The Singer Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 1195 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

THE SINGER COMPANY 1195
The Singer Company , Friden Division and Internation-
al Association of Machinists and Aerospace Work-
ers, AFL-CIO
The Singer Company, Friden Division , and Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases 28-CA-
2192, 28-CA-2265, and 28-RC-2118
October 31, 1972
DECISION , ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
PENELLO
On April 14, 1972, Trial Examiner Irving Rogo-
sin issued the attached Decision in this proceeding.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-
exceptions, a supporting brief, and an answering
brief. The Respondent also filed a brief in answer to
the General Counsel's cross-exceptions and support-
ing brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions,
the cross-exceptions, and briefs, and has decided to
affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and con-
clusions and to adopt his recommended Order only to
the extent consistent herewith.
1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act by prohibiting certain employees from wearing
shirts displaying union insignia and by depriving
them of earnings until they removed said shirts. We
also agree that it independently violated Section
8(a)(1) by coercively interrogating employees regard-
ing their union activities,' by veiled threats of plant
closure, and by statements of the inevitability of
strikes and the dire consequences of such strikes, in-
cluding loss of jobs if the Union were selected, as
reflected in the speeches of the Respondent's officials
and in the Respondent's preelection portfolio and
i The Trial Examiner found that Respondent 's foremen , Balderston and
Stanley, coercively interrogated employees but failed to detail such interroga-
tions. The record amply supports the Trial Examiner's findings in this re-
spect . Thus, in August and September 1970, Foreman Balderston spoke to
groups of assembled employees and, by his own admission , specifically asked
them "why they wanted the Union", in November 1970, Foreman Stanley
invited employee Randy Martinez to his desk, brought up the question of the
Union , and asked him "Why do you want a union Why do you think you
need a union"
other campaign material.
2. The Trial Examiner also found that the Re-
spondent further violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act by discriminatorily enforcing its no-solicita-
tion rule and by unlawfully withholding wage increas-
es of employees because of their union activities. We
find merit in the Respondent's exceptions to these
findings.
(a) The alleged discriminatory enforcement of the
Respondent's no-solicitation rule: There is no dispute
that the Respondent's no-solicitation rule, which was
posted on August 17, 1970, is presumptively valid.
With respect to the alleged discriminatory enforce-
ment of said rule, the record reflects that on Novem-
ber 17, 1970, General Foreman Vincent Baggetta
issued written reprimands to employees Moya, Marti-
nez, and Carrillo, for allegedly soliciting for the Union
on company property during working hours and that,
at about the same time, Baggetta also issued written
reprimands to employees Carlson and Lovato for so-
liciting against the Union during working time. The
Trial Examiner reasoned that if this were all that was
involved in this case, a finding of discriminatory treat-
ment of union proponents would be unwarranted.
However, the Trial Examiner found the 8(a)(1) viola-
tion because of an incident in the fall of 1970, when
Forelady Henderson, upon receiving complaints that
two employees, Legg and Gibbard, were promoting
and selling Avon (cosmetic) products to employees
during working time, merely warned the two employ-
ees orally that this conduct was in violation of the
no-solicitation rule. The Trial Examiner, noting that
Respondent had not dealt with union adherents in a
similar, mild fashion, concluded that the no-solicita-
tion rule was discriminatorily enforced against the
Union to inhibit and restrain its organizational activi-
ties.
We are unable to agree with the Trial Examiner
that the facts warrant the conclusion that the
Respondent's no-solicitation rule was discriminatori-
ly enforced. The mere fact that the Respondent did
not issue written reprimands to two employees for
soliciting a commerical product on working time, but
only orally admonished them, as distinguished from
the written reprimands accorded union (and nonun-
ion) adherents, does not, in our opinion, justify the
conclusion that the rule was discriminatorily enforced
or disparately applied. We shall, therefore, overrule
the objection and dismiss all allegations of the com-
plaint with respect thereto.
(b) The alleged unlawful withholding of wage in-
creases: The record shows that the Respondent em-
ployed two classifications of production employees,
namely, assembler 1 and assembler 2. The Respon-
dent did not grant promotions from assembler 1 to
assembler 2 on any regularly recurring or periodic
199 NLRB No. 162
1196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
basis, but did so solely on the basis of the individual
progress of the employee and the informal recommen-
dation of the foreman. The Petitioner filed its "RC"
petition on November 4, 1970, and at about this time
the Respondent's supervisors were instructed that no
promotions or reclassifications would be made until
after the election, when a job study would be under-
taken. No promotions were granted during the period
from November 4, 1970, the day the petition was filed,
to December 10, 1970, the day of the election. No
announcement of the decision was made, but employ-
ees who inquired were told of the instructions to su-
pervisors. On these facts, the Trial Examiner found
that promotion or reclassifications were unlawfully
withheld on the ground that the Respondent would
have granted promotions but for the advent of the
Union and, accordingly, that the Respondent thereby
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. We dis-
agree with this finding.
It is true, as the Trial Examiner observes, that
employers have the legal duty in deciding whether to
grant benefits while a representation case is pending
to determine that question precisely as they would if
a union were not in the picture? Yet, it is also true,
that under settled Board policy, a grant or promise of
benefits during the critical preelection period will be
considered unlawful unless the employer comes for-
ward with an explanation, other than the pending
election, for the timing of the grant or announcement
of such benefits. It is apparent therefore, that tension
exists between these principles where, as here, the
benefits are not pursuant to any fixed practice, pat-
tern, or preorganizational announcement, but both
the timing and eligibility for the benefits are purely
within the discretion of the employer. Absent an ac-
commodation of these principles, employers situated
similarly to the Respondent herein would be faced
with the dilemma of giving the increase without bene-
fit of objective evidence excusing the timing, thereby
risking an unlawful interference with the election or,
as was done here, withholding the benefits and still be
subject to charges of unlawful conduct.
The Board has held that where an employer has
made clear in its campaign statements that its only
reasons for postponing expected benefits was to avoid
the appearance of election interference, its action did
not constitute objectionable conduct? We can per-
ceive no justification for refusing to apply that rule to
a situation where, as here, the benefits are not neces-
sarily expected, and the withholding is for the limited
purpose of protecting the employer from charges of
unlawful conduct.
In this case, the Employer did not withhold re-
2 McCormick Longmeadow Stone Co Inc., 158 NLRB 1237, 1242.
3 See Uarco Incorporated 169 NLRB 1153, Montana Lumber Sales Inc
(Delaney & Sons Division), 185 NLRB No. 12.
classifications in the 'context of antiunion propa-
ganda, and indeed there does not appear to have been
a formal announcement of the withholding; employ-
ees who inquired about the possibility of promotion
were merely told that reclassification would be de-
ferred until after the election. In the circumstances,
we do not believe that the employees could rea-
sonably conclude that the Employer's postponement
of promotions or reclassifications was intended to in-
fluence organizational activities, and, accordingly,
contrary to the Trial Examiner, we shall overrule Ob-
jection 7 and dismiss the 8(a)(1) allegation based
thereon .4
3. The Union timely filed 10 objections to the
election conducted on December 10, 1970.5 Of these,
the Trial Examiner sustained Objections 2, 5, 6, (in
part), 7, and 10, and recommended that the election
of December 10, 1970, be set aside. We adopt the Trial
Examiner's recommendations only as to Objection 5,
which pertains to coercive preelection speeches made
by the Respondent's officials, and Objection 10,
which pertains to the portfolio distributed to the em-
ployees by the Respondent on December 9, 1970, the
day before the election 6 These objections, we find,
constitute grounds for setting aside the election, and
we shall, therefore, adopt the Trial Examiner's rec-
ommendation that we set aside the election of Decem-
ber 10, 1970, and direct that a second election be
conducted at such time as the Regional Director
deems the circumstances permit the free choice of a
bargaining representative.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified below, and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Singer Company,
Friden Division, Albuquerque, New Mexico, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended
Order, as so modified:
1. Delete from paragraph 1(a) of the Trial
Examiner's recommended Order the words "issuing
written reprimands to employees, and withholding
wage increases."
2. Delete from paragraph 1(b) of the Trial
For the reasons stated by the Trial Examiner and on the basis of estab-
lished law, upon which he relied, Member Fanning would find that Respon-
dent violated Sec . 8(a)(1) and (3) when it withheld wage increases and
promotions from employees in assembler I category because of the pendency
of the election.
3 The tally of ballots showed 44 votes cast for, and 63 against , the Union,
with 3 challenged ballots.
6 We have overruled Objection 6 and 7, supra, and we hereby overrule
Objection 2 based on events preceding the date that the election petition was
filed.
THE SINGER COMPANY 1197
Examiner's recommended Order the words "with-
holding wage increases, issuing unwarranted written
reprimands."
3. Delete paragraph 2(b) of the Trial Examiner's
recommended Order, and reletter paragraphs 2(c),
(d), and (e), accordingly.
4. Substitute the attached Notice for the Notice
marked "Appendix B" attached to the Trial
Examiner's Decision.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election
conducted on December 10, 1970, in Case 28-RC-
2118, be, and it hereby is, set aside, and that Case
28-RC-2118 be, and it hereby is, remanded to the
Regional Director for Region 28 for the purpose of
conducting a new election at such time as he deems
the circumstances permit the free choice of a bargain-
ing representative.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the com-
plaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of
the Act other than those found in this Decision.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
organization as a condition of employment, in
conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL reimburse Randy Martinez, Robert
Moya, and Ronald Norling for any loss of pay
they may have sustained during the time they
were excluded from the plant for wearing shirts
displaying union insignia on September 17, 1970.
All our employees are free to become, or
remain or to refrain from becoming or remain-
ing, members of the above-named, or any other,
labor organization.
Dated By
THE SINGER COMPANY,
FRIDEN DIVISION
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 7011 Federal Building and U.S.
Courthouse, P.O. Box 2146, 500 Gold Avenue SW.,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87101, Telephone 505-
843-2555.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership of our
employees in International Association of Ma-
chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization, by discriminating
in any manner in regard to hire, tenure, or any
other term or condition of employment, by pe-
nalizing employees with loss of wages, except as
authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our em-
ployees regarding their union or protected activi-
ties; threaten them with reprisals because of their
union or protected concerted activities; threaten
plant closure and state that strikes and loss of
jobs are the inevitable results of unionism.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to join
or assist the above-named or any other labor or-
ganization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any or all such activities, except
to the extent that such right may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IRVING RocoslN, Trial Examiner : These proceedings
are based upon two separate complaints , issued December
3, 1970, and March 30, 1971, respectively , consolidated for
heanng with objections to the conduct of election , pursuant
to order of the Regional Director dated March 30, 1971.'
In Case 28-CA-2192, the complaint alleges that on
about September 17, 1970, Respondent prohibited seven
named employees from wearing shirts displaying union in-
signia , and refused to permit them to work until they re-
moved that attire , thereby engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) and (3) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
In Case 28-CA-2265, the complaint alleges that on
various dates , since about October 1, 1970, Respondent
'The original charge in Case 28-CA-2192 was filed on October 7, 1970;
in Case 28-CA-2265, on January 25, 1971, both duly served . Designations
herein are as follows: the General Counsel, unless otherwise stated , his repre-
sentatives at the hearing ; The Singer Company, Fnden Division, Respon-
dent, the Company or the Employer; International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, the Charging Party, the Union, or the
Petitioner ; the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136,,73
Stat. 519, 29 U S.C. Sec. 151, et seq.), the Act; the National Labor Relations
Board, the Board . Unless otherwise stated , all dates refer to 1970.
1198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaged in enumerated acts of interference, restraint, and
coercion, including unlawful interrogation, threats of plant
closure, discriminatory enforcement of a no-solicitation
rule, and warnings of the inevitability of strikes if the Union
were selected as bargaining agent, in violation of Section
8(a)(1).
This complaint also alleges a refusal to bargain since
October 26, 1970, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5), but,
as will presently appear, this allegation was dismissed on
motion of the General Counsel at the outset of the hearing.
By separate answers to the respective complaints Re-
spondent admitted, with minor qualifications not here ma-
terial, the procedural and jurisdictional allegations and
admitted certain other allegations, but denied generally the
substantive allegations and the commission of any unfair
labor practices.
On November 4, 1970, the Union filed a representation
petition for an election among employees in an appropriate
Unit .2 Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon con-
sent election agreement, approved by the Regional Director
on November 13, an election by secret ballot was conducted
among the employees in the appropriate unit on December
10. The tally of ballots showed the following results: Of
approximately 115 eligible voters, 107 cast valid ballots, 44
in favor of, and 63 against, the Union, with 3 ballots chal-
lenged, the number being insufficient to affect the results of
the election.
On December 17, timely objections to conduct affect-
ing the results of the election were filed, and copies served
on all other parties. In his report on objections, filed March
30, 1971, the Regional Director ordered that a hearing be
held on all objections, 1 to 10 inclusive, before a Trial Ex-
aminer for the purpose of resolving the objections, and on
the same day ordered that the objections be consolidated
for hearing with the complaint Cases 28-CA-2192 and 28-
CA-2265.
Pursuant to the order of consolidation and notice,
hearing was held before the duly designated Trial Examiner
from August 9, to 13, inclusive, and September 15, to 17,
1971, inclusive. The General Counsel, Respondent, and the
Union were represented by counsel or a union representa-
tive, were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence relevant
and material to the issues, to argue orally, and file briefs and
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The par-
ties declined to argue orally but reserved the right to file
briefs. Pursuant to an extension of time duly granted, the
General Counsel and Respondent each filed briefs on No-
vember 8, 1971. No proposed findings of fact or conclusions
of law have been filed by any of the parties. The unopposed
motion of the General Counsel, attached to the brief, to
correct the transcript in specified respects, and duly served
2 All production and maintenance employees , including production tech-
nicians, inspectors , and group leaders (other than those employed within the
Engineering Department), material handlers , stockroom employees, and
shipping and receiving employees , excluding all office clerical employees,
Engineering Department employees (including engineering and technicians,
model makers , inspectors and group leaders), custodial and janitorial em-
ployees, landscaping and grounds maintenance employees , guards, watch-
men, professional employees and supervisors as defined by the Act
upon the remaining parties, is hereby allowed, made part of
the record, and the official report of proceedings is hereby
ordered corrected accordingly.
At the outset of the hearing, General Counsel intro-
duced in evidence a formal request for withdrawal of the
charge in Case 28-CA-2265, signed on behalf of the Union,
and approved by the Regional Director, on August 9, 1971.
As stated by General Counsel, the purpose of the withdraw-
al was to eliminate merely the charge of refusal to bargain
in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. General Counsel
then moved to dismiss the corresponding allegations of the
complaint, leaving the remaining allegations intact. The
motion to amend the complaint, as indicated, was allowed
without objection. Respondent thereupon moved to dismiss
the complaint in that case in its entirety on the ground that,
since the underlying charge had been withdrawn, there re-
mained nothing to support the complaint. General Counsel
then countered that, since the complaint in Case 28-CA-
2192, which alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3), was
based on a separate, viable charge, the complaint in that
case could be amended to incorporate the Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) allegations of the complaint in Case 28-CA-2265.
Thereafter, to obviate any possible procedural defect, and
to conform the withdrawal request to the actual intention of
the parties, General Counsel offered in evidence a "correct-
ed" withdrawal request, limiting the withdrawal of the
charge in Case 28-CA-2265 to the Section 8(a)(5) allega-
tions. Since it is altogether clear from the record that the
failure to so limit the withdrawal request was inadvertent,
the "corrected" withdrawal of the charge was received over
Respondent's objection. The General Counsel also moved
to amend the complaint in Case 28-CA-2192 to include the
substance of the 8(a)(1) and (3) allegations contained in the
complaint in Case 28-CA-2265. The motion was allowed
over Respondent's objection. The General Counsel then
proceeded on the basis that the "corrected" withdrawal re-
quest preserved the 8(a)(1) and (3) allegations of the charge
and, hence, supported the complaint in Case 28-CA-2265,
which had been amended only by the dismissal of the
8(a)(5) allegations, or, alternatively, that the substance of
the 8(a)(1) and (3) allegations in that case had been incorpo-
rated by amendment into Case 28-CA-2192. The General
Counsel contends that, since no new issues were thereby
introduced in the consolidated hearing, Respondent was in
no way prejudiced by proceeding under both complaints, as
amended. Although Respondent objected to this procedure,
all the issues raised by the allegations of both complaints,
as amended, were fully litigated at the hearing. Moreover,
although informed that if it claimed surprise during the
course of the hearing it would be afforded an opportunity
to prepare to meet any issues claimed to have been newly
raised, Respondent made no request for such opportunity.
During the course of the hearing, evidence was also
elicited of further alleged unfair labor practices, and both
complaints were amended to allege the supervisory status of
an employee, in Case 28-CA-2192, acts of interrogation by
said alleged supervisor, threats by an officer and agent of
Respondent of job loss, in the event of a strike, if employees
selected the Union as their bargaining agent, promises of
benefits by two officers, supervisors and agents of Respon-
THE SINGER COMPANY
dent on various dates (contained in speeches), if they reject-
ed the Union as their bargaining agent, and denials by
Respondent's supervisors and foremen of promotions and
considerations for promotions to better paying jobs because
of the employees' union and concerted activities. These alle-
gations were added by amendment to both complaints,
though by differently numbered paragraphs, over
Respondent's objection.
Upon the entire record in the case, a reconciliation of
conflicts in testimony, wherever necessary, and based upon
his observation of the attitude and demeanor of the witness-
es, and the briefs of the parties, the Trial Examiner hereby
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The complaints allege, Respondent's answers admit,
and it is hereby found that at all times material herein, The
Singer Company, Friden Division, Respondent herein, has
been a corporation duly incorporated and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware, qualified to do business in the
State of New Mexico.
The complaints further allege, and Respondent's an-
swers admit,3 that at all times material herein, Respondent
has maintained an office and plant at Albuquerque, New
Mexico, and places of business in other States of the United
'States, and has been at all times material herein engaged at
its Albuquerque, New Mexico, place of business in the man-
ufacture of electronic calculating and office copying ma-
chines.
The complaints also allege, Respondent's answers ad-
mit, and it is hereby found that during the 12-month period
preceding the issuance of the complaints, a representative
period, Respondent in the conduct of its business sold from
its Albuquerque, New Mexico, plant electronic calculating
and office copying machines valued in excess of $500,000.
During the same period, Respondent shipped from its Albu-
querque, New Mexico, plant electronic calculating and of-
fice copying machines valued in excess of $50,000 to points
in the United States other than the State of New Mexico and
purchased goods, materials, and supplies valued in excess of
$50,000 which were shipped to its Albuquerque, New Mexi-
co, plant directly from points outside the State of New
Mexico.
The complaints further allege, Respondent's answers
admit, and it is hereby found that at all times material
herein, Respondent has been an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers , AFL-CIO, the Union herein, is and at all
times material herein has been a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3 Respondent's admission is qualified only to the extent that it denies that
it has engaged in the manufacture of office products other than electronic
calculating and office copying machines at its Albuquerque plant.
1199
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
1. Union insignia and Respondent's no-solicitation rule
(a) Whether by prohibiting employees from wearing
work attire displaying union insignia, compelling them to
remove such attire, and refusing to permit them to work
until they had done so Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8( a)(1).
(b) Whether Respondent permitted, during working
time and on company property, the manufacture and distri-
bution of campaign buttons bearing the legend "NO" and
"VOTE NO," and permitted antiunion solicitation during
working time and on company property, in violation of its
no-solicitation rule, while prohibiting similar distribution
and solicitation in favor of the Union at such times and
places.
(c) Whether, between October and December, both
inclusive, Respondent discriminatorily enforced a no-solic-
itation rule.
(d) Whether Respondent, through T. E. Lusk, its em-
ployee relations director, during discussions with employees
recalled from layoff threatened employees with plant clo-
sure and resulting loss of jobs in the event the Union were
selected as bargaining agent .4
2. Speeches by company officials
(a) Whether Respondent's Vice President Roger W.
Johnson, in speeches at meetings of assembled employees
on November 19 and 25 and December 2 and 8, threatened
them with plant closure and warned them of the inevitabili-
ty of strikes if the employees selected the Union as their
bargaining agent.
(b) Whether Respondent's Vice President Johnson, in
a speech at a meeting of assembled employees, on Decem-
ber 2, threatened them with loss of jobs if they selected the
Union as their bargaining agent, and if the employees en-
gaged in a strike.
(c) Whether Respondent's President R. J. Campbell, in
a speech at a meeting of assembled employees on December
4, threatened employees with plant closure and loss of jobs
and warned them of the inevitability of strikes if they select-
ed the Union as their bargaining agent.
(d) Whether Respondent's Vice President Johnson, in
speeches at meetings of assembled employees, on Novem-
ber 19 and 25 and December 2 and 8, and President Camp-
bell, in a speech on December 4, promised employees
benefits if they would reject the Union as their bargaining
agent.
(e) Whether Respondent, by the distribution of a so-
called portfolio containing certain antiunion handbills and
other materials, threatened employees with plant closure
and resulting loss of jobs if the employees selected the Un-
ion as their bargaining agent in the election scheduled to be
held the following day, December 10.
4 Contrary to the allegations of the complaint in Case 28-CA-2265, there
is no evidence or contention that Lusk interrogated employees concerning
their union or concerted activities on this occasion.
M
1200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Alleged acts of interference by supervisors
(a) Whether Respondent, through Foreman Louis
Stanley, during the month of November interrogated and
threatened employees with plant closure and resulting loss
of jobs if they selected the Union as their bargaining agent.
(b) Whether Kenneth R. Sheehan, a production
scheduler, was a supervisor and agent of Respondent on or
about November 26, and if so, whether he interrogated
employees concerning their union membership and activi-
ties.
4. Denial of promotions
Whether Respondent, through Foreman Stanley and
General Foreman Vince Baggetta, denied employees pro-
motions or reclassifications between October and Decem-
ber 10, because of their union or concerted activities and the
scheduled representation election on December 10.
B. Background
The Singer Company, Friden Division, has for many
years maintained and operated a plant for the production
of calculating machines at San Leandro, California. For 25
years the production employees at the plant have been rep-
resented by the IAM under a collective-bargaining agree-
ment . In recent years, the Company had become
increasingly alarmed by inroads into its market by foreign
competition and its high labor costs, for which it held the
IAM largely responsible. After an exhaustive study over a
period of 9 months, Respondent decided to establish a plant
facility in Albuquerque, New Mexico.5 Respondent con-
cedes that it was primarily motivated in establishing its
Albuquerque plant by excessive labor costs in California, in
comparison with those in other areas in the country, al-
though labor inefficiency and plant obsolescence at San
Leandro were also factors in its decision.
In August 1969, Respondent established its operation
in Albuquerque at a temporary location. About a year later,
it moved to a modem plant, leased from the City of Albu-
querque under a 20-year lease . Initially, Respondent had
planned to manufacture as its principal product a photo-
copying machine, as well as a line of display and printing
calculators at its Albuquerque facility, although calculator
products were still being manufactured at the San Leandro
plant. Personnel were recruited for the Albuquerque facility
for this purpose, but in mid-summer 1970, because of pro-
duction difficulties encountered with the photocopier, a lay-
off occurred and manufacture of the photocopier was com-
5 According to Thomas T Gilmer, Jr., former vice president of
Respondent 's Fnden Division in charge of the San Leandro operation and
later the Albuquerque facility, the study which resulted in Respondent's
decision to locate in Albuquerque included availability of work force and
educational facilities , projections of current and future labor costs, political
stability, percentage of unionized nonfarm workers , turnover rate in the labor
force , training costs, climate , and acceptability of the location to employees
whom Respondent might desire to relocate . Respondent had even considered
the possibility of moving its Friden Division plant overseas, where it had
facilities in Belgium and Holland , as well as arrangements with manufactur-
ers in Japan , as President Campbell noted in his speech of December 4,
adverted to later.
pletely abandoned in about August 1970.
Despite anticipated losses at the outset in connection
with production of the photocopier, production and engi-
neering problems which were encountered caused addition-
alunanticipated losses . According to Director of Employee
Relations T. E. Lusk, the Company sustained losses in 1970
aggregating in excess of $1 million. This resulted in two
layoffs in 1970; one early in August, while the plant was still
at its temporary location, and the other later that month,
while the plant was being moved to its new location.
At the outset of its operation in Albuquerque, in 1969,
Respondent recruited a substantial number of production
employees under contract with an agency known as the
Concentrated Employment Program, a Federally-funded,
State-administered program, commonly referred to as CEP.
Under this program, CEP screened members of minori-
ty groups in certain age brackets who satisfied certain pov-
erty-level criteria. Applicants for the program were
generally referred to CEP by various agencies , such as the
Work Incentive Program, the Narcotics Rehabilitation Pro-
gram, and Service Employment Redevelopment Program,
generally referred to as SER. After some preliminary orien-
tation by CEP, the applicants were interviewed by Respon-
dent. Employees hired in this manner consisted in the main
of hard-core unemployed, and their wages were subsidized
by the United States Government during on-the-job train-
ing lasting approximately 1100 hours. They were required to
possess at least a fifth grade level of education or to have
completed the seventh grade of elementaryschool. Very few
had received any high school education. Most of the em-
ployees recruited through the CEP program were hired by
Respondent as assemblers and, according to Manager of
Employee Services John Vaught, of the approximately 117
eligible voters in the Board election held on December 10,
1970, between 55 and 60 had been hired through the CEP
program.
Vaught testified that the labor turnover among employ-
ees recruited through CEP at Respondent's Albuquerque
facility was far less than the national average. Respondent
prided itself on the fact that, according to Vaught, the reten-
tion rate at the Company's plant was 60 percent, after a
year, as compared to the nationwide experience of 40 per-
cent, a record unsurpassed by any other company to
Vaught's knowledge. Considering the source from which
these employees were recruited-the hard-core unemployed
and minority groups, primarily of Mexican or Spanish ori-
gin-the relatively low rate of turnover among these em-
ployees is not surprising.
C. The Union Organizational Campaign
Against this background the Union embarked on an
organizational campaign which culminated in the Board-
conducted election on December 10. Serious organizational
activity began in June 1970, although authorization cards
had been obtained from employees at the plant as early as
May 1970. From the outset, the Union waged a vigorous
and militant campaign featuring distribution of a series of
28 handbills and broadsides as well as copies of the IAM
contract at San Leandro and health and welfare programs
and benefits, emphasizing the wide disparity between wage
THE SINGER COMPANY 1201
scales and benefits at the Company's San Leandro plant
and those at its Albuquerque plant. Except for the initial
bulletin addressed "TO VOLUNTEER ORGANIZERS,"
delivered by Grand Lodge Representative Gilbert R. Padil-
la, union campaign literature was distributed to employees
at various access roads to the plant. The bulletin to the
volunteer organizers outlined employee rights under the
Act, cited examples of employer conduct deemed unlawful
under Board decisions, requested the committee members
to keep a record of and to report any such incidents, and
admonished them not to engage in union activity during
working hours, but to confine such activity on company
property to nonworking time.
Respondent countered with its own campaign, and be-
tween July 10 and December 10, distributed either by hand-
billing, mailing, or posting at the plant some 35 separate
items, including a series of weekly "fact sheets," headlined
"KNOW THE FACTS," each consisting of a single ques-
tion and answer, purporting to educate the employees re-
garding their rights under the Act and the burdens which
union affiliation involved. At the bottom of each "fact
sheet" appeared the refrain, "Union Promises Won't Buy
Groceries." Although not all the information contained in
these sheets was altogether factual or objective, it is not
contended that any of the statements , standing alone, con-
stituted independent violation of Section 8(a)(1).
Respondent's final release consisted of the portfolio, which
received widespread circulation, distributed the day before
the election. On July 10, Division Vice President Gilmer
wrote a circular letter to the employees, informing them of
recent unsuccessful attempts to organize the plant, and
warning that they would "continue to be bothered by un-
ions for a while." After cautioning them against the pitfalls
of signing an authorization card , and sounding the familiar
arguments against unionization , Gilmer asserted that the
Company "had recently discovered and resolved certain
work related problems," and did not "need a union to tell
us how to run our plant." The letter continued, "We feel
very strongly that having a union in our plant is not in your
best interests , or the best interests of the company . None of
us needs the kind of problems unions bring with them." A
Spanish translation of the letter was reproduced on the
reverse side.
On August 17, 1970, Respondent posted, and thereafter
continuously maintained, on glass-enclosed bulletin
boards at the plant, the following no-solicitation rule:
SINGER
FRIDEN DIVISION
NON-SOLICITATION RULE
Solicitation of employees or distribution of litera-
ture by non-employees is not permitted on company
premises at any time . Distribution of literature by em-
ployees in working areas is not permitted at any time.
Solicitation of fellow employees for any purpose is not
permitted during working time. Exceptions to these
rules may be permitted in unusual circumstances only
by permission of the Manager-Employee Relations.
The Company has found these rules to be necessary to
the orderly performance of our work.
By August 29, the Company had stepped up its coun-
tercampaign. On a company letterhead, signed by Roger W.
Johnson as acting director, Office Products Operations, also
translated into Spanish, the Company commented:
Your Company does not want a union in our Albuquerque
plant. We do not want the strikes, lost wages and other
problems that unions cause. We will do everything legally
possible to keep unions out of our plant.
As you know, Friden came to Albuquerque last year.
One of the main reasons we picked Albuquerque as the
location for our new plant was because we felt that
labor and other costs here in this area would allow us
to compete successfully with foreign manufacturers,
and with others whose labor costs are much lower than
ours.
After taking the Union to task for its reckless and irrespon-
sible promises of wage increases and fringe benefits based
on the labor agreement at one of the Company's other
plants (presumably San Leandro), the letter continued:
The union knows that if they were able to force us to
accept their unreasonable wage demands, we might not
be able to effectively continue in business in Albuquer-
que. This could mean a loss of jobs for you and a loss
of income for your families. We do not want to see this
happen, and we do not believe you want to see this
happen.
The letter concluded:
We are confident that if we all work together, we can
build a good future for all of us here at Friden, Albu-
querque. Don't let a union destroy your future.
On September 11, Grand Lodge Representative Padil-
la, on behalf of the Union, wrote Johnson, as Respondent's
acting general manager, notifying him of the Union's organ-
izational campaign at the plant and furnishing him with the
names of eight employees who would be actively engaged
in union activities .6 The letter stated that the named em-
ployees had been admonished against engaging in union
activities during working hours, and warned the employer
against any interference with or discrimination against these
employees in their legitimate union activities.
During the organizational campaign, the Union held at
least five meetings of Respondent's employees, two of which
were held at the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) building
in the vicinity of the plant, the first in June 1970. At suc-
ceeding meetings, the subject of strikes was discussed. Ac-
cording to Padilla, members of the organizing committee
had reported that employees were being told by the Compa-
ny that the IAM was organizing the employees of the Albu-
querque plant so that it could call a strike and disrupt
operations, in the expectation that work from the Albuquer-
que plant would be restored to the San Leandro plant. Pa-
dilla explained that the Union could not call a strike except
on the affirmative vote of 75 percent of the employees. In
response to questions regarding strikes at one of these meet-
ings, the union representatives declared that no strike had
ever been called at Respondent 's San Leandro plant, but
that if a strike ever were called, the employees would be
assisted by a strike fund. There is an intimation that the
6 The named employees were : Paul Wilson, Robert Moya, Ronald Nor-
ling, Eraldo Lucero, Margaret Caldwell , Randy Martinez , Joe F . Gallegos,
and Irene Castillo.
1202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union representatives assured the employees that the Com-
pany could not "take a strike."
The first overt action taken by Respondent occurred on
September 17, when, as will later appear, seven employees
were prohibited from wearing shirts displaying the IAM
insignia.
On October 22, Padilla notified the Company by letter
of the Union's claim to represent a majority of the produc-
tion and maintenance employees and technicians, and re-
quested recognition on the basis of a card check.
Respondent replied that it had a good-faith doubt of the
Union's claim to represent a majority of employees in any
appropriate unit, and requested an election. The same day,
Johnson mailed a circular letter to the employees, following
his practice as stated in the letter of keeping employees
informed of developments, and advising them of the ex-
change of correspondence with the Union?
On November 9, Respondent distributed by mail, post-
mg, and personal distribution a letter over Johnson's signa-
ture, notifying employees of the filing of the Union's
representation petition, and outlining the election proce-
dure. The letter continued:
I am certain all of you know that your Company feels
very strongly about this matter. We do not want a
union in our plant in Albuquerque. Unions have not
brought a single day's work into this plant. Unions
have not signed a single paycheck for our employees.
Only your Company can do these things. Your future
and the future of your Company depend on all of us
being able to move forward together in an atmosphere
of trust and cooperation. In our opinion, the presence
of a union will not create the kind of atmosphere that
we believe is necessary in order for us to achieve that
future.
The letter concluded by urging the employees to be sure to
vote in the election.
On November 13, Respondent and the Union entered
into a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
approved by the Regional Director the same day. Johnson
thereupon mailed a circular letter to the employees, an-
nouncing the agreement for the consent election, and, after
setting forth the description of the appropriate unit, con-
cluded:
The decision which you make in this election may be
one of the most important decisions in your working
career. As I indicated in my letter earlier this week,
your future and the future of your Company depend
upon all of us being able to move forward together in
an atmosphere of trust and cooperation. In our opin-
ion, the presence of a union will not create the kind of
atmosphere that we believe is necessary in order for us
to achieve that future.
I am confident that as you examine the statements
made by all parties concerned, you will agree it is in
your best interests and in the best interests of your
family and your Company not to have a union in this
plant. (Emphasis in original.)
On November 17, Respondent posted the following
7 As has been seen , the unfair labor practice charge of refusal to bargain
was later withdrawn , and the corresponding allegations dismissed in Case
28-CA-2265.
no-solicitation notice, over the signature of Director of Em-
ployee Relations Lusk:
Your attention is called to the Company's no solicita-
tion rule which provides that no employee shall solicit
any other employee for any purpose on Company
premises during working hours.
This means that no employee shall attempt to persuade
any other employee for or against any cause or point of
view during working hours.
In order to assure a fair election on December 10, it is
essential that all employees observe this rule.
The same day, November 17, General Foreman Bag-
getta issued identical written reprimands to three prounion
and two antiunion employees for'allegedly soliciting on
company time and premises, in violation of the Company's
posted no-sohcitation rule, and warning that such further
activity would result in disciplinary action.
On October 26, Director of Employee Relations Lusk
addressed a group of employees who had been recalled after
layoff. His remarks on this occasion, as well as other
speeches to assembled employees at the plant on company
time, by Vice President Johnson, on November 19, 25, De-
cember 2 and 8, and by President Campbell, on December
4, are discussed hereinafter.
At three union meetings, held after November 19, em-
ployees expressed concern and apprehension that the Com-
pany might close or move the Albuquerque plant.
According to Union Representative Padilla, it had also been
reported to him by at least two employees, Consuelo Sedillo
and Irene Castillo, the latter a member of the organizing
committee, that Foreman Louis R. Stanley, an admitted
company supervisor, had discussed the organizational cam-
paign with most, if not all, his employees, and on several
occasions mentioned that the Company might move the
plant. According to Padilla, too, Eraldo Lucero, a member
of the organizing committee, (who was not called to testify),
had reported that Pappas, his supervisor, had told him that
he had "better get off this union bit because he had it on
good authority the plant would move." Respondent' s inti-
mation that the Union itself planted the rumor, in effect, as
a "straw man," which it could then try to knock down, is
illogical and unconvincing. Rather, it appears that the Un-
ion vehemently sought to dispel this rumor at every turn.
The final union meeting was held on December 9, the
eve of the election, at the FOP hall.
D. Specific Acts of Alleged Interference
1. The union shirt episode of September 17
On the morning of September 17, seven employees, all
but one members of the union organizing committee, ar-
rived at work wearing shirts displaying the union insignia.
The seven employees were Joe F. Gallegos, Eraldo Lucero,
Randy Martinez, Freddie Marquez, Robert Moya, Ronald
Norling and Paul Wilson. All but Freddie Marquez were
members of the organizing committee. The shirts, obviously
designed-for the purpose, were short-sleeved dress shirts, in
white or blue, displaying an IAM emblem about 1-3/4
inches in diameter on the left front pocket, and a similar
emblem, about 6-3/4 inches in diameter, in the center of the
back of the shirt.
THE SINGER COMPANY 1203
Moya, the first to arrive, was about an hour early for
work and went to the break area located in the vicinity of
General Foreman Baggetta's office . Soon afterward, he was
joined by Martinez and Marquez, wearing similar shirts.
Some 15 or 20 employees, attracted by the shirts, congregat-
ed around them in the break area before the shift started.
Baggetta observed the scene from his office but took no
action . At about 8 o'clock, the start of the workday, Bagget-
ta instructed Gene Balderston and Brenda Henderon, su-
pervisors of the employees who were wearing the union
shirts, to escort them to his office.
Martinez, a material handler who had arrived at work
wearing the IAM shirt and several union buttons, saw Bald-
erston leaving the area with Moya and Marquez. After they
were gone , Henderson, Martinez's forelady, instructed him
to accompany her to Baggetta's office. When all the em-
ployees wearing the union shirts arrived, Baggetta told them
that he would have to obtain an opinion as to whether the
wearing of the shirts was permissible, and sent for Lusk.
Meanwhile, Consuelo Sedillo, and several other women
who had been wearing union buttons on their shop coats,
were also summoned to Baggetta's office. When Lusk ap-
peared, he notified the three men that they were not wearing
proper working attire, that they could not wear the union
shirts in the plant, and ordered them to clock out and return
wearing proper attire. Martinez asked Lusk if they could
wear their shop coats over the shirts. Lusk said that that
would not be acceptable, and that the shirts could not be
worn on company premises . Lusk also stated that the wear-
ing of union buttons was permissible but that buttons could
not be worn on company shop coats.
The three men clocked out, left the plant, and tele-
phoned Union Representative Padilla to report what had
occurred. They later returned to the plant and, after leaving
the union shirts in Marquez's truck, clocked in. Martinez
was then wearing six union buttons, three on the outside of
each trouser leg.
Gallegos also arrived at work that morning wearing a
white union shirt displaying the IAM insignia . After the
starting bell, Trig Bergseth, Gallegos' supervisor, told him
that they would have to see Larry Neely, Bergseth's supervi-
sor. En route to Neely's office, they encountered Lusk on
his way to Baggetta 's office. Lusk reproached Gallegos for
wearing improper work attire, told him that he could not
wear the shirt on company property and that he would have
to remove it immediately. Gallegos removed the shirt in
Lusk's presence and continued to Neely's office with Berg-
seth. Neely instructed Gallegos to get rid of the shirt before
returning to the plant. Gallegos went to the parking lot
without clocking out, left the shirt in his car, and returned
to work. He apparently lost no pay over this incident.
Ronald Norling, a union committeeman , reported to
work about 5 minutes before starting time wearing one of
the blue short-sleeved shirts displaying the IAM emblem, as
well as a button bearing the legend, "IAM Committee
Member" and another union button. According to Norling,
Foreman Balderston, his supervisor, irately told him that he
would have to leave. Asked why, Balderston told him that
he would have to change his shirt, that he would not be
allowed to wear it in the plant. Norling agreed to comply but
wanted Balderston to repeat what he had said before wit-
nesses. Balderston said he would be glad to do so.
Norling then went to a group of women on the assem-
bly line, and asked them to listen to what Balderston had
to say. Balderston, according to Norling, took him by the
arm and remarked that he, Balderston, was not a "member
of this [obscenity deleted] outfit," that these girls did not
work for him, and that he would make his statement in the
presence of witnesses from his own department. Norling
and Balderston then went to the break area, where some
electronic technicians were seated, and Balderston repeated
what he had told Norling regarding the wearing of the union
shirt. Norling then left, with the comment, "O.K., thank
you, but I will stop off at the Labor Board first."
In Balderston's version, Norling had arrived at work
late that day, after it had already been decided that the
union shirts constituted inappropriate working attire. Act-
ing on previous instructions, Balderston told Norling that
he was wearing inappropriate working attire, and instructed
him to go home and change. Except for denying that he had
used profanity in front of the women, Balderston's version
did not differ materially from that of Norling.
Norling returned to work about 10 o'clock, and sought
an interview with Lusk. Balderston later notified him that
General Foreman Baggetta would talk to him. In a discus-
sion with Baggetta. in the presence of Supervisors Balder-
ston and Henderson, Baggetta told him that he had been
sent home for violating the no-solicitation rule, and stated
that employees could wear union buttons but not the shirts.
When Baggetta commented that the union insignia on the
shirts was too conspicuous and blatant, Norling replied that
the Company had permitted shirts displaying the University
of New Mexico emblem as well as those of other colleges,
and other insignia, to be worn in the plant. Baggetta re-
joined, "Oh, come on, Ron, there is a big difference between
walking into a group bearing a banner that says `God Bless
America' versus one that says `Mao Tse Tung or Red China
or Sweden is Wonderful.' " Norling retorted, "In other
words, you are discriminating against union emblems, that
there is something wrong with wearing union emblems."
Baggetta answered, "Yes. It may be offensive to people for
you to be wearing that and you may be disrupting people
at work if you are wearing that shirt." When Norling de-
murred, Baggetta told him that as many as 90 employees
might leave their work stations to look at the shirt, with
resultant loss of man hours. According to Norling, he told
Baggetta that fewer man hours would be lost because of the
wearing of union shirts than from meetings of foremen with
their employees and the shutting down of the plant for mass
meetings and speeches .8
Although Norling estimated that he was "docked"
about 2 hours due to the shirt incident, he did not question
this because of a notice posted on the bulletin board to the
effect that employees would not be paid for the time lost in
removing the union shirts .9
8 Actually, the earliest speech disclosed in the record was Lusk's speech,
on October 26, to employees returning from layoff
9 This was an apparent reference to a memorandum , dated the same day,
addressed to all employees by Employee Relations Manager Lusk, on the
subject of proper working attire, criticizing the Union' s "irresponsible behav-
ior" in regard to the union shirt incident, summarizing the Company's re-
sponse, and announcing that the employees who were wearing the union
Continued
1204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is undisputed that the Union had made the decision
to have the men wear union shirts at the plant on September
17. Admittedly, no request had been made of any company
official for permission to do so because, in the Union's view,
the employees were within their legal rights. It is also ob-
vious that Respondent knew in advance of the Union's plan.
According to General Foreman Baggetta, Moya had in-
formed him and Lusk to this effect, and Lusk testified that
he himself had noticed one of these shirts in a car in the
parking lot several days before the episode.
After consulting house counsel, Lusk met with Bagget-
ta and other supervisors to decide on a course of action. In
Baggetta's opinion, the wearing of union shirts in the plant
could cause controversy and disruption of production. It
was decided that employees wearing union shirts would be
sent to the general foreman's office. Lusk testified that the
decision was made in part because of recent layoffs and
problems arising out of resumption of production. In addi-
tion, according to Lusk, he had learned through supervisors
and employees that the organizing drive had engendered
tensions between prounion and antiunion factions with en-
suing arguments, discussions, and flareups, resulting in loss
of production. He concluded that the wearing of union
shirts would result in such distraction among the employees
as to disrupt production.
In support of this contention, Respondent introduced
a summary of production reports for the period from Sep-
tember 10 to September 24, expressly prepared for the hear-
ing. According to this summary, which went unchallenged,
the week before the shirt incident the plant was meeting its
production quota. On the day of the incident, production
was appreciably lower, as a direct result, in Baggetta's opin-
ion, of the wearing of the union shirts. The following day
and thereafter, at least until September 24, the last date
covered by the summary, production had increased to with-
in normal limits. According to Baggetta, he attributed the
improvement in production almost entirely to the action
taken by Respondent with regard to the wearing of the
union shirts. This evidence is too inconclusive to warrant a
finding that the drop in production on the day in question
was primarily due to the wearing of the shirts. It is at least
equally reasonable to infer that any disruption in produc-
tion was attributable to Respondent's action in attempting
to suppress the wearing of the union shirts.
Respondent concedes that, under Board doctrine, in
the absence of special considerations relating to employee
efficiency and plant discipline, an employer's prohibition of
the wearing of union insignia, including shirts bearing such
insignia, is an unwarranted interference with the employees'
right to engage in organizational activities.10
shirts had not been paid for the time they were away from the plant to remove
their improper working attire
'°Citmg Eckerd's Market, Inc, 183 NLRB No. 40, Serv-Air, Inc, 161
NLRB No. 17, enfd. in part 395 F 2d 557 (CA. 10), Fabri-Tek, Inc, 148
NLRB No. 156 (1623, 1628), also cited by the General Counsel. See also,
Power Equipment Co, 135 NLRB 945 , enfd as modified 313 F.2d 438, 318
F.2d 717, 319 F 2d 861 (C A. 6), cited by the Union at the hearing While
recognizing the underlying principle Respondent maintains, however, that in
the cases cited by it, no special circumstances were found to justify the
employer's interference ; that the employer had either introduced no evidence
to show any loss of production or efficiency, or had failed to prove that the
wearing of union insignia in the plant had a disruptive effect, that the
company had failed to explain why the wearing of one button was less
Respondent contends that the record here establishes
special circumstances and considerations, justifying its deci-
sion to prohibit the wearing of union shirts. Starting with the
premise that the Company had encountered serious prob-
lems in gearing up for production; that the abandonment of
production of the photocopier had resulted in substantial
unanticipated losses , resulting in two layoffs during the pre-
vious month; and that the Company had sustained a loss of
more than $1 million for the year, Respondent maintains
that it could not risk further disruption of production.
Granting all this, to conclude, as Lusk did, without any
demonstrable causal relation, that the mere 'wearing of un-
ion shirts in the plant would have had an adverse effect on
production, employee morale, and efficiency, especially
where the employer has permitted the wearing of other ap-
parel bearing insignia of comparable dimension and design
without hindrance, and, it might be added, without impair-
ing production or efficiency, is to hold that shirts displaying
union insignia are inherently disruptive of production and
employee discipline or morale.
It cannot be gainsaid that a union organizational cam-
paign, by its very nature, controversial, particularly where
it is met by vigorous opposition, not to say hositility, where
competing factions are vocal and vehement, may result in
disruption which could affect production, employee morale,
and discipline. But this is not to say that the mere wearing
of union insignia or shirts displaying union insignia is inher-
ently and necessarily disruptive. The degree of disruption
may often depend on an employer's countermeasures in
combatting the union's efforts at organization. Here, Re-
spondent expressed its strenuous opposition to the self-de-
termination of its employees at a constantly accelerating
rate with the approach of the election. Moreover, it is undis-
puted that prior to the advent of the Union, and thereafter,
while the campaign was in progress, Respondent permitted
employees to wear a wide variety of shirts or sweatshirts
bearing emblems, insignia , and symbols as well as medal-
hons of varying types without hindrance or discipline. To
equate, as Baggetta did, the wearing of shirts with union
insignia with propaganda favoring foreign countries is a
measure of Respondent's hostility toward the Union, and
an acknowledgement that the Company was less concerned
with disruption of production than with a determination to
impede the Union's organizational campaign. The
Company's real motivation is perhaps best epitomized by
Lusk's testimony:
Q. (By Mr. Hollis) Mr. Lusk, on the objections to
the shirt, I take it you were not objecting to the emblem
on the left front pocket of the shirt, or were you?
A. Well, actually, I was objecting to the shirt as a
whole, because I felt that the shirt, as a whole, the blue
and white, had the emblem on the back and the em-
blem on the front. And I felt the whole shirt, to me, was
a symbol of the IAM, and I felt-so it was the shirt, per
se.
It is worth noting that, if Respondent was actually
concerned about distractions, which might lead to disrup-
tion of production, and interference with employee morale
disruptive than the wearing of more than one, that there had been no strike
or animosity among the employees, and no substantial evidence , that the
wearing of buttons, which were small and innocuously labeled, affected plant
production or discipline.
THE SINGER COMPANY 1205
and discipline, this did not prevent it, as will later be seen,
from posting and displaying conspicuously in working areas
for a week before the election varicolored placards urging
the employees to vote against the Union. Nor, for that mat-
ter, did it permit its concern for loss of production to deter
it from assembling its employees on company time and
property to listen to antiunion speeches on at least four
separate occasions before the election . Despite claims of
heated arguments , flaring tempers , and tensions between
union and antiunion factions, the record is singularly free
of any evidence of violence or threats of violence, and what-
ever tensions may have been generated were no more than
might be expected in the course of a union election cam-
paign. The preponderance of the reliable, probative, and
substantial evidence does not support Respondent's conten-
tion that special circumstances justified the prohibition of
the wearing of shirts displaying union emblems or other
union insignia.
It is therefore found that by preventing employees and
union adherents from wearing shirts displaying union insig-
nia on September 17 and thereafter at least until December
4, and by penalizing employees with loss of wages until they
ceased wearing such shirts, Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in the Act.
Respondent's reversal of position, mentioned in
Johnson's speech on December 4, some 2-1/2 months after
the episode, informing the employees that in view of the
anticipated filing of an unfair labor practice complaint re-
lating to this issue, employees desiring to wear union shirts
were free to do so pending a determination by the Board,
does not amount to an effective repudiation of its previous
policy, nor is it sufficient to dissipate the effects of its other-
wise unlawful conduct. It is apparent that Respondent al-
tered its policy only after it became aware that the Regional
Office intended to issue a complaint rather than out of a
willingness to refrain from interfering with the rights of its
employees. More importantly, the delay of 2-1/2 months in
taking remedial action deprived the employees of the right
to engage,in this form of organizational activity during this
interval. It is not without significance that no shirts display-
ing union insignia were thereafter worn at the plant, despite
Johnson's grudging permission.
2. The wearing of campaign buttons
a. Union buttons
Early in the organizational campaign, members of the
organizing committee as well as other employees began
wearing union buttons in the plant."
As has already been noted, on September 17, the day
"Specimens of these buttons introduced in evidence consisted of three
types. Two were about 2 inches in diameter , and the third about 1 - 1 /2 inches.
Of the two larger buttons , one bearing the letter "M" in white, almost the
size of the entire button, contained an insert in red, reading "GO GO," all
superimposed on a blue background covering the entire button The other,
contained the letters "IAM," about the size of the entire button , in white, on
a red background . The third button bore the legend "IAM," in white , cover-
mg the upper third of the button , with the word "COMMITTEE," on a white
stripe underneath , in the middle , with the word "MEMBER," also in white
beneath that, all superimposed on a red background.
of the union shirt incident, Sedillo and other female employ-
ees wearing union buttons on their shop coats were sent to
Baggetta's office. Lusk, who had been summoned by Bag-
getta, told these employees that they could wear union but-
tons, but not on their shop coats. During this interview, or
at some later time, they were told that they would be permit-
ted to wear two union buttons.
The shop coats, light or dark blue, some bearing the
insignia "Singer Fnden," were supplied by the Company
without charge. Employees were not required to wear shop
coats, except on special occasions such as visits by company
officials or other dignitaries. Some employees, however, as-
sumed that they were expected to wear the shop coat at
work, though there is no evidence that they were instructed
to do so. When Lusk informed the employees in Baggetta's
office that they could not wear the buttons on the shop coat,
Sedillo removed hers but pinned them on the bodice of her
dress in such a way that they would not be covered by the
shop coat.
About 2 or 3 weeks before the shirt incident, Forelady
Henderson saw Martinez wearing three union buttons on
his shirt and a similar number on the outside of each trouser
leg. After checking with Baggetta, she told Martinez that he
could wear only two buttons, and that he could verify this
with Baggetta. Later, in Baggetta's office, in Henderson's
presence, Baggetta told Martinez that he could wear two
buttons but would have to remove the buttons on his trouser
legs because they were attracting too much attention and
creating confusion. Martinez complied.
When Martinez returned to the plant on the morning
of the shirt incident, he was wearing six union buttons, three
on the outside of each trouser leg. About a half-hour later,
Henderson took him to task for this, and told him that if he
did not remove some of the buttons, he would be given a
reprimand. Martinez removed all but one of the buttons,
despite the fact that Lusk had told employees that they
could wear two buttons. When Martinez later went to
Baggetta's office to inquire whether he could wear two but-
tons, he was told that that would be acceptable.
b. Antiunion campaign buttons
The complaint in Case 28-CA-2265 alleges, among
other things, that during the period between October and
December 1970 Respondent, through its officers , agents,
and supervisors, "permitted, during working time on
Respondent's property, the manufacture and distribution of
buttons reading 'NO' and `VOTE NO' and permitted an-
tiunion solicitation during working hours on Respondent's
property in violation of its no-solicitation rule while prohib-
iting solicitation for the Union on Respondent's property
during working hours, in or out of working areas." These
allegations are presumably based upon the following events.
Melvin Lucero, a leadman in the wire preparation de-
partment, had been employed by the Company for nearly
2 years at the time of the hearing. About 10 days before the
election, Lucero made up about 24 pasteboard antiunion
buttons. According to him, while on his break period, he
traced the pattern of a campaign button on a manila folder,
which he claimed he brought from home, and lettered each
circle with the word "Vote" and the word "No" underneath
1206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in red. He then cut out the circles, thus producing 24 paste-
board buttons, 3 inches in diameter.12 According to Lucero,
he made up all the buttons in a single day, while he was in
his break area, during his morning and afternoon breaks.
Although there were other employees in the break area, he
did not think they saw him making the buttons. On the other
hand, it is evident that Lucero made no effort to conceal his
activity.
Paul Wilson, a stockroom attendant who observed
Lucero making the buttons with the use of a "magic mark-
er," testified that he saw no foremen or supervisors in the
area at the time. He did not report the incident to any of his
superiors but notified his union representative of what he
had seen. Benito Aguilar saw Lucero lettering the paste-
board buttons, and later noticed him toss a button in front
of a woman on the assembly line, possibly as Lucero was
returning from his break but after the female employees had
returned from theirs.
Herman Lovato testified that Lucero gave him ten such
buttons at about 7:30 in the morning 10 or 12 days before
the election, and that he, Lovato, distributed them to em-
ployees, though not dunng working time . Lucero, however,
testified that he could recall giving Lovato only one button,
but that other employees might have asked him for buttons
during a break period, and that he obliged them. Lovato,
called as a witness by Respondent, was no longer in its
employ and manifested no discernible motive for favoring
either party. His testimony is credited.
Despite the absence of direct evidence that any fore-
men or supervisors were aware that Lucero was making up
these buttons, and his testimony that his foreman, Bill Mur-
ray, did not see him distribute any of these buttons, Lucero
conceded that he was later warned by his foreman about
soliciting.
Although Lucero testified that this was the only type of
button he had anything to do with, other antiunion paste-
board buttons were distributed in the plant. These were
somewhat smaller, on a pink background, inscribed either,
"No" or "Vote NO," in black lettering. A similar button on
a yellow background bearing the word "NO" in red lettering
was also distributed at the plant.
Joe Gallegos, a maintenance shop electrician and
member of the organizing committee, testified that he saw
Jim Keicher, a maintenance shop employee, passing out
cardboard buttons, but was uncertain whether this occurred
before or after November 13. According to Gallegos, Keich-
er stated that those were the only buttons he had to start
with, but that he expected some commercially-manufac-
tured buttons from a lawyer friend who was opposed to
union organization because he believed it would discourage
other industry from coming to Albuquerque. Some time
afterward, between November 13 and the date of the elec-
tion, Keicher brought in a cardboard box containing manu-
factured buttons with the comment, "I finally got the good
ones." Gallegos later observed Keicher, on the latter's work-
ing time , distributing buttons to employees who were on
their break. As far as Gallegos was aware, no one registered
12 On the specimen of this makeshift button received in evidence , someone,
other than Lucero apparently, had written in longhand the legend , "ILL [I'll]
any complaint regarding Keicher's activity.
According to Aguilar, Keicher passed him on the as-
sembly line carrying a box containing "Vote No".buttons,
but could not say whether Keicher was on his break at the
time. Aguilar did not actually see Keicher talking to em-
ployees, discussing the Union, or passing out buttons on
working time.
Union Committeeman Moya testified that about a
month before the election, he noticed several quality control
employees wearing "Vote No" buttons on shop coats. When
he protested to Foreman Balderston, he was told that Bald-
erston would take care of it. Moya conceded that this was
done. Balderston recalled the incident as having occurred
dunng the last week of the election campaign, and testified
that he could recall no other such complaints, and that he
had not seen employees wearing such buttons.
Moya testified, too, that about 2 weeks before the elec-
tion, during working time, Keicher brought a box contain-
ing white metal buttons inscribed with the word "NO" in
black lettering 13 to the quality control section, adjacent to
Moya's work area, and remarked, "This just came in, we
had to send for them by air, but they came in just in time."
Moya testified that employees helped themselves to these
buttons during working time from the box in Keicher's work
area, but that he did not complain about the incident.
When Maintenance Department Foreman Edward
Sedal saw Keicher bring a cardboard box containing "Vote
No" buttons into the shop about 10 o'clock in the morning,
some 3 weeks before the election, Sedal told Keicher to
"cool it," and cautioned him against displaying or distrib-
uting the buttons during working hours. There was no evi-
dence that Keicher disobeyed his foreman's instructions.
According to Martinez, he observed employees wear-
ing "NO" buttons on shop coats some 7 or 8 days before the
election. He conceded, however, that 3 or 4 days after the
"Vote No" buttons were worn on shop coats, and about 2
or 3 days before the election, Baggetta told him that he
could wear his union buttons on his shop coat if he wished.
Although it is evident that at the outset Respondent
attempted to restrict the number of union buttons which
could be wom at the plant, by mid-September it had agreed
that employees would be permitted to wear two union but-
tons, provided they did not wear them on shop coats. Since
the shop coats were the property of the Company, wearing
of union buttons on the coats might have created an impres-
sion of official endorsement of the Union. The restriction
therefore was not unreasonable, especially as employees
were only in rare instances required to wear the coats, and
had only to leave the coats off, and wear their union buttons
on their work apparel, if they wished to do so. Moreover,
the evidence discloses that even this restriction was removed
several days before the election.
With regard to the antiunion buttons, both of the
makeshift variety and those commercially manufactured,
there is no direct evidence that the manufacture and distri-
bution of these buttons was initiated, directed, or sponsored
by company officials or supervisors or conducted in the
presence of any of them, or that this activity took place on
working time or while any supervisor was in the vicinity.
read Your Trash and Still," over the words "Vote No," and "I know Your 13 The lettering on the button, slightly larger than 2 inches in diameter, was
Union," underneath actually blue
THE SINGER COMPANY 1207
Indeed, Foreman Sedal admonished Keicher not to display
or distribute the buttons during working hours.
It may perhaps strain one's credulity to conclude that
Respondent was not aware of the distribution of the antiun-
ion buttons. It may also be assumed that the activities of its
antiunion employees served Respondent's purpose, and that
it welcomed this activity as a means of counteracting the
union campaign, but it cannot be assumed that because the
Company opposed the Union it became automatically re-
sponsible for the conduct of antiunion factions without re-
gard to whether they engaged in this activity during working
time , or with Respondent's knowledge, acquiescence, or
consent. The preponderance of the credible evidence fails to
establish that Respondent knowingly permitted the manu-
facture and distribution of antiunion buttons during work-
ing time. Moreover, since Respondent permitted the
wearing of prounion buttons at the plant, both during work-
ing and nonworking time, it cannot be said that it accorded
the rival faction preferential treatment by permitting it to
distribute antiunion buttons during nonworking time and
by permitting such buttons to be worn in the plant.
3. The no-solicitation rule and its enforcement
The no-solicitation rule, posted on August 17, repub-
lished on November 17, does not proscribe distribution of
literature or solicitation in nonworking areas during non-
working time. In the absence of any evidence that the rule
was adopted for a discriminatory purpose or that it was
discriminatorily enforced, the rule is presumptively valid.14
The General Counsel contends, however, that the rule was
discriminatorily enforced as a means of preventing or
impeding union organizational activity, and, to this extent,
violated Section 8(a)(1). Gooch Packing Company, 162
NLRB 1, 6-7; Logan Manufacturing Company, 162 NLRB
1586.
On November 17, General Foreman Baggetta issued
written reprimands to Robert Moya and Randy Martinez,
members of the organizing committee, and Juan Carrillo for
allegedly soliciting on company property during working
time in violation of the no-solicitation rule. All three em-
ployees protested their reprimands, denying the charges,
although Carrillo admitted that he might have discussed the
Union on company time with other employees, and Moya
admitted that he had tried to persuade employees to his
viewpoint. Martinez also acknowledged that the Union had
been discussed "up and down the line, by all the employ-
ees," including himself.
Forelady Henderson testified that she had received a
complaint that all three employees had been soliciting on
behalf of the Union during working time , and that she
immediately reported this to Baggetta . Jim Fries, a techni-
cian, had made a similar complaint to Baggetta about these
three men. When this was reported to Director of Employee
Relations Lusk, he authorized the issuance of the written
reprimands. Admittedly, neither Baggetta nor Lusk made
an independent investigation of the charges, and gave these
14 Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Company, 138 NLRB 615, 621, Walton
Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697; Republic Aviation Corporation v
N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 713. Cf. Farah Manufacturing Company, 187 NLRB No
83.
employees no prior oral warning.
At about this time, Committeewoman Castillo reported
to Committeeman Moya that Nell Carlson and Herman
Lovato had been soliciting against the Union during work-
ing time. Moya relayed this complaint to Foreman Stanley,
who warned both the employees against soliciting, remind-
ing them of the no-solicitation rule. Stanley told Castillo,
however, to report any such complaints to him directly in
the future. Baggetta decided to issue written reprimands to
these employees as well. On the surface, the issuance of
written reprimands to the two antiunion as well as to the
three prounion employees would tend to indicate an ab-
sence of discrimination in enforcement of the rule against
the union adherents.
The General Counsel maintains, however, that the is-
suance of the written reprimands to the two antiunion em-
ployees was merely window dressing designed to lend an
aura of verisimilitude to its claim of neutrality. According
to Castillo, 2 days after Baggetta issued the written repri-
mands, she complained to Moya that Carlson had been
soliciting her against the Union during working hours. Stan-
ley later summoned Castillo, and told her that Carlson had
been reprimanded, presumably orally, and warned that if
she continued to solicit during working hours she would be
terminated.
The General Counsel contends that since, according to
Castillo, Carlson had solicited her against the Union 2 days
after receiving her written reprimand, Respondent's failure
to impose further discipline beyond a mere oral reprimand
manifests a discriminatory enforcement of the no-solicita-
tion rule. It is not altogether clear from Castillo's testimony
whether she was referring to Carlson's initial instance of
solicitation or a repetition of that conduct, and the evidence
is, therefore, insufficient to warrant a finding that Carlson
had engaged in further acts of solicitation for which she was
not further disciplined.15 In any case, the failure to conduct
an independent investigation of the complaints of solicita-
tion against union adherents indicates the precipitate haste
with which Respondent sought to discipline them. On the
other hand, the failure to conduct a similar investigation
with regard to union antagonists would tend to negate a
basis for a charge of discrimination. If this were all that were
involved on this aspect of the case, a finding of discrimina-
tory treatment of union proponents would be unwarranted.
Respondent's conduct in this regard, however, was not an
isolated occurrence. As will presently be seen from the testi-
mony of Forelady Henderson, her treatment of other em-
ployees violating the no-solicitation rule was in decided
contrast to that accorded union employees. This lends some
support to the General Counsel's argument that Respon-
dent issued written reprimands to antiunion employees so
that it could maintain that it was enforcing the rule impar-
tially as to all employees.
4. Further instances of solicitation
by antiunion employees
According to Committeeman Gallegos, Ronald Clot-
Carlson was no longer in Respondent 's employ at the time of the hear-
mg, and its counsel represented that he had been unable to locate her after
a diligent effort.
1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
felter, a quality control technician (line foreman at the time
of the hearing), told him once or twice that the Union would
do nothing but create problems. Other union adherents,
specifically Rudy Gurule, Carrillo, and Moya, had reported
to him that Clotfelter had also approached them but Galle-
gos knew of no complaints about Clotfelter's activities.
Gallegos conceded that he himself had discussed the Union
with fellow employees on working time but maintained that
he "really wasn't pushing it on them."
Clotfelter admitted that he discussed the Union with
Gallegos frequently, but could not recall whether such con-
versations occurred during working time, and could recall
no such discussions in the presence of supervisors. Since
Clotfelter was not a supervisor at the time, the evidence is
relevant only to show disparate treatment of prounion em-
ployees. In the absence of any showing that Respondent
was aware of Clotfelter's antiunion activities on working
time, the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that
Respondent discriminated against prounion employees in
regard to solicitation on company time and property. The
implication in Martinez's testimony, that because employee
Iva Jo Jackson ordered him away, and refused to discuss the
Union, whenever he approached her wearing union buttons,
she was soliciting against the Union, is wholly unwarranted.
Admittedly, Martinez never complained to anyone in au-
thority about her alleged solicitation.
During cross-examination of Forelady Henderson, evi-
dence was elicited that, in the fall of 1970, she received
complaints that two of her employees, Joy Legg and Jane
Gibbard, were distributing advertising and promoting and
selling Avon (cosmetic) products to assembly-line employ-
ees during working time. Since this obviously occurred after
the August posting of the no-solicitation rule, these employ-
ees were clearly in violation of the rule. Henderson testified
that she gave these employees an oral warning, and that
they thereafter limited their enterprise to rest and lunch
periods. There was no showing that Henderson reported the
violation to General Foreman Baggetta or Director of Em-
ployee Relations Lusk or, for that matter, that they had even
been aware that these employees had been conducting a
sideline at the plant on company time. Nevertheless,
Henderson's treatment of the infraction was in decided con-
trast to that meted out to the employees who had been
accused of soliciting in favor of the Union. Henderson's
testimony that a mere oral warning sufficed to prevent any
reptition of the offense does not explain why she did not
deal with the union adherents in similiar fashion. This sup-
ports an inference that the Company was less concerned
with solicitation on company time and property in general
than with solicitation for union support and allegiance, and
that the no-solicitation rule was discriminatorily enforced
against the Union to inhibit and restrain its organizational
activities.
5. Further instances of interference,
restraint, and coercion
In August or September, shortly before the morning
rest period, Foreman Balderston assembled some 10 of his
employees in the rework department. According to Moya,
Balerston told them that they did not need a union; that
unions did not benefit but would only hinder the employees.
Joe Baca interjected that the employees were entitled to
better wages, that they were tired of "eating beans," and
would like to enjoy some meat at least once a week. Balder-
ston rejoined, according to Moya, "Well, if the union comes
in, I will still have steaks in my refrigerator, and you will still
be eating beans." Moya testified that at another meeting
about a month later, Balderston stated that the Company
did not need a union , and pleaded with the employees to
"give it a chance," pointing out the importance of having
the Company in Albuquerque.
Balderston acknowledged that he met with his employ-
ees frequently in small groups whenever he felt it necessary,
and that he did so in August and September. He denied,
however, that he questioned the employees regarding their
union interests, stating that he merely asked them about
their problems. At one of these meetings, according to him,
Baca spoke of joining the Union and the possibility of a
strike. Displeased with the turn the discussion had taken,
Balderston decided to adjourn the meeting but before he
could do so, Baca made some mention of "beans," and
remarked, "We would like to have steak in the refrigerator."
Next morning, Baggetta notified Balderston that some
of the employees were bitter about the remark attributed to
him by Moya. Balderston then went to the employees,
branded the statement a lie, and asked who had quoted to
him to that effect. Receiving no response, Balderston gave
his version of what had taken place. He categorically denied
at the hearing that he had made the statement, saying that
he could not understand why anyone would accuse him of
making such remarks.
In view of Balderston's qualified admission that the
substance of the remarks imputed to him by Moya was
discussed, and the prompt complaint to Baggetta concern-
ing these remarks, it is probable that Balderston made the
remarks attributed to him out of pique prompted by his
opposition to the Union. It can hardly be contended seri-
ously, however, that Balderston's remarks constituted a
threat of reprisal. However vindictive the remark might ap-
pear, it is obvious that Balderston was merely expressing his
personal opinion that the selection of the Union would not,
in itself, bring about any material change in his personal
economic status as compared with that of the employees
under his supervision. To this extent, his remarks were pro-
tected by Section 8(c) of the Act. It is, however, found that
Balderston interrogated his employees regarding their union
sympathies and interests, without valid excuse or justifica-
tion, and that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
Mention should also be made of an incident which
occurred on about November 17, when Foreman Stanley
engaged Martinez in a discussion about the Union. After
some desultory conversation, Stanley questioned him about
why he felt a union was needed at the plant, and assured
him that conditions would improve.
According to Stanley, Martinez had stopped at his
desk, and started the conversation. At some stage, Martinez
asked him whether the Company would move the plant if
the Union came in. Stanley replied that he had no way of
knowing. Martinez then remarked, "Well, how could they
move, they've got too much money [for they've got $5 mil-
THE SINGER COMPANY 1209
lion] tied up in here ." Stanley commented, "That's not a
great deal of money to the Company as far as I am con-
cerned . As far as my opinion is concerned , it is just a drop
in the bucket." In Martinez 's version, Stanley said that, as
far as Singer was concerned , $5 million was a "drop in the
bucket," and that the Company could move the plant at any
time.
Whether-, as Martinez claimed, Stanley invited him to
his desk and initiated the discussion or whether , as Stanley
maintained, Martinez first broached the subject, is not ma-
terial . Since Martinez was a member of the organizing com-
mittee , it is not inconceivable that he could have sought out
Stanley in an effort to lay to rest rumors regarding the
possibility of plant closure . On the other hand , Martinez's
testimony that Stanley invited him over for a talk because
they had not visited for some time , presumably as a pretext
for discussing the Union , is, at least , equally plausible. That
Stanley did not deny questioning Martinez about the Union
lends credence to Martinez's version. Moreover, it is sigmfi-
cant that, in a pretrial affidavit , while denying any recollec-
tion of the "drop in the bucket" remark , Stanley
acknowledged at the hearing that he had used it in his
discussion with Martinez . There is no doubt that rumors
were rife throughout the plant regarding the question of
plant closure . According to Stanley , however, he told Marti-
nez that he had no knowledge of the Company 's intentions.
Not content with that , he admittedly proceeded to dismiss
the $5 million investment as "a drop in the bucket ," thereby
conveying the impression that if the Company decided to
close or move its plant, rather than deal with a union, its
substantial capital investment would not prove an obstacle.
Whether Stanley's remarks constituted a mere expression of
his personal opinion or whether they reflected high level
company policy , such statements are too equivocal to war-
rant a finding of threat of plant closure or to constitute an
independent violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The
remarks, however , are considered in the context of the
speeches of company officials dealing with the issue of
threats of plant closure , and the totality of Respondent's
conduct.
In a conversation in about mid -November , Kenneth R.
Sheehan, a production analyst or scheduler , questioned
Paul Wilson during working hours as to why he was in favor
of the Union and suggested that if he was dissatisfied he
look elsewhere for a job . According to Wilson, Sheehan told
him that if he were in Russia , he could get into trouble for
his views.
Sheehan admitted that he spoke to hourly paid employ-
ees about the Union during working time five or six times
while the campaign was in progress . He asked them what
the Union could accomplish for them but never recom-
mended that they vote for or against the Union , though he
urged them to vote in the election . Sheehan disclaimed any
recollection of the conversation with Wilson , testifying that
he knew of no reason for saying what Wilson had ascribed
to him . In view of Sheehan's lack of recollection of the
incident, Wilson's positive testimony , and the unusual na-
ture of the remark , it is found that Sheehan made the state-
ment. In any case, Respondent denies that Sheehan was a
supervisor at the time.
Sheehan possessed none of the customary indicia of
supervisory authority and, according to Lusk , had never
been a supervisor , though , like other production schedulers,
he had been classified since September 1969 as an exempt
salaried employee , at a salary of $770 per month , at the time
of the hearing . As production scheduler , Sheehan's princi-
pal duties consisted of obtaining monthly production quo-
tas from the production control manager , and preparing a
weekly list of parts required by the operators which he
furnished stockroom employees for distribution to produc-
tion employees.
Wilson testified , however , that in the spring of 1970,
Sheehan gave him half a day off for a court appearance,
after Leadman Danny Vigil had referred him to Sheehan.
Sheehan denied any recollection of having given Wilson
time off , but recalled an incident in August or September
1969, while the Company was still at its former plant, when
Vigil himself had had occasion to go to court . According to
Sheehan, although he had no authority to grant employees
time off, he took it upon himself to do so in Vigil 's case,
advising him not to show it on his timecard . There were only
about ten hourly employees at the plant at that time, only
two of whom were stockroom employees. As the plant was
"just starting up," and there were no production control
supervisors at the time , there was no one else from whom
Vigil could request the time off . He had not been aware,
until the day before he testified , that anyone in management
knew that he had granted time off on this occasion, and
testified that he has never done so since.
The evidence is insufficient to establish that Sheehan
was a supervisor or agent of Respondent at the time in
question , and there is no other basis for attributing his state-
ments to Respondent.
6. Withholding of wage increases and promotions
During the period in question , Respondent employed
two classifications of production employees , designated as
"Assembler 1" and "Assembler 2." In the fall of 1970, of
about 115 unit employees , 70 were classified as assembler
1. Both classifications performed substantially the same
tasks , assembler 1 employees being classified as assembler
2 after an appropriate interval . The wage rate for assembler
1 ranged from $ 1.70 to $2 . 10 an hour ; the rate for assembler
2, from $2 to $2.40 an hour.
At the time of the Union's organizational campaign,
some assembler 1 employees were performing the same
work as those classified as assembler 2, but receiving the
lower wage scale . Promotions from assembler 1 to assem-
bler 2 were generally based on informal recommendations
by the foremen . Since there was no specific job description
for assemblers , dissatisfaction was prevalent among these
employees . Stanley had considered submitting a list of qual-
ified assembler 1 employees for promotion , but with the
election in the offing , Baggetta instructed Stanley to with-
hold any reclassifications until after the election . When em-
ployees asked about the possiblity of promotion, Stanley
told them of Baggetta's instructions . According to Stanley,
no employees were promised promotions , nor were they
told that promotions would depend on the outcome of the
elections.
Early in November, supervisors were notified that no
1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
promotions or reclassifications would be made until after
the election , when a job study would be undertaken. Be-
tween August and November 1, according to Lusk, one or
two employees were promoted from assembler 1 to assem-
bler 2 , but no promotions were granted between November
4 and December 10, the date of the election . It was disclosed
at the hearing , however, that Lusk had apparently been
unaware of these promotions until Stanley testified, but
these employees did not receive their promotions until May
1971.
Respondent contends that it withheld the promotions
or reclassifications out of concern that the action might be
regarded as an attempt to influence the outcome of the
election . At no time prior to or during the campaign did the
Company promise or announce that any employees would
be promoted from assembler 1 to assembler 2 or that the
Company was in the process of reevaluating the jobs. Lusk
testified , however, that a step increase program , based upon
length of service , had been instituted early in August, and
that these increases were put into effect.
The record establishes that prior to the advent of the
Union , Respondent had routinely reclassified assemblers 1
to the higher rated classification after an unspecified period
of time, depending, presumably, upon the progress made by
the employee . Respondent 's contention that it deferred pro-
motions or reclassifications because of the impending elec-
tion ignores the fact that the representation petition was not
actually filed until November 4, and the consent election
agreement executed on November 13, 1970 . The applicable
principles governing this situation have been stated as fol-
lows:
An employer's legal duty in deciding whether to grant
benefits while a representation case is pending is to
determine that question precisely as he would if a union
were not in the picture . If the employer would have
granted the benefits because of economic circum-
stances unrelated to union organization , the grant of
those benefits will not violate the Act . On the other
hand, if the employer 's course is altered by virtue of the
union's presence , then the employer has violated the
Act, and this is true whether he confers benefits be-
cause of the union or withholds them because of the
union.16
The record here fairly establishes that Respondent would
have granted promotions or reclassifications to assembler 1
employees for economic reasons but for the advent of the
Union and the organizational activities of its employees.
Respondent 's additional reason for withholding the re-
classifications, that it had intended to reevaluate the jobs
after the election , was not communicated to the affected
employees, and appears to have been an afterthought intro-
duced to bolster Respondent's position.
It is , therefore , found that, by withholding promotions
or reclassifications of assembler 1 employees to assembler
2, Respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employees to discourage membership in the Un-
ion in violation of Section 8(a)(3), and has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
16 McCormick Longmeadow Stone Co, Inc, 158 NLRB 1237, 1242.
7. The speeches by Respondent's management officials
a. Director of Employee Relations Lusk
On OL -)ber 26 , Lusk read a prepared speech to em-
ployees who had been recalled from layoff . Although pur-
portedly designed to answer union propaganda, the speech
presaged the theme of later speeches made by Vice Presi-
dent Johnson and President Campbell . Lusk branded as
false statements allegedly made by union organizers that the
Company could not close the plant because of some "secret
contract with the Government ," and that the Union could
compel the Company to deal with it because the Company
would not abandon its "expensive new building ." He chal-
lenged the Union's claim that the Company would not "take
a strike ," and that the Union could obtain wage increases
and other benefits , with no loss of income resulting from
strikes. Lusk stated,
It is a matter of public record that the Singer Company
has taken strikes for as long as 6 months in several
cases , and in each case the union was forced to give in
and the employees came back for almost exactly the
same offer that was made when the union called them
out on strike . Two years ago, a union struck one of
Singer Company's plants in Pennsylvania, and after
five weeks , the employees came back to work without
a single penny more . I might add that shortly after their
return to work, Singer sold this plant and it is my
understanding that the plant then failed , putting 400
people out of work . I don ' t have to tell you how hard
it was for employees to be out of work during these
strikes. It was hard on the Company too, but we are a
large company and that is why we are able to success-
fully resist unreasonable union demands whenever
they are made.
Referring to Johnson's last letter to the employees,
Lusk declared , "This company does not want a union in our
plant . We do not want the kind of problems that a union
brings . We do not want to see you pay part of your pay-
check each month to pay the union organizers ' salary. We
do not want to see a union destroy what we think is going
to be a very fine business and a very fine future for all of
us."
Lusk's statement that the Company had "closed plants
in other areas for various reasons and the same thing could
happen here ," while couched as a denial of the Union's
assertion that the Company would be unable to close its_
plant , addressed to employees who had only just returned
from layoff , could scarcely have failed to create a mood of
despondency and anxiety in the minds of these employees.
ti
b. Vice President Johnson's speeches of
November 19 and 25 and December 2 and 8
It is difficult to appreciate the full impact of these
speeches without a painstaking analysis . Salient excerpts
have, however, been quoted in Appendix A to this decision.
In his first speech on November 19, after assuring the
employees of protection against harassment from any
source , Johnson undertook to outline the employees' rights
under the Act, the election procedures , and basic principles
of collective bargaining , concluding , "there are no legal
THE SINGER COMPANY 1211
guarantees, in fact there are no guarantees of anything, that
anything is going to happen as long as the bargaining con-
tinues in good faith ." If the parties failed to reach agree-
ment, Johnson. pointed out, the Union's only recourse
would be to call a strike but the Company would have the
right "to hire people to take your places."
On November 25, after emphasizing that their future
would be decided in the election, Johnson again raised the
spectre of the consequences of a strike, remarking pointed-
ly, "If you do go on strike, you not only, of course, lose the
weekly pay that you have, but you could lose your jobs
because the Company does have a right to bring in other
people to do the work."
Reminding the employees of wage increases which had
been granted in the past year, Johnson posed the question,
"why should you pay dues and fines to a union for wages
and benefits that you already have and why should you pay
dues and fines and assessments for future benefits which we
continually adjust and take a look at anyway."
Adverting to the Union's claims that it had succeeded
in procuring higher wages and. fringe benefits for the em-
ployees it represented at the San Leandro plant, Johnson
stated that over the past 10 years, "the union had lost over
a thousand bargaining unit jobs," which had shrunk from
2200 to 1200, adding that during the last 6 months, 187
employees had been laid off for lack of work at San
Leandro. To demonstrate that the Company had sole con-
trol over jobs, Johnson cited a reduction of employment
from 700 to 255 employees at its Singer-Librascope plant in
Glendale, California, and that the fact that they had secured
additional paid holidays provided them small comfort.
Johnson explained that one of the reasons the Company
had established its plant in Albuquerque was its unsatisfac-
tory experiences at San Leandro, which, because of prohib-
itive labor costs, had rendered it no longer feasible for it to
manufacture calculators and mailing equipment at that
plant, and pleaded with the employees for their cooperation
in insuring the success of the plant at Albuquerque.
On the issue of overriding concern to the employees,
whether the Company would close the plant if the Union
were selected as bargaining agent, one of the employees,
allegedly an IAM committeewoman, posed the question, by
prearrangement, according to Respondent:
Q. Mr. Johnson, if the union was to get in, is it true
that the Company could [or would; the exact word
used was indistinguisable on the tape recording of the
speech] go somewhere else?
A. The question is "If the union does get in, is it
true that the Company could go somewhere else?
(slight pause) Legally, ma'am, it is true that the Compa-
ny could go somewhere else; however, I'd have to tell
you that past that I can't comment because that is an
area that could cause, that I am just not supposed to
discuss , okay. I might even get kicked when I go back
for saying what I did. Yes ma'am.
Although Johnson's answer fell far short of a threat or
prediction of plant closure, it is to be noted that at no time
did he or any other company official disclaim any intention
to close the plant if the Union were chosen as bargaining
agent.17
17 An employer's remark that he could not say "whether the plant would
Responding to a question as to the prospect of contin-
ued employment, Johnson said "the only way I can answer
you any differently because, of course, neither of us have
any facts to back up our opinions, but the only one thing
I can point out was, is that in San Leandro there are a
thousand people who sure aren't enjoying those benefits any
more. And in Glendale, California, there is over half of that
work force who aren't .... They are no longer on, they are
no longer in the representative unit of the IAM."
In his speech of December 2, Johnson dwelt in exten-
sive detail on the history of strikes at other plants in which
the IAM was the bargaining unit, including a wildcat strike
at the Company's San Leandro plant in 1967, as well as
strikes at other Singer plants . Again, Johnson emphasized
that, contrary to the Union' s claims, the Company had and
would "take a strike," and stressed the dire consequences to
employees of prolonged strikes. In this context, Johnson
reiterated what he had said in earlier speeches regarding the
Company's right to hire replacements during a strike, and
asserted that "the law allows the company to hire replace-
ments for the strikers. In that case, the striker loses both his
wages during the strike and his job, and he or she cannot
come back to work for the company unless the company
decides to hire that person back." Johnson's remarks left no
room for doubt that he attributed the drastic loss of employ-
ment, and, in some instances, plant closings, to strikes re-
sulting from the Union's unreasonable and excessive de-
mands. By contrast, Johnson cited one of its plants in Ar-
kansas with a complement of some 2,000 employees which
was thriving, as an example of what could be accomplished
if a plant were unorganized.
Johnson blamed the Company's plight at San Leandro
on the Union's continuing demands for higher wages, and
stressed that that was one of the reasons the Company had
moved its calculator work to Albuquerque. While impugn-
ing the Union's motives . in organizing the Albuquerque
plant as selfish and mercenary, Johnson repeatedly declared
that it was the Union's strategy to force a strike or shutdown
at the Albuquerque plant in order to compel the return of
production of calculators and mailing equipment to San
Leandro. During this speech, Johnson also made passing
reference to the unfair labor practice charge in connection
with the union shirt episode, informed the employees that
he understood that a complaint was to issue, and told them
that they could wear union shirts or emblems if they wished
to do so.
c. President Campbell's speech
At the December 4 meeting, Johnson introduced R. J.
Campbell, president of the Friden Division of the Compa-
ny. In his introductory remarks, Johnson stated that Camp-
bell was so greatly concerned about the success of the
Albuquerque operation, and so convinced that "a union can
do nothing but hurt our chances of success here," that he
had rearranged a busy schedule to talk to the employees.
In a strong appeal to the employees to vote against the
Union, Campbell stressed what he regarded as a. trend in
move or not," if the Union were successful , has been held to violate the Act.
I.U.E. v. N.L.R.B., 287 F.2d 757 (C.A.D.C. 1960), enfg . 124 NLRB 481.
1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
American industry "because of problems created by un-
ions," as well as other factors, to locate plants in foreign coun-
tries or to have their products manufactured either by com-
panies which they controlled, such as Respondent
maintained in Belgium and in Holland, or to buy products
from Japanese manufacturers, as the Company was being
compelled to do. Campbell asserted that Friden's share of
the electronic calculator market in the United States had
drastically declined from 60 percent to 6 percent. He main-
tained that the unions had contributed to this trend, and
that the IAM had made it impossible for the Company to
compete at its San Leandro operation. He, too, impugned
the Union's motives in attempting to organize the Albu-
querque plant, and alluded to the Union's effort through
legal proceedings to enjoin the Ampex Corporation, which
had maintained its plant in California, from moving to Al-
buquerque, intimating that the Union would probably re-
sort to similar proceedings with regard to the Singer
Company.
Referring to his previous experiences at nonunion
plants, Campbell told the employees,
We just would not have been able, in my opinion, to
stay in the business with the problems that we had in
California-many of which the Union must take re-
sponsibility for.
Continuing in the same vein, he declared,
Today, three years later-which is why we came to
Albuquerque-why we had to get out of California and
why we cannot-and if the people were telling you, or
the people back in California only knew-it isn't a
matter of jobs going from here back to California be-
cause if we are forced out of here, those jobs cannot go
back to California because we will not be any more
competitive than we were before. The jobs will go some
place else and I think if the Californians knew this, they
wouldn't be putting all the money and effort they are
into doing what they are trying to do here, it appears
to me.
Now, the union that made it impossible-and must
accept the blame-for us to produce a competive prod-
uct in San Leandro has lost, to prove this point, over
1,000 jobs in San Leandro.
In emphasizing that this was part of the decision that the
employees would be making in the election, Campbell ob-
served,
If the union tries to do here in Albuquerque what it did
to our plant in San Leandro, there is no question in my
mind but what we will not be able to continue manu-
facturing electronic calculators in this country and you
can tell the people from the union who are here that it
is a fact that it isn't that the jobs will go back to Califor-
nia like they are hoping for, in my opinion.
In his final speech on December 8, 2 days before the
election, Johnson again alluded to the Company's efforts to
procure more work for the Albuquerque plant, and reiterat-
ed, "In order to do that, we have to be able to effectively
run our business and the way you can help us be effective
in running that business is by voting no this Thursday morn-
ing to the union." Johnson repeated that the IAM would
have to assume responsibility in "large part" for having
made it impossible for the Company to continue doing busi-
ness in the calculator field at San Leandro. Again, adverting
to layoffs at other Singer plants where the IAM was the
bargaining agent, Johnson referred to the loss of a thousand
jobs in San Leandro, layoffs of more than 200 employees,
and the loss of some 400 jobs at the Glendale plant. Johnson
attributed the loss of jobs at San Leandro "in large part due
to this union's activities [which]-had made it impossible
for us to continue business in the calculating field in San
Leandro."
During this speech, Johnson also displayed a chart
showing the number of jobs which had been lost at other
Singer plants, including four represented by the IAM. The
same theme was driven home in a brochure distributed by
the Company to the employees on the eve of the election.
While rendering lip service to the idea that the Union
was not altogether responsible, Johnson nevertheless
charged the Union with "one great big large share of re-
sponsibility for it, and particularly in the San Leandro area.
Up there this union has made it impossible to stay in busi-
ness that we are trying to stay in here in Albuquerque."
Challenging statements in the Union's campaign literature
that "Singer-Friden is here to stay in Albuquerque," as evi-
denced by the Company's 20-year lease with the City of
Albuquerque, Johnson countered.
The union, of course, is not a party to any agreements
we have with the city of Albuquerque. We have a 20
year arrangement which provides for how we are going
to pay for this facility. IF-and I repeat IF-if we stay
here. Now, this Company will not get itself and has not
got itself into any long term arrangement for which we
couldn't get out of. Quite obviously that is the kind of
a situation that we wouldn't get into. And, any rumor
that says that if, we should vacate this facility for any
reason-that someone else is going to come in and take
over-I can tell you folks that it is just absolutely false.
I think that it is interesting to note that the union
started a rumor like this. Evidently, they may be afraid
that Friden might move out if they should get in.
It is significant that Johnson here was echoing a statement
vaguely hinted at by Foreman Stanley in his conversation
with Martinez, that $5 million was merely "a drop in the
bucket," so far as the Company was concerned, if it came
to a question of plant removal.
Granting, for the sake of argument, that Respondent
was merely countering the Union's propaganda that the
Company could not move from Albuquerque because it was
committed to a 20-year lease, Respondent utilized this de-
vice as a means of instilling further doubts and anxieties in
the minds of the employees as to the possibility that the
Company might retaliate in the event the Union succeeded.
The statement that the Company had not permitted itself to
become involved in any "long term arrangement," from
which it could not extricate itself, could scarcely have been
calculated to allay the employees' fears.18
18 Cf. Spartus Corporation, 195 NLRB No. 17, in which the Board held that
statements in a speech to employees by the employer that he had offers to
move the plant but that he would not do so, constitute, in the circumstances,
an implied threat to move the plant if the union were chosen, and hence
violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act Here , not only did Respondent fail to
disclaim any intention of moving the plant, but deliberately nurtured in the
minds of the employees the fear that it might do so
THE SINGER COMPANY
8. The Company's further preelection propaganda
a. The VOTE NO placards and the grocery display
From the morning of Monday, December 7, through
the afternoon of Wednesday, December 9, the day before
the election, Respondent prominently displayed placards
about 17 inches by 11-3/4 inches variously estimated as
between 18 and 50 in number. On a white background, in
red lettering about 1-3/4 inches high, appeared the legend
"LET'S GO," with the words "VOTE NO" underneath, all
surrounded by a red border. The placards were posted by
the Company on plant walls and support pillars in various
working areas , as well as in restrooms.
On the evening of December 4, the Company arranged
a special display prepared under Lusk's direction inside
the employee entrance to the plant, which remained until
Wednesday evening, December 9, the night before the elec-
tion. As depicted in a photograph introduced in evidence,
the display consisted of a table on which a variety of grocer-
ies, canned goods, and foodstuffs were piled. On a wall
above this display, under the legend, "ONE YEAR'S
MINIMUM UNION DUES LOOKS LIKE THIS," was a
glass-enclosed case, containing 70 single $1 bills, arranged
in 10 columns, 7 bills to a column. Directly below this, on
the table containing-the grocery display, had been placed a
sign reading, "IT CAN BUY THIS," referring to the grocer-
ies. According to Committeewoman Castillo, "Vote No"
signs were posted in the vicinity of the display, although
Lusk, who had supervised the posting of the signs, was
certain that no such signs were placed any nearer than the
opposite wall 17 feet away, and 20 feet higher than the
display table.
It is obvious that during the final days of the election,
Respondent stepped up its propaganda by prominently
posting "VOTE NO" placards in working areas of the plant.
This, however, did not exceed permissible electioneering
permitted under the Act. So, too, it cannot be said that the
display of groceries and currency, however graphic and dra-
matic , transgressed legitimate campaign tactics .19 It is,
therefore, found that Respondent did not by this conduct
interfere with, restrain , or coerce its employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed in the Act, nor afforded a ground
for the objections to the conduct of the election.
b. The portfolio
On December 9, the eve of the election , Respondent
distributed to all its employees a plastic-encased portfolio
consisting of an 8 x 10 panoramic photograph of the exteri-
or of the plant premises, and three campaign bulletins. The
first of these bulletins , in large black type on a white back-
ground , read as follows:
19 Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 172 NLRB No. 139; 171 NLRB No. 23.
IS THIS JOB SECURITY?
SAN LEANDRO , CALIF.
GLENDALE, CALIF
CHATTANOOGA, TENN
ELIZABETH, NJ
BRIDGEPORT, CONN
SOUTH BEND, IND.
LEWISTOWN, PA
CORY, PA
BUFFALO, N Y
1213
1,000 UNION JOBS LOST'
450 UNION JOBS LOST'
500 UNION JOBS LOST'
6,000 UNION JOBS LOST'
3,000 UNION JOBS LOST'
2,000 UNION JOBS LOST'
500 UNION JOBS LOST!
100 UNION JOBS LOST'
350 UNION JOBS LOST'
-THESE WERE ALL AT SINGER PLANTS-
WILL ALBUQUERQUE BE NEXT?
Another leaflet, captioned in bold black type, "DON'T
MAKE A MISTAKE," lettered in black and red, with a
diagram instructing the employees to place an X in the box
on the ballot marked "NO," urged employees to vote
against the Union. A leaflet, bearing the legend, in red:
NO STRIKES
NO DUES
NO FINES
NO ASSESSMENTS
NO UNION
with the words "VOTE NO," in red, underneath, and a
sample ballot, with a checkmark in the square marked "no,"
completed the brochure.
Although neither the General Counsel nor the Union
has challenged the accuracy of the statements of jobs lost
at other Singer plants, as set forth in the bulletin entitled "IS
THIS JOB SECURITY? " the truth or accuracy of the
statements is not the sole determining factor in deciding
whether the bulletin exceeded the permissible limits of free
speech. While clearly attributing the loss of jobs to the mere
presence of the unions in those plants, Respondent failed to
demonstrate that it had any basis for attributing the loss of
some 14,000 jobs to unionism. The rhetorical question,
"WILL ALBUQUERQUE BE NEXT?" which climaxed
this presentation could have had no other purpose than to
strike fear in the hearts of the employees that Albuquerque
would, indeed, be next if the Union came into the plant.
It is therefore found that, by the statements in this
bulletin attributing loss of jobs at other of Respondent's
plants to unionism, and implying that the selection of the
Union at Albuquerque would inevitably meet with the same
consequences, Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1), of the Act.
Respondent defends its statements, in its campaign lit-
erature as well as in the speeches of its company officials,
on the ground that they constituted no more than an expres-
sion of views, arguments, or opinion protected by Section
8(c) of the Act. Contending that these statements were de-
signed, in the main, to answer the claims and charges in the
Union's campaign propaganda, Respondent denies that it
made any promises of benefit or threats of reprisal in order
1214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to mduce the employees to reject the Union. Furthermore,
Respondent contends that no promises of benefits or threats
of reprisal can be inferred from its communications when
considered in their totality or evaluated in the light of the
surrounding circumstances. Moreover, Respondent main-
tains its conduct must be viewed in light of its objectives in
establishing the Albuquerque plant.
Chief among these, it is evident, was its determination
to locate in an area in which labor costs were at an accepta-
ble level. Since it was convinced that the prohibitive labor
costs at San Leandro were largely attributable to the IAM,
which had represented production employees at San
Leandro for 25 years, it is not surprising that Respondent
was determined to keep the IAM out of the Albuquerque
plant by any means at its disposal. It may be assumed, as
Respondent contends, that its actions were dictated by eco-
nomic considerations, including a drastic decline in its share
of the office products business which, according to it, had
dropped from 60 percent to 6 percent over a period of 4
years, with the possibility of losing its market to overseas
production altogether.
This argument, however, proves too much, for it pre-
saged Respondent's determination to avoid a union at the
Albuquerque plant under any circumstances. From the very
outset, Respondent viewed the appearance of IAM officials
with antagonism and hostility, and as an overt threat to the
future of its operation. Although union representatives at
the hearing, for the first time, in response to probing ques-
tions by Respondent, conceded that it regarded the transfer
of production from the San Leandro to the Albuquerque
plant as a "runaway shop," the record as a whole establishes
that the Union was concerned primarily with organizing the
employees at Albuquerque. If anything, the Union was con-
tinually concerned with whether the Company might decide
to close or remove the plant, notwithstanding its commit-
ment to a 20-year lease and the very considerable invest-
ment in the plant facility, rather than by any purpose to
have the Company return production to San Leandro. On
the contrary, from the outset of its campaign, the Union
sought the allegiance of the employees by continually im-
pressing them with the more favorable wage structure and
benefits at San Leandro under the IAM contract, and re-
peatedly challenged the Company to justify the wage scales
and benefits at the Albuquerque plant.
Whatever may be said for the Company's legitimate
campaign propaganda in meeting the Union's charges,
which Respondent characterizes in its brief as "cynical, vi-
tuperative and provocative" (while ignoring the fact that its
own countercharges were not wholly free from invective),
and its contention that economic realities would ultimately
dictate the wages and job security of the employees, not the
selection of the Union as bargaining agent, it cannot be
denied that the company propaganda, in the speeches of its
managing officials , as well as in its campaign literature, was
interlarded with intemperate statements that the selection of
the Union would inevitably result in strikes . These state-
ments were underscored by long and detailed histories of
the dire consequences, culminating not infrequently in plant
closure or abandonment. Although Respondent nowhere
explicitly threatened plant closure in the event the Union
was successful in the election, the speeches of management
officials were replete with innuendos that the Company
would not be deterred from closing or moving the plant,
notwithstanding its 20-year lease and its considerable plant
investment, if the Union were successful in the election.
Both the inevitability of strikes, with the attendant conse-
quences, and the spectre of plant closure were the predorm-
nant and insistent themes of the speeches. Whether, as
claimed by Respondent, the Union itself raised the "straw
man" of plant closure only to knock it down, the fact re-
mains that despite widespread rumors of the possibility of
plant closure, Respondent remained silent and did nothing
to reassure or allay the apprehension of the employees in
this regard. On the contrary, Respondent permitted the em-
ployees to harbor the belief, if indeed it did not foster or
encourage it, regardless of whether it had any intention of
actually closing the plant, that the selection of the Union
could lead to that result. Respondent's constant reiteration
of the history of strikes, accompanied by widespread loss of
employment culminating in actual plant closures as the re-
sult of strikes at union plants, could scarcely have failed to
have a chilling effect upon the self-organizational aspira-
tions of the employees.
The factual situation in this case is strikingly similar to
that found by the Court in the Sinclair case,33 where the
Court said,
The Board found that petitioners' speeches, pamphlets,
leaflets, and letters conveyed the following message:
that the company was in a precarious financial condi-
tion; that the "strike-happy" union would in all likeli-
hood have to obtain its potentially unreasonable
demands by striking, the probable result of which
would be a plant shutdown, as the past history of labor
relations in the area indicated; and that the employees
in such a case would have great difficulty finding em-
ployment elsewhere. In carrying out its duty to focus
on the question: "[W]hat did the speaker intend and
the listener understand?" (A.Cox, Law and the Na-
tional Labor Policy, 44 (1960)), the Board could rea-
sonably conclude that the intended and understood
import of that message was not to predict that unioni-
zation would inevitably cause the plant to close but to
threaten to throw employees out of work regardless of
the economic realities. In this connection, we need go
no further than to point out (1) that petitioner had no
support for its basic assumption that the union, which
had not yet even presented any demands, would have
to strike to be heard, and that it admitted at the hearing
that it had no basis for attributing other plant closing
in the area to unionism; and (2) that the Board has
often found that employees, who are particularly sensi-
tive to rumors of plant closings, [citation omitted] take
strikes at other plants, as well as at those of Respondent , m Sinclair Company v N.LR B., affd sub nom . N LR B v Gissel Packing
which had resulted in extensive loss of employment and all Company, Inc., et al., 395 U.S. 575, 619
THE SINGER COMPANY
such hints as coercive threats rather than honest fore-
casts. [Citations omitted.]
As the Court said elsewhere in the same opinion,
Any assessment of the precise scope of employer ex-
pression, of course, must be made in the context of its
labor relations setting. Thus, an employer's rights can-
not outweigh the equal rights of the employees to asso-
ciate freely, as those rights are embodied in § 7 and
protected by §8(a)(1) and the proviso to §8(c). And any
balancing of those rights must take into account the
economic dependence of the employees on their em-
ployers, and the necessary tendency of the former, be-
cause of that relationship, to pick up intended
implications of the latter that might be more readily
dismissed by a more disinterested ear. Stating these
obvious principles is but another way of recognizing
that what is basically at stake is the establishment of a
nonpermanent, limited relationship between the em-
ployer, his economically dependent employee and his
union agent ....
Again, the Court said,
... an employer is free to communicate to his employ-
ees any of his general views about unionism or any of
his specific views about a particular union, so long as
the communications do not contain a "threat of repris-
al or force or promise of benefit." He may even make
a prediction as to the precise effects he believes unioni-
zation will have on his company. In such a case, howev-
er, the prediction must be carefully phrased on the
basis of objective fact to convey an employer's belief as
to demonstrably probable consequences beyond his
control or to convey a management decision already
arrived at to close the plant in case of unionization. See
Textile Workers v. Darlington Mfg. Co., 380 U.S. 263,
274, n. 20 (1965). If there is any implication that an
employer may or may not take action solely on his own
initiative for reasons unrelated to economic necessities
and known only to him, the statement is no longer a
reasonable prediction based on available facts but a
threat of retaliation based on misrepresentation and
coercion, and as such without the protection of the
First Amendment. We therefore agree with the court
below that "[c]onveyance of the employer's belief, even
though sincere, that unionization will or may result in
the closing of the plant is not a statement of fact unless,
which is most improbable, the eventuality of closing is
capable of proof." 397 F.2d 157, 160. As stated else-
where, an employer is free only to tell "what he rea-
sonably believes will be the likely economic
consequences of unionization that are outside his con-
trol," and not "threats of economic reprisal to be taken
solely on his own volition." N.L.R.B. v. River Togs, Inc.,
382 F.2d 198, 202 (C.A. 2d Cir. 1967).
In answer to the employer's argument in the Sinclair
case that "the line between so-called permitted predictions
and proscribed threats is too vague to stand up under tradi-
tional First Amendment analysis and that the Board's dis-
cretion to detail free speech rights is correspondingly too
uncontrolled." the Court said, "It is true that a reviewing
court must recognize the Board's competence in the first
instance to judge the impact of utterances made in the con-
1215
text of the employer-employee relationship, see N.L.R.B. v.
Virginia Electric & Power Co., 314 U.S. 469, 479 (1941). But
an employer, who has control over that relationship and
therefore knows it best, cannot be heard to complain that
he is without an adequate guide for his behavior. He can
easily make his views known without engaging in 'brink-
manship' when it becomes all too easy to `overstep and
tumble [over] the brink,' Wasau Steel Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 377
F.2d 369, 372 (C.A. 7, 1967). At least he can avoid coercive
speech simply by avoiding conscious overstatements he has
reason to believe will mislead his employees. "21
Moreover, it is evident that Respondent's campaign
propaganda, including the brochure, and particularly the
speeches of company officials, were calculated to instill a
belief in the employees that collective bargaining could ac-
complish nothing for them and that selection of the Union
as their bargaining representative could only lead to strikes
and loss of work. 2
In evaluating the impact upon the employees of
Respondent's speeches, disregarding any possible language
bather,23 it must be borne in mind that the persons to whom
the statements were addressed constituted to a very large
extent a pool of hard-core, minority unemployed, some of
whom had only recently returned from layoff, whose last
desperate opportunity for gainful employment had been
realized only through government intervention. It would be
the height of naivete to assume that these persons would
have the capacity to make the subtle distinction between
legitimate propoganda, protected as free speech, and in-
nuendos of threats of reprisal, which frequently defy the
expertise of qualified labor relations practitioners.
It is therefore found that by the speeches of Director
of Labor Relations Lusk, Vice President Johnson, and Pres-
ident Campbell, and by the antiunion propaganda dissem-
inated by Respondent impliedly threatening the employees
with economic reprisal or promises of benefits, and by the
cumulative effect and totality of said statements, Respon-
dent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed under the Act in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1).
E. Objections to Conduct of the Election
The Union's objections to the conduct of the election
are as follows:
The Petitioner alleges that the Employer through its
Agents, Supervisors and Employees created an at-
mosphere among the eligible voters prior to and during
the election that was not conducive to their registering
a free and untrammelled choice of a collective bargain-
ing representative by the following alleged acts:
1. By making available Anti-Union "Vote No"
buttons between November 13, 1970 and December 10,
21 Id. 620. See to the same effect Jervis Corporation, Bolivar Division, 159
NLRB 262, enfd. 387 F.2d 107 (C A. 6).
22 See also Glazer Steel Corporation, 163 NLRB 7; Cf Rudy's Farm Compa-
ny, Inc., 190 NLRB No 62.
23 It may be noted that the initial letters mailed by the Company to its
employees contained on the reverse side Spanish translations , indicating that
the Company recognized the possibility of language barriers to communica-
tion.
1216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1970. Some of these buttons were made on company
property during working time with supervisors knowl-
edge and apparent consent. Other "Vote No" buttons
were of the manufactured type made available and
given out during working hours on Company premises.
2. By intimidating, reprimanding and discriminat-
ing against employees because they wore "IAM" but-
tons and "IAM" insignias on clothing.
3. By' certain supervisors threatening employees
with disciplinary action if they showed up at the polls
to vote.
4. By posting huge "Anti-Union slogans" and
"Vote No" signs in the plant throughout the working
areas and restrooms of the eligible voters between No-
vember 13, 1970 and December 10, 1970.
5. By captive audience meetings between Novem-
ber 13, 1970 and December 10, 1970 wherein threats of
moving the plant out of Albuquerque, New Mexico
should the Union win the election and numerous other
anti-union statements were made.
6. By threatening, coercing, reprimanding and dis-
criminating against employees and known union ad-
herents because of their pro-union protected activity
between November 13, 1970 and December 10, 1970.
In some instances issuing written reprimands.
7. By withholding from certain employees previ-
ously established periodic wage increases and stated to
the employees the reason these increases were being
withheld was because of the pending National Labor
Relations Board election.
8. By establishing and enforcing a "non-solicita-
tion rule" giving copies to all employees.,A copy is
enclosed and identified as Attachment # 1.
9. By posting on Company bulletin boards, under
glass on or about November 17, 1970 a bulletin worded
as follows:
November 17, 1970
All Employees
From: T. E. Lusk
Your attention is called to the Companys No-Solic-
itation rule which provides that No employee shall
solicit any other employee for any purpose on Com-
pany Premises during working hours. This means
that No Employee shall attempt to persuade any
other employee for or against any cause or point of
view during working hours. In order to assure a fair
election on December 10 it is essential that all em-
ployees observe this rule.
T. E. Lusk
10. By the Employer on or about December 9,
1970 distributing to eligible voters a portfolio contain-
ing material couched in language that purported to
show that 16,000 employees of Singer Company lost
their jobs because they chose a union and had the effect
of instilling fear in the minds of the eligible voters that
they were facing a like reprisal should they select a
union.
Distribution of the above was carefully timed so that
the Petitioner had no opportunity to reply prior to the
election of December 10, 1970. By any or all the above
set-forth acts and by other acts, the Employer did cre-
ate an atmosphere among the employees that was not
conducive to their exercising their rights guaranteed
under the Act and did thereby destroy the laboratory
conditions , both before and during the election , neces-
sary for the eligible voters to register a free choice in
selecting a collective bargaining representative. The
Petitioner hereby moves that the instant election be set
aside.
Attached to these objections were the contents of the port-
folio distributed by the Company on the eve of the election.
For reasons previously stated, Objections 1, 4, 8, and
9 are overruled. With regard to Objection 3, there is no
evidence to support the charge that supervisors threatened
employees with disciplinary action if they appeared at the
polls to vote. Objections 2, 5, and 6 (to the extent that they
relate to the issuance of written reprimands to union adher-
ents), 7, and 10 are sustained.
It has been found that Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1),
previously detailed, both before the filing of the representa-
tion petition and during the period thereafter until the date
of the election. Since such a finding is a fortiori grounds for
setting aside the results of the election , and certain of the
objections to the conduct of the election have been sus-
tained, it is clear that the election was not conducted under
the laboratory conditions which the Board requires. It is
further found that Respondent's unlawful conduct inter-
fered with the free and untrammelled choice of the employ-
ees in the election of December 10, 1970. It will therefore
be recommended that the results of the election held De-
cember 10, 1970, be set aside, and that the Regional Direc-
tor be directed to hold an election when he is satisfied that
the effects of Respondent 's unlawful conduct have been
effectively dissipated.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations de-
scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate and sub-
stantial relation to trade , traffic , and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act by the conduct previously detailed, it will be
recommended that it be ordered to cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that Respon-
dent discriminatorily denied certain named employees the
right to wear shirts displaying union insignia, and deprived
THE SINGER COMPANY 1217
them of their wages until they removed their shirts. It will,
therefore, be recommended that Respondent reimburse
each of said employees for the loss of wages they sustained
as a result of the discrimination against them, together with
interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum, in ac-
cordance with customary Board policy.
In view of the aggravated nature of the unfair labor
practices in which Respondent has engaged, it will also be
recommended that the Board issue a broad cease and desist
order 24
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Singer Company, Friden Division, a Delaware
corporation with a plant and offices in Albuquerque, New
Mexico , Respondent herein, is, and at all times material
herein has been , an employer engaged in commerce and in
a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and the jurisdictional standards
of the Board.
2. International Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers, AFL-CIO, the Union herein , is, and at all
times material herein has been , a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By prohibiting certain named employees from wear-
ing shirts displaying union insignia, and by depriving them
of their wages until they removed those shirts , issuing un-
warranted written reprimands , and withholding wage in-
creases , Respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire
or tenure of employment of employees to discourage
membership in a labor organization , thereby engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3),
and interfering with, restraining and coercing employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7, thereby en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By Foreman Balderston 's coercive interrogation of
employees regarding their union activities and his state-
ments in opposition to the Union between August and Sep-
tember, 1970; by Foreman Stanley's interrogation of
Martinez in a similar vein, on about November 17, 1970;
threats of reprisals for engaging in union activity ; withhold-
ing wage increases ; issuing written reprimands to union
adherents , ostensibly for violation of the no-solicitation
rule; and by the veiled threats of plant closure and state-
ments of the inevitability of strikes and the dire conse-
quences of such strikes, including loss of jobs if the Union
were selected , contained in the speeches of Director of Em-
ployee Relations Lusk, Vice President Johnson and Presi-
dent Campbell, and in the preelection portfolio and other
campaign material , Respondent has interfered with, re-
strained and coerced employees in the exercise of rights
24 N L R.B v. Entwistle Manufacturing Company, 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A.
4), May Department Stores v. N L. R B, 326 U.S. 376; Bethlehem Steel Compa-
ny v N.LR.B, 120 F 2d 641 (C.A.D.C.).
guaranteed in Section 7, thereby engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, con-
clusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Sec-
tion 10(c) of the Act, the Trial Examiner hereby issues the
following recommended:
ORDER25
The Singer Company, Friden Division, a Delaware
corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment of any
employees by penalizing them with loss of wages, issuing
written reprimands to employees, and withholding wage
increases because of their union or concerted activity or in
any other manner discriminating in regard to the hire or
tenure of employment, or any other term or condition of
employment of its employees, to discourage membership in
a labor organization.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees regarding their
union or protected activities; threatening them with repris-
als; withholding wage increases, issuing unwarranted writ-
ten reprimands, all because of their union or protected
concerted activities; threatening plant closure, and stating
that strikes and loss of jobs are the inevitable results of
unionism.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining or
coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment, as au-
thorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole employees Randy Martinez, Freddie
Marquez, Robert Moya, and Ronald Norling for any loss
of earnings they may have sustained by reason of
Respondent's discrimination against them by payment to
each of them of the sum of money they would have earned
during the time they were excluded from the plant for wear-
ing shirts displaying union insignia, together with interest,
as set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Rescind and expunge from its personnel records the
written reprimands issued on November 17, 1970, to Juan
U. Carrillo, Randy Martinez and Robert Moya for alleged
violation of the no-solicitation rule.
25 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall , as provided in Section
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
1218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security records, timecards, personnel rec-
ords and reports, and all other records necessary or useful
to determine or compute the amount of the loss of wages
due the named employees, if any.
(d) Post at its plant and office in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix
B."26 Copies of the notice on forms provided by the Region-
al Director for Region 28 shall, after being signed by a duly
authorized representative of Respondent, be posted imme-
diately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a
period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to ensure that such notices are not altered, de-
faced or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 28, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply here-
with 27
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaints be dis-
missed insofar as they allege violations of the Act not specif-
ically found herein.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election in Case No.
28-RC-2118 be set aside, and that the Regional Director
schedule an election to be held at such time that he is
satisfied that the effects of Respondent' s unfair labor prac-
tices have been effectively dissipated.
26 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
27 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after
exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify
the Regional Director for Region 28,-in wasting, within 20 days from the date
of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX A
Excerpts from Speeches of Company Officials
1. Lusk's speech of October 26
6. Statements have allegedly been made by union or-
ganizers that Friden cannot close the Albuquerque plant be-
cause of some secret contract with the government. This
statement is completely untrue. The only way that this plant
can remain open is by the work that we put into it. We have
no secret contract with anyone.
7. Statements have allegedly been made by union organiz-
ers that it can force this company to do whatever the union
wants the company to do because the company will not give up
its expensive new building. This statement by the Union is
absolutely false. We will remain here in Albuquerque only
as long as we can effectively conduct our business and
compete with other companies which make the same prod-
ucts. We have closed plants in other areas for various rea-
sons and the same thing could happen here.
# i # M 11
9. The union organizers have allegedly stated that the
Singer Company will not take a strike, and that they can get
all sorts of benefits and increased wages without you losing any
money because of strikes. This statement is absolutely false. It
is a matter of public record that the Singer Company has taken
strikes for as long as 6 months in several cases, and in each
case the union was forced to give in and the employees came
back for almost exactly the same offer that was made when
the union called them out on strike. Two years ago, a union
struck one of Singer Company's plants in Pennsylvania, and
after 5 weeks, the employees came back to work without a
single penny more. I might add that shortly after their return
to work, Singer sold this plant and it is my understanding
that the plant then failed, putting 400 people out of work.
I don't have to tell you how hard it was for employees to
be out of work during these strikes . It was hard on the
company too, but we are a large company and that is why
we are able to successfully resist unreasonable union de-
mands whenever they are made.
s s s s 0
11. I do want to make this fact clear to all of you. As
R. W. Johnson said in his last letter to you, this company does
not want a union in our plant. We do not want the kind of
problems that a union brings. We do not want to see you pay
part of your paycheck each month to pay the union organizer's
salary. We do not want to see a union destroy what we think
is going to be a very fine business and a very fine future for all
Of US.
2. Johnson's November 19 speech
What you decide in that election will have a bearing
on the future of this plant ....
On the other hand, the law says that a person in my
position cannot make promises. I cannot tell you about
things even if I were planning to do them during this kind
of an election because the law says a person like me, I can
back those promises up, and since I can, that puts the union
at a disadvantage .... I cannot tell you many things. But
be sure of one thing, folks, don't let anybody tell you that
silence in some of these cases is a sign of weakness because
I'll guarantee you it's not ....
Some people have been told and some people might
feel that if the union wins the election, and for all of our
sakes I tell you I hope ... that doesn't happen ....
In fact, at that kind of negotiation, if it should happen,
all of the present wage structures, all of the present benefits,
the holidays, medical plan, the pension plan, all of those are
open for negotiation that we now have also .... But again,
I just want to reiterate because it's the facts that the compa-
ny is not bound to give anything that it doesn't want to give.
THE SINGER COMPANY 1219
The union has a recourse. That recourse, of course, it's the
only recourse, is they can call you out on strike. If the union,
at that point then, speaking for you, that what we want to
give is not appropriate, they call you out on strike. But,
again as a matter of law, the company has the right at that
point to hire people to take your places also ....
3. Johnson's November 25 speech
Well, I don't know whether I get-it's nervous or not,
but you see I do get rather emotionally involved in this
situation . That plus a combination of reading might give
you that impression, but as I told you before, I am very
concerned about it because it is a question of our future,
your's and the rest of the people in this facility and mine
also that we are discussing here and that which you will
decide on December 10th, and I can get kind of involved in
that kind of a subject.
Now, what about wages and fringe benefits? Does the
union have any power to raise your wages and fringe bene-
fits? No, they don' t. Sure the union can come in here, be
elected in here by you folks and sign up members and they
can call you out on strike so they do have that alternative.
But, this doesn't mean that wages or benefits or anything
automatically go up. If you do go on strike, you not only,
of course, lose the weekly pay that you have, but you could
lose your jobs because the company does have a right to
bung in other people to do the work.
I think many of you received wage increases during the
past year and that was a result of these kinds of adjustments
and we expect this to continue. Even if the union were to
get into our plant, this wouldn't mean that your wage situ-
ation would change necessarily because the law does not
require a company to adhere to any demands of a union. So,
I guess you have to ask yourself the question, why should
you pay dues and fines to a union for wages and benefits
that you already have and why should you pay dues and
fines and assessments for future benefits which we contin-
ually adjust and take a look at anyway. The union talked
a lot about higher wages and fringe benefits in San Leandro
and we'll hear a lot more about that. The union has been
there for many years.
I've been there for a little while also, but, they didn't
bother to tell you that in the past ten years the union has
lost over a thousand bargaining unit jobs. In 1959 the bar-
gaining unit in San Leandro was about 2200 people. Today,
it is about 1200. That doesn't sound like providing much job
security to me. The union also didn't bother to tell you that
in the last six months 187 people are in lack of work in San
Leandro. At Albuquerque, as most of you know, I think, all
of our hourly and production and maintenance workers
who had recall rights have been recalled and the union
didn't have a thing to do with that. We did that and we will
do that.
We have control over the jobs and we continue to. The
union also recently mentioned that its members at Singer-
Librascope in Glendale, California, which is south of San
Leandro near the Los Angeles area, enjoyed more holidays
than you do. What they didn't bother to tell you again was
that in 1962 the union represented some 700 people at Li-
brascope and that it now represents 255 active people there.
That's 475 people for whom I'd have to question whether
any job security was maintained for them during that time
period, and I don't think holidays do a person much good
if he is not working. The fact of the matter, of course, is that
as I have said many times , in our judgment the union can't
do anything for you that we can't do ourselves and we are
looking for a chance to do that. We have had a lot of sad
experiences in San Leandro, what they did up there, and
that, of course, is one of the reasons why we are here in
Albuquerque. We can't afford to manufacture calculators,
you see, and mailing equipment in San Leandro any longer.
We just cannot stand the competition and the kind of costs
we have involved in the Bay Area. I think again if you give
us a chance to have this plant managed by the people who
are here to manage it now that we will grow , but of course
it takes your help.
s s s s
Question: Mr. Johnson, if the union was to get in,
is it true that the Company could (indistinguishable on
the tape) go somewhere else?
Answer: The question is, "If the union does get in,
is it true that the Company could go somewhere else?"
(Pause) Legally, ma'am, it is true that the Company
could go somewhere else; however, I'd have to tell you
that past that I can't comment because that is an area
that could cause, that I am just not supposed to discuss,
okay. I might even get kicked when I go back for saying
what I did. Yes ma'am.
s s s
Question: Inaudible
Answer: Well, the initial question was one regard-
ing over the lifetime of work, right. And the only way
I can answer you any differently because, of course,
neither of us have any facts to back up our opinions,
but the only one thing I can point out was, is that in
San Leandro there are a thousand people who sure
aren't enjoying those benefits anymore. And in Glen-
dale, California, there is over half of that work force
who aren't.
Question: Inaudible.
Answer: They are no longer on, they are no longer
in the representative unit of the IAM. Thank you again.
Have a very happy Thanksgiving.
4. Johnson's December 2 speech
1220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
But today, I thought we ought to talk about a subject
which I think the unions don't like to hear companies talk
about at all and that subject is strikes. We have had a lot
of comments and questions regarding strikes particularly
last week. From what we hear, the union organizers are
saying that they don't have many strikes. And on top of that
we understand they are saying that the Singer Company
doesn't take strikes. Now both of these statements are com-
pletely false. I take it that everyone here knows what a strike
is. But basically a strike occurs when a union calls employ-
ees off the job in order to try to force a company to give
higher wages or increased benefits. Anyone who has been
through a strike knows-that these aren't very pleasant af-
fairs, in fact they get fairly unpleasant in most cases. No-
body also wins a strike-the company doesn't win a strike,
the union doesn't win a strike; but people sure do lose a
strike and unfortunately in most cases it's employees who
lose in a strike. When employees go out on strike, they don't
receive wages from the company and they cannot get unem-
ployment benefits. People might get a few dollars from a
union but it won't go anywhere near to covering what the
lost wages were.
I have been involved in several strikes from many dif-
ferent vantage points, and I'll tell you unfortunately I've
seen some of them last three, four, five months. I've seen
people lose homes; I've seen people lose their cars and lose
their furniture. The payments generally can't be kept up
over the period of a kind of a strike that lasts more than a
week or two. If a strike is a long one, you can work some-
times the rest of your life and not make up the payments,
the wages that are lost during the period of that strike. Also,
when an employee is called out, as we mentioned before on
strike for higher wages by the union, the law allows the
company to hire replacements for the strikers. In that case
the striker loses both his wages during the strike and his job,
and he or she cannot come back to work for the company
unless the company decides to hire that person back.
What about the Singer Company? Will the Singer
Company take a strike? We have and we will take a strike.
There is no question about it. If we think the union's de-
mands are out of line, we have no alternative. It is a matter
of public record that the Singer Company has taken several
strikes for as long as four, five and six months. Over the past
few years the Singer Company has been involved in a num-
ber of strikes and in many cases the strike ended with the
employees getting just about what the company offered
before the strike was called. Now the unions know that
Singer is tough, but they also know we are fair and they
know that a strike will not force the company to change its
basic position. As an example, there was a five-week strike
at our plant in Lewistown, Pennsylvania. At the end of five
weeks, the steel workers union dropped its demand and
allowed the employees to come back to work. Several
months later Singer sold that plant, and I understand, inci-
dentally that the new owners have laid-off practically all of
the people. Another example just two months ago, Singer
had a strike in our plant in Youngstown, Ohio. At the end
of two weeks, the steel workers again dropped all their
charges, all their demands, and accepted the offer the com-
pany made before the strike had started. Incidentally, the
company has considered closing that particular plant. You
might be interested in taking a look at what's happened in
some of the other Singer plants which are represented by
unions . We had some questions regarding that last week. I
mentioned to you that Singer had taken some long strikes.
In 1949, for example, there was a six-month strike in a union
plant, at a Singer plant in Elizabeth, New Jersey. At that
time there were 9,000 people in that plant; today there are
about 200 in the plant and just, I think, about three weeks
ago, Singer announced that they were closing that facility
in the National Press. I have already told you what hap-
pened to Lewistown. You might also be interested in what
happened to a large woodworking plant in South Bend,
Indiana. That plant employed about 2,000 people and was
doing fairly well until a union came into the plant. The
union, in that case, kept insisting on wage rate increases
without regards to what was going on in the area. In 1954,
Singer had to close that particular plant and unfortunately
2,000 people were out of work. Some of them, if some of you
know that particular area, I don't think have yet found jobs.
Singer then opened that woodworking plant in Arkansas
and today that plant is doing fine. It's not organized. It is
employing about 2,000 people. We talked a little bit last
week and had some questions regarding the San Leandro
situation where the union has kept pushing higher wages
with the result that, as we told you, the company cannot,
can no longer afford to manufacture mailing equipment, or
calculators in that plant. This is one of the reasons we
moved our business here to Albuquerque. It is one of the
reasons the calculators are being built out here now and it
is one of the reasons we are considering moving mailing
equipment assembly down later in 71. Another company
from the San Leandro area which most of you I am sure are
aware of, Ampex, did the same thing. They just moved part
of their operation into Albuquerque. Now they have the
same union in California that is trying to organize this plant
here, the IAM. And they moved to Albuquerque for much
the same reasons. They just couldn't stay in business operat-
ing in the business climate and wage structure that they had
in Redwood City, California. You might be interested to
know that this union, the IAM, is doing everything it can
to stop Ampex from coming to New Mexico. I have to
wonder again, they are doing that by court injunction. I
have to wonder again, folks, whether they are also trying to
do this to Friden. We have a very serious question in our
minds, I have told you this before, as to why the union is
trying to get into this plant. Are they really interested in you
and your job security and the future of the business in
Albuquerque, or do they think maybe by organizing the
plant, forcing a shut-down of it on a strike that they might
force the company to move its calculator business and if we
decide to move mailing equipment that also back to San
Leandro. I wonder because I see what they are doing in the
Ampex situation. In San Leandro, of course, the union dues
THE SINGER COMPANY 1221
are about $8.75 per month which is a fairly attractive situ-
ation to a union. I think we can ask ourself a lot of ques-
tions. Why has the union sent organizers in here from
California? Why is Mr. Sanchez who is a union official in
the San Leandro plant helping in the organizing? Is he here
to help you people, or is he here to talk to people back in
San Leandro and tell them about the progress of possibly
getting work back there? We don't know for certain, of
course, but it makes someone whose got a mind, an open
mind to think, has to ask himself those questions. I know I
can't make up your mind for you, and I don't, that's why
I don't speak to you in terms of table pounding, etc. But I
know myself, I wouldn't turn my future over to someone
who is from the outside and to someone I've got some
serious questions about whether I can trust them or not.
And I hope and I think you people will maybe feel the same
way. So for your own sakes and your families' sakes and for
sure the company's sakes, I hope you vote no on December
10th.
Question: There has been some question about wheth-
er or not the union can call the workers out on strike
or whether there would be an election to do so.
Answer: Well, I can clear it up as far as my own
knowledge is concerned. Most union contracts call for
elections or for votes on whether they go out on strike
or not, right. I'm pretty sure this Constitution calls for
that also. However, as I just read you here, in a case of
this situation just reported in the newspaper in San
Leandro, then without the matter of even being voted
on the IAM agreed to continue the picket lines, so I
would imagine there are situations that the union might
be able to get around that. (Inaudible comment from
the audience) I'm sorry, I'll try and do that, George.
The question was, "There have been questions asked
regarding whether a union can call people out on strike
or whether they have people vote whether they are
going out on strike. Yes sir.
Question: Inaudible.
Answer: The question was, "Is it true that in a
contract that there could be written into the contract
a "no strike" clause? I think maybe what you're re-
ferring to is'that in'all the labor contracts I've been
involved with there is a clause in it which says the union
must go through a particular procedure before it may
legally call a strike, and that procedure usually is in-
volved in a grievance procedure. But, it has also been
my experience that whenever a union decides it wants
to strike, the matter of going through that particular
series of events is not a very difficult thing for them to
accomplish. Yes sir.
Company and the union are negotiating to have a
strike, is it possible for the union to say have a strike
and everyone goes out." Well, first of all, ma'am, the
question of whether to strike or not is usually not nego-
tiated. The negotiations are going on over other issues,
right. When the negotiations come to a point, assuming
the previous contract or a reasonable time has expired
where the union feels that it is not going to get what it
wants, right, it would then call for a strike. Some other
questions? Yes ma'am.
Question: Inaudible.
Answer: Sir, I would certainly hope you decide to
do that. (Applause) One sure way to do that and give
me a chance to get this place going in the next year is
to vote no union on December 10th. (Applause) Yes
ma'am.
s s s s s
Answer: Well, we will certainly be discussing
those things directly with the people if there is no union
here. If there is a union here, we cannot discuss with
you because the fact the union is in here says by law
we are obliged to negotiate with the union which is the
legal bargaining agent for the people in the plant. Now,
I think that's a pertinent question you're asking and I
want to make sure I understand it. Did I repeat that
one? Okay, the question was, the lady referred to an-
other person who asked a question, "If the union
doesn't come in here, would we negotiate with the peo-
ple?" (Questioner interrupts: In other words, would we
get more money?) I can't answer you that because the
law prohibits me, but if Mr. Hardin [Union Represent-
ative] shows up, I'll answer it. (Light laughter)
5. Johnson's introduction to Campbell's
speech on December 4
He [Campbell] called me this week and Bob feels that
strongly about this situation we have here, strongly regard-
ing the success of Albuquerque, and strongly regarding the
feelings, of course, that a union can do nothing but hurt our
chances of success here that he rearranged a pretty busy
schedule to come down and talk to us this morning.
R. J. Campbell's December 4 Speech
Question: When the union and the Company are
negotiating whether to strike or not, is it possible for the
union to say strike and then everyone would have to
strike?
Answer: The question was verbatum. "When the
I feel that the decision you make next Thursday may
be one of the most important decisions that you'll ever make
concerning your job and your future, and by the way, my
future.
And the reason I say that is this. I have some data that
1222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I would just make reference to here; news publications and Now, the union that made it impossible-and must
all later that you will better understand that there is a trend accept the blame-for us to produce a competitive product
in American industry because of problems created by un- in San Leandro has lost, to prove this point, over one thou-
ions and other factors to go foreign countries and have their sand jobs in San Leandro.
products built either by companies that they control such as
the one we have in Belgium and the one we have in Holland
or buy from the Japanese, which we are forced to do at the
present time.
But, I am also a realist so I wanted to come in while
there still was a chance for some possible effect of getting
some facts to you on how I feel and hope that we end up
going on together to bigger and better things, including job
And, this really is part of the decision you will be
making next Thursday. If the union tries to do here in
Albuquerque what it did to our plant in San Leandro, there
is no question in my mind but what we will not be able to
continue manufacturing electronic calculators in this coun-
try and you can tell the people from the union who are here
that it is a fact that it isn't that the jobs will bo back to
California like they are hoping for, in my opinion.
security, better pay and so on and so forth.
Now, if you mark an "X" in the NO box, it means that
you want to continue your trust and confidence in your
Company's efforts-in our efforts-to bring more work into
the plant so that it will grow and provide better jobs and
better security and better pay for all of Albuquerque em-
ployees.
I have always said, and I told you before we ever heard
about a union; when I was at Link, we didn't have unions;
we didn't even get them close enough to ever be able to call
an election in the time that I was there because we treated
the people fairly and as we were more prosperous, as we
began to compete, as we filled our plants up, we had regular
increases for our people, and this is our plan here-that we
will be fair and treat people fairly and share.
* s $ s s
We just would not have been able, in my opinion, to
stay in the business with the problems that we had in Cali-
fornia-many of which the union must take responsibility
for.
11
Today, three years later-which is why we came to
Albuquerque-why we had to get out of California and why
we cannot-and if the people were telling you, or the people
back in California only knew-it isn 't a matter of jobs going
from here back to California because if we are forced out
of here , those jobs cannot go back to California because we
will not be any more competitive than we were before. The
jobs will go some place else and I think if the Californians
knew this , they wouldn 't be putting all the money and effort
they are into doing what they are trying to do here, it ap-
pears to me.
s s s
I say to you, the union does not create jobs. I say to you
that Friden and having products we can sell create jobs.
And, why should you pay them over one week's salary to
come in when I say you can get the benefits by the methods
that we are trying to use of good communications, working
with people and treating them properly, which has a history
of every company that I have ever run, that is what we have
done.
s s 13
Do you think they [union] are interested in you and
your future, or are they really interested in saving their dues
money back where they live in San Leandro? By getting in
here in Albuquerque and then calling you out on strike, and
shutting this plant down ....
s
Now, is the union trying to force the company to send
its calculators back to San Leandro? I say I believe they are
but they are not going back to San Leandro because we
cannot be competitive back there .... The more work we
can bring into this plant the better your jobs will be. Where
will this work come from? Unfortunately, it will come main-
ly from San Leandro so I don't blame them for being that
upset back there. But, it was going to leave San Leandro
anyway. That's the thing they do not understand. The one
way that they can stop this in their opinion is if this plant
is on strike; then, it would appear that no work would be
moved from San Leandro into a plant that is on strike and
it would preserve jobs, in their opinion, possibly.
s
If we lie to you now, by the way, one year from now,
you can have another election and you can really shove it
down our throats for lying to you-so what I say is give
THE SINGER COMPANY 1223
Roger Johnson, who I have great confidence in, an opportu-
nity to take a young, fledgingly (sic) tree here , a small one
that cannot stand the wind ... because we are small and we
haven't gotten really established yet, and give him a chance
to see what he can do . And, I say this to you. If Roger
Johnson doesn't treat you fairly in all respects of good work-
ing conditions which , my gosh , we have tried to provide the
best we can here , I think they are as good as any in Albu-
querque . They are as good as any in Albuquerque . They are
as good as any in California . If you are not treated fairly on
your seniority , on your promotions , on no discrimination,
or anything else, then you still have the opportunity to make
a decision at a later time . But, give him a chance is what I
say.
and my future . The larger we grow , the more you will grow.
Let's take a look at what some of the union organizers
haven't told you . Did they tell you about the layoffs at the
Singer plants they represent? No, they didn 't tell you that.
Did they tell you about the one thousand jobs ... the one
thousand jobs ... that were lost in San Leandro? No, they
didn't tell you about that . Did they tell you about the over
200 people that are now on layoff in San Leandro? No, we
didn't hear anything about that . Did we talk about the 400
or so jobs they lost in Glendale , California? Of course not.
They don 't talk about that . We have a plant in Tennessee
which they also didn 't talk about where they originally rep-
resented 700 people . At this point there are 225 there . That's
over 400 jobs lost there . Now, they didn 't talk about this
because these are the kinds of things that they don't like to
* * * * discuss directly. Oh yes, the union likes to make noises
So, when when you walk to the cafeteria to vote next
Thursday , take a look at your plant and your work area and
I hope , and I think , you will agree it is one we can all be
proud of . Think your paycheck and your job and the future.
Do you want to vote to save jobs at San Leandro ? To turn
your future over to California organizers? To outsiders who
have no interest in this plant 's future? Or, do you want to
vote for your Company which provides your jobs here in
Albuquerque , and which is engaged in daily efforts to bring
more work to Albuquerque so that your plant will grow and
provide better paying jobs and more security for you and
your family.
6. Johnson 's December 8 speech
Those of you who have been with us a year or so
received a wage increase not too long ago. That was the
result of reviewing the area wage patterns which we contin-
uously do , we will do, and that will continue-whether a
union is in here has nothing to do with what kind of wages
and benefits we will be paying. You see , as a matter of fact,
as this company goes in Albuquerque so goes your future
about job security . But, they don 't like to talk about this
because they know that that record they have proves just the
opposite . They are not interested in job security , particular-
ly once they get into a plant . Now, did the unions tell you
why they lost these jobs in San Leandro? No, they didn't.
They lost the jobs, ladies and gentlemen , very frankly be-
cause we just could not stay in business in San Leandro. The
situations that arose there-in large part due to this union's
activities-had made it impossible for us to continue busi-
ness in the calculating field in San Leandro.
Job security is a function of what people do, how the
business goes , and what work is brought in. The union
cannot provide that . In fact , as I pointed out before, their
record appears to me to be exactly contrary to that. A
thousand jobs lost in San Leandro . Jobs lost all over this
country. I have to say-excuse me, ladies-I don't think
they give a damn about your job security once they are in
and collecting your fines and your dues .... There is only
one thing , of course, a union can guarantee if they want and
that's the right to strike, and to go out on strike without pay.
And, that's a right I just don't think any of you need or
want.