around-the-clock employment, And. the TWUA? Why

_ isn’t: there a single major-_textile operation left in the

* northeastern states? Is that the kind of job security

_ the union keeps talking about ?.

Why is it that today virtually all our. competition j is

located in the South? Simple enough! The mills down

there feel safe from the bickering, dissension and wn:

reasonable demands that come with the TWUA. Re-

- 88a

Trial Examiner’s Decision

member Altoona Rayon? * * * I firmly Relieve you have

absolutely nothing to gain by voting in tlte union.

Under date of March 20—after the election—President

Sehwarzenhach sent another letter to the employees con-

gratulating them on the outcome of the election and in the

second paragraph stated:

As a group you voted wisely since what: actually was

at stake was the future of the mill and the long -ferm

security of your job. ,

Insofar as the 8(a)(1) allegations are concerned—the

Company points and argues that in the speech by Schwarz- |

enbach, he merely stressed a concern for the-needs of: the

_- Company to remain competitive in the face of union de-

mands, and that there were no implications in the speech

or leaflet that the Company would follow in the footsteps—

of conan because of the Union. The Company also

maintains that the letters of March 9 and March 20 contain

' no more than\ an explanation of the Respondent’s concern

with their competitive position in event of union organi-

zation. The Respondent argis that the remarks by Lewis.

to Bradley were his own opinions, and that the purposes of

the small group meetings were: simply to asc ertain whether —

the employees had any complaints about their working con-

ditions. The Respondent would also discredit any infer-

ences in the fact that such meetings were held in the Com-

pany’s general office.° te

an See General Counsel’s:- Exhibit Nos. 5, 6 and 10.

*Schwarzenhach, Elden, Lewis, and Rabenstein did not testify

: in this proceeding, and, therefore. conduct and | statements at-

_ tributed to them —' undenied.

‘ tie 89a

. } . a . . ‘

| Trial Examiner's Decision

By systematically assembling small groups of employees |

shortly before the election and’ interrogating them regard-

‘ing their grievances which led them ‘to seek union..repre-

sentation, and under thdse circumstances further asking

employees why they wanted the Union and what they

thought the Union could get for them was unlawful inter-

a“

ferences with the organizational activities of. its employees -

atid violative of the Act. American Furniture Company,~.

{nc., 118- NLRB 1139, 1147. President Schwarzenbach’s

speeches to employées, as aforestated, went beyond the Re-

spondent’s concern to remain competitive and definitely

conveyed a threat—directly or indirectly—that the plant

would close-o1 move if the employees voted favorably for

- the-Union in the upcoming election. By making the specific

remark to the N ew England plant closing, as aforestated,

is ample evidence. that Schwarzenbach sufficiently planted.

his threat in ‘the minds of the employees and this is espe-

cially so when his speeches to the three’ shifts are viewed

in the context of Respondent’s other ‘unfair labor practices,

The leaflet and letters, as set forth earlier herein, also go-

heyond the protection afforded under Section S(c) of the

Act. The threat contained in these documents hada con- .

stant-and ringing message—if the Union Wins, We Move or

close.” By the continual implementation of this resounding

theme and with the repeated reminder that Altoona Rayon

or the New England plant had closed, the desired commnu-

nication to the employees had -been achieved, This’ also

hecomes abundantly pronounced “when consideration — is

given to the same theme contained in the speeches by Pres-

ident Schwarzenbach, and the same subject matter was also

brought up and intermingled in” thive various conversations

. > .

3° ie eg ; f .

LEEDS SLR RINT

= . . = SES Mt DOS opens

8 AREER PT ERTL CLIN EIT TE ILS cet . lh is

ms f

he oe

90a |

Trial Examiner's Decision

o®

and interrogations with employ ‘ees at the numerous small’

group meetings. By March 16 the Company had most cer-

tainly. implanted. and cultivated this rapidly growing’ em-

bryo, and the election harvested the erop as duly planned

and ealeulated. It.appears to me that this matter is finally

put to rest with the Respondent’s own letter to its em-.

ployees on March 2\—4 days after the election. In this ,

- document the Company admits that the future of the ill

was at stake and also the security and jobs of the em-

ployees. As pointed out, the Respondent had achieved its

_goal and the employees were’ now again reminded that they

had been saved from ‘economic devastation; if not outright

extinction. The oral ‘and written word had béen used in

quantities to ac hieve the desired end—defeat of the Union

in the election. The etter of March 20 recapitulates what

the Respondent had been telling the employees all along

—the plant w ould be closed if the Union won the election.

The supposedly: hidden message so skillfully defised, now

emerges with operand complete clarity.

Supervisor Lewis’ statement to Bradley that he was con-

cerned about the future of his own job if Schwarzenbach

should move or close the plant was at least .an “implied:

threat that the plant would be closed or moved if the em-

ployees choose the Union in the election, and which was

only 2 days away at the time. this stagement. was made.

Furthermore, Lewis’ questioning of Bradley as to whether

he would become the union president and what the Union

told employees with respect to bumping’ was unlawful inter-

rogation and violative of Section S(a) (1). It is well estab-

lished that the illegality of the remarks is not étired by the»

casual nature of. the conversation or the personal relation-

Ola

Trial Examiner's Decision

. *

ena eR Ne ae ee

i is ~

Mp of the parties thereto, nor by the rejection of Lewis’

remarks or statements. The remark, prior to the election,

by Supervisor Rabenstein to employee Wilson that he was .

concerned with his own job as wéll as “many others,” must +

‘also be deemed a threat in loss of jobs if the Union won the

election. Also the credited testimony by Judith Massini to

the effect that the Company would only ‘bargain with the

: Union on the basis that existing employee benefits would

first be eliminated, has been deemed vio ative as unlawful :

threats and interference,’ and I so find here. As previously

set forth herein, I have also found. that the Company dis-

ciplined' Clyde Brown for engaging in union organizational |

activities despite the fact that there was no nonsolicitation '

rule or known plant policy against such activity, and the

Respondent’s conduct in this respect is violative of Section °

8(a)(1) of the Act. per Gen ~

_. On April 18, the Respondent mailed a notice to employees.

_and such notice was signed by Taylor. Its purpose was to

announce the establishment of the Committe’. The notice,

‘in part, reads as follows: | -

Just prior to the recent union election, I spent about |

two weeks in meetings with virtually every employee.

During those meetings, 1 heard. coniplaints that 1 |

thought were legitimate ant justified. Also; I heard a

complaints that probably could have been avoided or:

_ eliminated if you had been fully informed with respect

to the reasoning behind the actions which caused the

hard feelings. see .

i Cawer Welding and Metal Fabricators, Ine. 154 NLRB 954,

J62. |

Sah ats meee he ok

S AMR Se

came sat emer ane

Sana TRAIN OO RRR « ag

PEL SEEM SONNE TT :

SREP PIR Ds v2 a

Ati re 92a

Trial Examiner's Decision

During that period, the decision was made that if the

Union was rejected, we would try to. crganize and (sic)

Employee Committee. Hy purpose of the committee

would be to act as a grievailce committee for you and

to act as a vehicle for improving communications be-

tween vou and the Company. Of course, you do. not

have to take your complaints’ or questions ‘to a com:

mittee member if you would rather not—you still have

the right of going to your supervisor or to me, or ‘to

Mr. Elden or Mrs. Schwarsenbpeh. But some of you

don’t like to do this, so the committee should be helpful

in this respect. :

The following employees have been interviewed and

i they also feel that such a committee might be beneficial -

and have agreed to:serve on the first committee. They

are * * * *

This group will Serve, for about three (3) or four (4)

months and then another group ic ill be axked to serve.

As soon as nee organized, a tentative schedule of

nie dead will he * posted on the bulletin board. :

In his own testimony Plant Manager Taylor admits the

following: The Committee met in his affic e, the Company

chose the membership of the*Committee, employee members

' were paid for time spent in attending meetings of the Com-

- mittee, Taylor attended c% Ach mecting, no election was held

to ascertain if. the erployees wanted the Committee, the

{‘ommittee submitted grievances With respect to condolence

or bereavement pay and the same was adjusted, thes Com-

* General Counsel's Exhibit ‘No. i. pe

‘ y ae 93a

Trial Examiner's Decision

mittee also submitted grievances on vacation schedules, the |

Committee brought up the subjects of an employee bulletin |

board—new wages scales—and additional restrooms, the”

Company initially determined ‘the length of ‘time an-em-

ployee member would: serve: on the ‘Committee ‘and also .

.determined the basis for membership (two employees from

each shift), the Committee has no hylaws—constitution or

dues, the Committee has no officers of its own; and as a

whole the Committee has conducted or held’ no meetings

other than those called by the Company. Iemployees Rich-

ard Wiley and Gerald Luther also gave some testimony as

to the Committee; and they are in general agreement with:

Taylor’s versions and admissions. |

The Respondent mainly argues that the Committee was

“organized after the election at the suggestion of several

employees, and was subsequently dishanded: and. is no

longer recognized so that the issues with respect to it are

moot. The Company ‘also suggest: in their argument that

whatever the finding -in respect to the Committee—the is-

sues“ are’ totally unrelated to any other aspect of: this

proceeding. T am not in accord with the Respondent’s posi-.

tions. In the averriding considerations of this case and in

its totality, the formation and workings of the: Committee

has a significant impact: The Act defines a labor organi-—

zation as: * es wes, cdl

. any organization of any kind, or any agency or

employee -representation committee or pian, in which

employees participate and which exists for the pur-

pose, -in whole er in part, of dealing With employees

concerning grievances; labor disputes, wages, rates of :

@ > pay. hours of employment, or conditions of work.

- 94a *. a

Trial Examiner's Decision

. . Ce

The Committee presented numerous an? various griev-—

ances to the Company, as admitted. by Taylor—pay, vaca-

tions, bulletin boards, restrooms. It is obvious that the

Committee has dealt with matters which appropriately —

come within the scope of collective bargaining, i.c., wages,

ae hours and other terms or conditions of employment, and

therefore, thesyRespondent’s denial that the Committee is a

labor organization.is without merit. In fact, ‘Taylor agreed

that a function of the Commitice is “to present employee

grievances tu the Company. o

Taylor testified that two. unnamed aah. had sug.

gested the idea for the Committee. However, the April 18

‘ notice-to employees by Taylor, as atoacemationnd, states

that during the small group meetings with employees the

Company heard complaints that probably could have been

avoided, and that.during this period the decision Was made

to organize the Committee in event the Union lost the elee- |

tion. Tre ix no mention in the April 18 notice-of any idea

for the Committee coming from employees, and all reason- -

* point to the conelusion that management ac ‘tually initiated

and promoted the Uomnmittee, The notice provided ‘that

“we” would try to organize the'Committee. In view of the

above and the fact that the two employees who supposedly

suggested the Committee remain anonymous—I must con-

elude that the Committee was formed exclusively by the

‘Company. Since the Respondent seléeted all employe

members of the. Committee, determinyd their initial sclee- *

tion, set the meeting” dates, paid all fiyAncial support: inelud-

ing time spent at the mecsings, anf] the yfact that Taylor

attended all the Committee meetings—duly established he-

95a

Trial Examiner's Decision

yond all doubt that by these acts the Respondent unlawfully

dominated, assisted and interfered with the administration

of the Employee Committee and thereby violated Section

S(a)(2) and (1) of the Act, and I so find. ;

On July 27 the Company sent a notice to employees tell-

ing them that the Committee was disbanded and will no

longer exist or function.” However, even if the Committee

is now in an inactive status, this does not necessarily mean

or assure that such a status is on a permanent basis. [ fur-

ther agree with the General Counsel that the danger of

continued assistance to and domination of the Committee

is most obvious unless the Respondent is restrained by an

} ropriate remedial order, and it is well established that -

ings of violations and remedies therefore serve a pre-

ive as well as remedial purpose, The July 27 notice is

insufficlent to adequately remedy ‘the effects of the Re-

* spondent’s unlawful assistance and domination.

Followmg the demand for recognition by the Union on

\s February 9, the Company notified _the Union on February:

’ 14 that it.was refusing recognition on the grounds that it

doubted the Union's majority. In the hearing before me

the parties stipulated to the inclusion of 195 employees in

the production and maintenance unit. At the outset of the

hearing, a.list of 191 names of unit employees was agreed

upon, but later. the following four individuals whose names

do not appear on the list marked General Counsel Exhibit |

| No, 2, were agreed to he excluded: Wilhehuina “Hoelzel:. -

Fr .. « Terry Wray, Pearl Tremmel, ee Blair; the fol-

} lowing four employees were agreed The included: Paul

- . wee,

" «+ * Respondent's xhibit No, 2.

‘ \

96a

Trial Examiner's Decision

Ricard, Jr., Walter Krise, John Golding, and David Fino-

chio. This accounts for the total of 195 unit employees

agreed upon at the trial. However, the Respondent offered

testimony as to four additional employees and in this re-

spect argues as follows: “It is the Respondent’s contention

that employees laia and Evans (hourly rated weavers who

from:-time to time instruct emplovees), Becker. (who at the

time of the demand for recognition had heen granted a

temporary leave of absence because of a babysitter prob-

lem) and Marjorie Krise (who was not at work for a period ~

of time because of an allergic illness) all are properly con-

sidered within the unit and that the unit, therefore, consists

of 199 employees, On the day the Union demanded recog- -

nition by the Company, it possessed only 99 cards—not a

majority.” The General Counsel takes no serious excep-

’ tions to the inclusion of Iaia and Evans, and has agreed to

\ his brief that these two weaving instructors have sufficient

. community of interest with other production employees so

as to be included in the unit.—This brings the-toetal- number

of employees in the unit to 197. The name of Marjorie

Krise does not appear on the eligibility-list as prepared by

the Company for the March 16 election. '

The General Counsel introduced 122 ee authorization

‘ cards into the record. .The Respondent does’not contest the

authenticity of the signatures on any of the 122 cards in

evidence no¥ was any issue raised with respect to their

~ dates. On or by February 9, when the initial demand for

recognition wax made, the Union had signed authorization

vards from 99) unit employees. Between February 9 and

February 14—the date when the Company began its refusal

to grant yecognition—four additional employees signed au-

97a

Trial Examiner's Decision

thorization cards.” | agree that on’the basis of the con-

tinuing nature of the Union’s demand, these cards can be

included in computing the Union’s majority.” Thus, by the

time the Company replied to the Union's: request for recog-

nition, the Union had obtained a majority of 103 cards out

of a total of 199 unit employees, even assuming that Becker

and Krise are to be included in-the unit. This record fur-

ther reveals that inthe following few weeks the Union

obtained 19 additional designations, bring its total of 122

cards, an overwhelming majority out of a maximum unit

of 199 employees. In view of the above and in summary

thereof, | am convinced, and find, that the February 9 de-

mand by the Union was in fact a continuing demand, and-

was still in effect. when the Union attained its majority

status. ‘,

"One of the primary contentions of; the Respondent is that

some 30 or more of the authorization cards were signed at

_--— —

General Counsel Exhibit Nos.-20-101-96-100-102.

The pertinent portion of paragraph 11 of the amended com-

plaint states as follows: “Since on or about February 9, 1967, and

at all times thereafter, the Union has requested, and is requesting,

the Respondent.to bargain collectively... 2° Also on February 13.

the Union filed.a petition for representation. (6-RC-4363)' and the

filing of a petition is viewed hy the Board as a request for recogni-

tion. In Scobell Chemical Company v. N.L.R.B., 267 F’. 2d 922,_-

§29 (CLA. 2). where the Court, assuming that the Union lacked a

mafority at the time of its bargaining request, found ‘that it had

such a majority the next day. and held that in the light of the strike

and picketing which there ensued, the Enion’s request for bargain-

‘ing must be deemed a continuing request. The instant case is some-

what like Scobell except that here, instead of striking and picketing,

the Union pursued its bargaining request through a representation

petition. See Burton-Dirir Corporation, 210 F. 2d 199, ?00, 201

(CLA. 10), where the Union lacked a majority at the time it re-

quested recognition but where the’ request was understood to be

of a continuing character.

(

98a

Trial Examiner's Decision

a meeting of the Union on ‘January 29, oe it is argued that

at this meetirig the 'Union’s international representative,

C axl Frazier, made it clear in his remarks that the purpose

of the cards was “just’> to get a Board election, In these

respects the Respondent further contends as follows:

Although in answer to a rebuttal question by General

Counsel, Frazier denied that he used the word “just” -

in commenting on the necessity of cards for an election, |

it is, nevertheless, abundantly clear that he intended to

and did, in fact, “create the impression in the minds

of the employees that such was their only purpose.

Whether he used the words “only” or “just” or some

other words at that meeting may never be accurately

~ determined, but the effect of his words on the em-

ployees in. attendance and their understanding leave

no room for doubt.

The language on. the cards in the instant case is clear and

reads as follows: ®

I hereby accept meghership in the T extile Workers.

Union of America of my own free. will andl do’ hereby

designate said (xtile Workers Union of America as”

may representative for the purposes of collective bar-

gaining jn respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of

employment | or other conditions of employment.

The cards make no lee ‘nee of any kind to a union elee-

tion, but the Respondent, ne svertheless, sought at the hear-

ing to prove that numerous unit employees, Were ‘so. in-

formed ‘or so believed.

99a ‘ é

Trial Examiner's Decision

Harry Walters testified that when he signed his card it.

was given. to him by either, Jim Edelblute or Harry Me-

Graw, and that at the time he inquired whether he would

bea charter meinber and whether or not he would not have -

‘to pay an initiation fee. Walters stated he was then told .

“that they had the biggest majority of the cards signed and

that they were ready to have a vote.” Walters also passed

out cards to his wife and two other employees, and in so

doing he stated, “if you area charter member, ,you donot

have to pay an initiation ‘fee, so I suggest that you sign the

card even though whatever vou are going to vote. You vote

_ the way you please.” |

Mary Lou White testified that she was given the card

by an employee named Judy. Judy supposedly told White

that the card “just meant that an election would come and

it didn’t mean anything else.”"® This record shows that

every: euployee wlio signe an authorization card was then

a ? Shortly after signing: her card, White received a union charter

menibe ‘rship card with her naine and the Respondent’s name_on the

Appropriate lines, This card reads as follows:

Textile Workers Union of America

TWUA, AFL-CIO

Charter Membership Card

This is to « ertify that the bearer of this card

is a “td larter mapnley of ‘the oval | uniow * that. will py chartered by

the Textile Workers Union of America, TWUA. AF L-CIO

for the employees of

Sou Stetin

Regional Director

Quin- State Region

MORE NE TO ERE AACR DE ROTI

100a

Trial Examiner's Decision

Ue NY,

mailed the above charter membership card, and algo a letter

from the Union and certain other materials explaining the

Union and its objectives. General Counsel Exhibit No. 21-a

through 21-d. White further, admitted that she never at-

tempted to revoke her card.

Patrick O’Hara testified that he signed a card at the re-

quest of employee Raymond Guella, who allegedly told him

that the card would save him “the first year’s fee” ($5.00)

and “that they would use the card to. get the majority of |.’

the cards signed, you know, but it was to get a vote going

in/an election.” O’Hara admitted that-he read the card be-

fore he signed it, and that he ever asked for his card back.

Jonas Corbin, Jr., testified that he signed his union card

at the meeting where they were first distributed on Jan-

uary 29. Corbin stated that at this meeting he asker Union

Representative Frazier if by signing the ecards the Union

would coliect dues from employees even if. the Union lost

the election, and that Frazier. replied in that event the

signed cards would be returned and no dues would be col-

~ lected. According to Corbin, Repre ‘sentative Frazier added

that. “all he wanted was 50 percent of the people to sign

blue cardy so we could get an election. * Corbin also testi-.

fied that subsequently he distributed “about ten” cards to —

other individuals, and told them they: ‘should read it and

sign, and that “we had to sign 30 percent of the people in .

- the plant before we could even get-an election,” and “they

would definitely be charter members in the Union.” Corbin-

admitted that Frazier read . the gant at this January 29

me eting. f

Maury Delosier testifie wd that he attended the January 29.

union meeting, where cards were distributed and that Fra-

10la .-—

Trial Examiner's” Decision

zier “when he first showed the card, he said this is*for the

start to get an election, to get the ball rolling.”

Paul Kcker testified that he got his card from’ either

Clyde Brown or Ronnie: Braekbill, and admitted that who- .

ever gave him the card said nothing, except to ask him to

“ sign. Keker, in response to the Respondent's question “did

anybody call you any names?” testified: :

_ Oh, there is talk like, “Don’t sign the card,” and stuff

‘like that. They call you brown nose and stuff like that;

You are all for the office and stuff like that.

Nancy Wise testified she signed a card after Union Agent ,

James Myers came to her home. ‘She also stated that Myers

told ‘her that there was going to be an election, and that

after keeping the card for some time, while an employee by

the name of Joyce kept asking her why ‘she die aot sign it,

she signed it “just to get her [Jovee| off my shoulders.”

Wise never attempted to revoke her authorization ecard.

Annette Steinbugl stated that she Was given a card. by

employee Paul Gardner, and was informed that the Union

had to have “so many cards” before they could have a vote

and that if the Union did ‘not get in the cards would be

disregarded, but if the Union won, she would be a member.

Louis Delosier testified that employee Randy Thompson

gave hima card to sign and that Thompson told him “it

was for an election.” On cross-examination, Delosier stated

that he signed Mis card at home, and then admitted that

a union meeting he attended—F razier explained to em:

ployees the Uhiion needed 30 percent of the employees to

Sign cards in order to havea vote and he also admitted that

Mrazier read the card. :

on REE EATON

a NEWS ay

102a

Trial Examiner's Decision

William Sloane attended the union. rane where cards .

were distributed, and testified he was informed, that 30 per-

cent was needed for an election, and that by signing the

card an employee became a charter member of the ‘Union -

and was exempt fromthe initiation fee requirement. On

-cross- examination, Sloane stated that Frazier read the card

“aloud to the assembled employees, told them that by signing

the card they would become charter members of the Union,

> and if the Union lost the election the cards would be re-

‘turned to the ‘signers. |

Jerome Green testified that an employee named Melvin .

. gave him a union eard, but Melvin said nothing to Green

-about the card. Green stated the union agent, Myers, vis-

ited him.at his home and tokl him that: “they. needed so

-many for an election.” Green admitted that Myers may

~ have visited him after he had signed the eard.

George Kaufman was also given a card by Melvin (last

name unknown). Kaufman statect he was told by Melvin

that he would hecome a member if, he ‘signed, that all the

Union needed was about 30 percent to have an election, and

that if the Union was successfu] Kaufman would save the

first initiation fee.

‘Ronald Taddy received his « ca ard from James Myers, and

testified he was informed by Myo rs that the Union had to

have 50 percént to have an eélection. Taddy stated that

“Myers “could have told” him that by signing the card he °

would become a charter member.

William Nolan received his card from Harry McGraw.

Xolan stated that McGraw informed him that “they had to

have a certain percentage to join the Union, to get a union

’ + started,” and that “there would be an election.”

_ Clinton ‘Lane testified that: Clyde’ Brown gave him the

which he signed, that Brown said nothing to him ab

‘reply, Frazier allegedly said, “This is jus

on the road, so we can get a vote in you pl nt.” On ecross- .

~ 103a - : ‘

Trial Examiner’ s Decision :

_ Raymond Wakefield testified that Clyde: Brown vn gaye hi Sie

: the card which he signed, and told him that if he sigried and

the Union came in, he would not have to pay shy es ,

_ ‘fee, that he would “automatically” ‘belong to Hae Union.

‘Benedict Hebler testified that he got his card from a.

man whose name he does not know. Acc ‘ording to: Hebler,

~ this unidentified person told him, “if the Union got in, if

.they get in, I have 30 days to get one or either, Td be laid

off .. hd

: Nick Colella testified that Jonas (orbin gave him the/

ecard which he signed and that Corbin said “not a thing”

card, as “‘I’was with unions before. I knowed abo

Walter Delosier, Jr., testified that he signed.a gard at the

meeting where the unde were distributed, and At this meet-

ing employee Jonas Corbin asked Frazier about the word.

hembership. In

\to get the show

ing on the cards with reference to union

examination, Delosier denied that Fraziéy read the eontents

of the card aloud to the assemblage! before distributing

them. Yet, Jonas Corbin testified as aforestated, that Fra-.

zier “read everything that was written on the tard” at this

meeting. Delosier admitted that he read his card before— < =

signing it. /

Richard Killinger testified that he signed a union ca at

his home, after getting it at the mill from a fellow elnplovée

named “Jim,” whose last name he could not remember.

Killinger went on to say that he was told that “they was

trying to get a vote into the mill.”

—

104a

. @

.. . Trial Examier’s Decision , °.

. . The General Counsel produced téstimony through Union

Slappa to the effect that at the meeting on

January 29, he initially mentioned the background of the

Union, told the employees what it meant, and-he then

| opened the meeting for questions. Frazier stated that.

ed Corbin then asked him if the employees who sign d cards

would be: charged dues if the Union lost the election, and

_, °. he assured Corbin that if the Union lost, no dues would be

collected, and the signed cards would be returned to the

employees. Some aliscussion between Frazier and the em-

ployees féllowedand_ Frazier “pointed out that’ the Union|

x would have to get 30 per cent of the-.employees to sign cards

before he could -file a pétition ‘and also stated, “T want to

- point. —_ there has to be 51 percent of the’ people vote for

_a union.” A motion was then made at the meeting that

cards be signed, ‘but before this was done Frazier read the

card to employees “slowly” and “carefully.” Frazier cred-

— ibly denied that he ever told thre employees at this meeting,

ce eae _or at any other time, that the ci ards were only for an elee-

tion. Frazier was corroborated in his denial that he did not

tell the employees at the meeting in question that the ecards |

were only for an election. James Myers, a representative

of the Union, was. also present at.this meeting. He testified ;

that Frazier said no such thing. Donald Bradley ‘testified

that. he made tlie motien to start signing the union cards,

and stated that F razier never said that they weressole}y for

— ——an election. Bradley also corroborated Frazier’s account of

cf : . reading the, contents of the card aloud at the meeting. .

| In the Englewood Lamber Company &% ise, 130 NLRB 394,

the Board refuse®.to count, authorization cards’ based. on

‘ the. following considerations. . The signatures of two em-

~ °

™“

‘

wr \ 08a 5

Trial Examiner's, Decision:

; }

. ployees, who were opposed to the Union, were obtafmed on

authorization cards by the represéntation that an election

would he held in which a vote could ,be cast against the =

Union as well as for it. About 10 enyployves testified that

they were brought to the point of signa ure by the belief

than an election would result ‘prior to which opportunity

for mattire reflection upon the question of clioice ‘would

exist. The Union's solicitor of. authorization cards told

practically everyone he talked to that tlie cards would be:

sent to the Board so that a secret election, could be held.

The Board stated, “In these circumstances, considering -

. only what the employees were told, and not- what may or.

may not have been tnd subjective reaction to what they

were told, we do not think it can reasonably he said that

the employees, . by their aet of signing authorizations, °

thereby clearly manifested an intention to designate the

Union as ‘a bargaining representative.” In interpreting -

this decision and in applying the rule in subsequent eases,

‘the Board has limited this exception to situations where an

employee signs a ear upon the representation that the .

only purpose of the card is to obtain an election, In the

Cumberland Shoe Corporation, 144 NLRB. No. 124, the

Trial Examiner, relying on the Board's decision in Engle-

wood Lumber Company case, held that. 17 of the union’s

authorjzation cards were not valid for purposes of deter-

siti majority status because the employees who signed

thei testified that they wer ‘told, when they were solicited

by fellow employees, that is purpose of the cards Was to

‘secure an élection, The Board: held, however, that this

~ easd is factually. distinguishable from Englewood Lumber.

The following is quoted from: the. Board’s decision: :

106a

Trial Examiner's Decision

While it is true, as found by tlle Trial Examiner, that

17 of the signatories testified"that they were told that

‘ a purpose of the cards fas to secure a Board election,

it does not appear iigthey were told that this was

the only purpose of bards. In this case the cards,

on their face, explicit¥ authorized the Union onl, to.

act as bargaining agent of the employees, and con-

- trary to the implied finding of the Trial Examiner, the.

failure of the Union’s solicitors to affirmatively restate

this authorization does not indicate that it was aban-

doned or ignored. Thus, there i no evidence there to

negative the overt action-of the employees in signing’

_ eards designating the Union as a bargaining agent,

_.* and the instant situation is not one in which the Union

beguiled employees into signing union cards.

‘In footnote 3 to the Board’s decision, it is pointed out

that the solicitor of the signatures on authorization cards

in the Englewood Lumber case explained to almost all the

employees that the catds were only for the purpose of se-

curing a Board election, and thereby secured many signa-

tures including those of two employees who ‘were hostile

to the Union. Various employees in.the Cumberland case

testified to the following statements by solicitors: (1) One .

employee was told that the Union needed to have 80 per-

cent of the employees signed .up in order to get an election

and that itavas to have an election. : (2) Another employee

was told substantially the same thing and told that the

purpose of the card was to secure an election. (3) Another ~

employee was told that the purpose of the card was to bring

the union question to a vote in an election. In all, 17 em-

nes,

107a

Trial Examiner’s Decision |

ployees testified that they were told when they were soli-

cited by fellow employees that the purpose of the cards

was.to.secure an eléction. This testimony was undenied

arid credited by the Trial Examiner. One employee testified

that the talk all over the plant was about trying to tis an

election.

Thus, I conclude that the Gate for determining whether

a card should be counted is based, not on what an em-

ployee. subjectively ‘intended or understood, but on (1)

' whether he was falsely told that the only purpose of the

card was to secure an‘ election, or on (2) whether he was

*. induced to sign the card by trickery or beguilement.”

The evidence in this record is overwhélming that Frazier

-hever made any representation to employees that the cards

were'only for an election. W

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.