International Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1984

273 N.L.R.B. 615 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. 615
International Paper Company and United Paper
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case 16-RC-8592
' 14 December 1984
• DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
BY MEMBER ZIMMERMAN, HUNTER, AND
DENNIS
The National Labor , Relations Board, by a three-
member panel, has considered objections to an
election held on 21 July 1983 and the hearing offi-
cer's report recommending disposition of them.
The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulat-
ed Election Agreement. The tally of .ballots shows
24 for and 47 against the Petitioner, with 6 chal-
lenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect the
results. •
The Board has reviewed the record in light of
the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the
hearing officer's findings and recommendations
only to the extent consistent herewith.
The hearing officer recommended sustaining the
Petitioner's Objections 1 and 5, 1 which contended.
respectively that the Employer made unlawful
threats to reduce wage rates, and that the Employ-
er conveyed to the employees the futility of select-
ing the Petitioner as their collective-bargaining
agent. We find that the Employer engaged in no
objectionable conduct.
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of em-
ployees at the Employer's lumber mill in New
Boston, Texas. The Employer also operates other
mills, including unionized plants at Coushatta, Lou-
isiana, and Nacogdoches, Texas.
During the Petitioner's organizing campaign, the
Employer's officials conducted a series of meetings
with the employees. At the first meeting or meet-
ings held on or about 27 June 1983, the Employer's
regional manager Ben Smith addressed the employ-
ees. Smith's remarks commenced with an introduc-
'tion:
Let me take a few minutes here and discuss
what the law is 'and how collective' bargarning
[sic] really works.
First, I hope everyone understand [sic] that
'collective bargaining does not mean that a
company must agree to anything a union asks
for or to sign a contract at all, if the company
does not think the contract is in the plant's or
In the 'absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt, pro forma, the hear-
ing officer's recommendations that Objections 2 and 6 be overruled
At the hearing the Petitioner withdrew Objections 3 and 4, with no
opposition by the Employer The hearing officer thereafter declined to
consider these objections in her report
the employees' best interest. The labor laws re-
quire the parties to bargain in good faith, but it
[sic] does not require them to agree with each
other . . . . Even if they do agree, that does
not necessarily mean wages or benefits will im-
prove . . . . After negotiations, things may go
up, they may stay the same . . . or they may
go down. . . .
Smith informed employees that within the last
several years at various plants operated by the Em-
ployer
. . there have been a number of unionized
operations where pay has been negotiated
frozen or reduced . . . . While most of these
freezes and reductions were in paper and con-
verting plants at IP, it shows you that through
good faith bargaining, wages and benefits are
frequently reduced.
Additional meetings were held about 6 and 7 July
1983, - with Plant Manager Glenn Haddox and
Smith as the speakers. In these remarks the officials
compared the wages of the New Boston employees
with those at other lumber mills across the South.
The New Boston wages were higher. The Employ-
er's spokesmen continued:
We have discussed what the law says about
wages and benefits changing in a contract.
And, if need be, we will bargain in good faith
at New Boston. You need to understand, how-
ever, that we will not agree to anything in a
union contract which we believe is not in the
best interest of the company. Take, for exam-
ple, wages and benefits. It is clear to me that
we would have a strong argument in any ne-
gotiations that wages and benefits are already
too high here. Now, I am not threatening you
people; you have a legal right to have a union
represent you. But because we care about you
as employees, you need to understand that we
have a legal right to bargain hard for what we
believe is best for the business. Now we have
some further information which we will dis-
cuss with you before you vote which leads us
to believe that this union will agree to lower
wages and benefits than we have right now in
New Boston.
Further meetings were held during the weeks of
13 and 19 July 1983. Assistant Plant Manager
Henry Conly spoke for the Employer at a meeting
held during this time. As found by the hearing offi-
cer, Conly indicated that the Employer would bar-
gain for lower wages like those at the Employer's
union-represented plants, i.e., Coushatta and Na-
cogdoches. Conly compared the wages at New
273 NLRB No. 88
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Boston and Coushatta, pointed to Coushatta's
wages on a bulletin board, and said, "These wages
are the ones we. are shooting for."- Conly also
spoke of his participation in prior negotiations at
one of the unionized mills, noted that he was a
hard negotiator, and stated, "You better bring a big
lunch, because it could take a long time to negoti-
ate a contract."
A chart comparing the wages of New Boston
with Coushatta and Nacogdoches was posted in
the plant shortly before the election. Several em-
ployees noticed these wage comparisons, including
the higher New Boston figures.
The hearing officer treated Objection 5 together
with Objection 1 because both objections involved
conduct of the Employer which occurred in the
same series of employee meetings. She concluded
that this conduct created an "atmosphere of appre-
hension in the voters' minds," inculcated a sense of
futility, and interfered with the employees' choice.
We conclude to the contrary that the Employer's
speech and actions were consistent with the re-
quirements of the Act.
In evaluating whether an employer's statements
during a union organizing campaign have a coer-
cive effect on employees, the focus of our inquiry
is whether the totality of the employer's statements
have created an atmosphere preventing a free and
untrammeled choice by the employees, therebj,' dis-
rupting the intended laboratory conditions.2
The present Case is barren of such coercive' cir-
cumstances. Contrary to the hearing officer, we
discern no basis to warrant a conclusion that the
Employer improperly warned employees of a de-
crease in wages and benefits and thereby
"inculcate[d] in employees a sense of fiftility." Con-
sistent with our recent decision in Caradco Corp.,
267 NL1k13 1356 (1983), the statements made by the
Employer regarding the possibility of lower wages
and benefits cannot, in context, reasonably be con-
strued as a threat to reduce employee wages or
benefits if the -Petitioner won the election. Thus, as
in Caradco; the comments of the Employer's repre-
sentative emphasized repeatedly that any reduction
in wages and benefits could only be undertaken
through collective bargaining with the Union.
In the meetings held about 27 June, Regional
Manager Smith stressed the Employer's commit-
ment to good-faith bargaining and remarked that as
a result of negotiations "things may go up; they
may stay the same . . . or they may go down." All
though Smith referred to unionized plants operated
by the Employer where wages had been reduced,
he specifically informed employees that this oc-
2 General ShAoe'Corp , 77 NLRB 124 (1948)
curred "through good faith bargaining." In the
meetings held about 6 and 7 July, Smith and Plant
Manager Haddox referred to possible wage and
benefit reductions only in the context of collective
bargaining. Indeed, they expressly stated to em-
ployees ' that the Employer had reason to believe
that "this union will agree to lower wages and ben-
efits," thereby emphasizing the collaborative nature
of any reduction through negotiations. In addition,
Smith and Haddox assured employees in these
meetings -that they had a legal right to choose
union representation' and expressly disavowed any
threat-- of retaliation. Assistant Plant Manager
Conly's remarks at the later meetings reiterated the
Employer's adherence to the bargaining process.-
The statements attributed to Conly contain express
of clearly implied references 'to 'negotiation: the
Employer would bargain for wages like those at its
unionized _plants; he was a hard negotiator; "these
wages are the ones we' are shooting for," and "it
could take a long time to negotiate a contract" (em-
phasis' added). Viewed in their entirety, these re-
marks convey no indication that the Employer
would initiate unilateral changes in the employees'
terms' and conditions of employment or retaliate
against employees because-they selected the Union.
It bears emphasis that we vview the later meet-
ings, as the employees viewed them, in the light of
the initial sessions held only 2 to 3 weeks earlier.
Hence we interpret Conly's gesture to the bulletin
board, as , well, as his remarks, in the light of
Smith's and' Haddox's repeated expressions of their
willingness to cOmply with the requirements of col-
lective bargaining. Neither Conly's gesture, nor his
remarks, can be considered in this context to have
disrupted the laboratory conditions for the election,
or to have inculcated a sense of futility. The Em-
ployer's subsequent posting of the chart containing
wage comparisons is not objectionable. We have
upheld the use of similar charts in the past. 3 Fur-
ther, employees clearly were aware that the Em-
ployer's statements regarding its commitment ‘to-
collective bargaining were not merely idle words
but had been demonstrated by negotiated agreee-
ment at its other unionized plants.4
3 Viacom Cablevision of Dayton, 267 NLRB 1141'(i983)
4 Our dissenting colleague contends that the Employer, through Assist-
ant Plant Manager Conly, made "an explicit declaration of an ad-
verse consequence of unionization" by allegedly indicating that the Em-
ployer would "insist" on lower wage levels The hearing officer found in
her concluding analysis, however, that Conly stated only that the Em-
ployer "would bargain for" wages like those at its unionized plants and
that those were the wages the Employer "was shooting for" and "wanted
to negotiate" Although the term "insist on" appears in Employer's Exh
13, Conly testified he did not read this speech word for word, but used
the text as an outline, and no credited union witness claimed to have
heard ?Insist on " It is clear that the Employer's statements regarding
- Continued
INTERNATIONAL . PAPER CO 617
Accordingly, as the record does not support the
Petitioner's objections that the Employer's speech-
es constituted a threat of retaliation or incalCated a
sense of futilitS, among the -emplOyees, the objec-
tions are , hereby overruled. Because the tally of
ballots shows that the Petitioner failed to receive a
majority, of the valid ballots cast, we shall , certify
the results of the election.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority. of the valid bal-
lots have not been cast • for United .Paperworkers
International Union, .AFL-CIO and- that it is not
the exclusive representatie of • these bargaining
unit employees. •
MEMBER ZIMMERMAN, dissenting. - •
For the reasons expressed in the hearing officer's
report attached hereto, I would sustain the -Peti-
tioner's Objections 1 and 5 and set the eledtion
aside. The Employer's campaign statements can
only be interpreted' 'as thieatening retaliation
against the employees 'in the event' -that 'the' 'New
Boston plant became unionized. I agree with the
hearing officer that the Employer's 'references to
"bargaining" and "negotiations" are insufficient' to
mask the intended coercive tone of the Employer's
speeches and conduct.
Indicative of the tone of the entire _campaign is
this excerpt from Assistant Plant Manager .Conly's
remarks to the employees on 13 and 14 July: "I can
assure you. . . that if we are rap:fired to negotiate
wages and benefits with this union, these . "-2-. are
the wages we will insist on in a . lumbermill" con-
tract at New Boston" (Em' p. Exh, 13). (emii'hasis,in
the original). It coald not be clearer ;that 'the Em-
ployer signaled the employees in this sentenCe that
it would seek a lesser wage level. precisely _because
the Union was present., thus: if the -employees
voted for the ,Union, they were "assured" of the
Employer's insistence upon- the lower wage levels
of Coushatta and Nacogdoches. If the employees
voted against the Union, according to the clear im-
plication of Conly's remarks, the 'existing, higher
wage levels would remain undisturbed—wage
levels which the Employer set and therefore clear-
ly found- acceptable. The Employer's transparent
indication of its intent to administer differential
treatment to its employees - depending On the out-
Come Of the election creates an atmosphere of ap-
prehension and a sense of futility" in the minds of
wages and benefits, taken as a whole, neither indicated that it would un-
dertake unilateral action nor implied that it would retaliate' against em-
ployees by administering differential treatment depending on the outcome
of the election Thus, We find that the Employer did not exceed the limits
of permissible campaign conduct Caradco Corp, supra
voting employees, and warrants setting aside the
election. Accordingly, I dissent.'
The present case is distinguishable from three recent cases in which I
found an employer's remarks to its employees unobjectionable I have
agreed to the certification of election results where an employer made no
express or implied promise that the employees' wages would be increased
if the union were voted out, and where the employer made no suggestion
that the employees' wages or benefits would suffer if they voted the
-union in Viacom Cablevision of Dayton, 267 NLRB 1141 . (1983), Caradco
Corp. 267 NLRB 1356 (1983). I have also voted to certify the election
results where the employer's predictions as to the effects of unionization
referred to "demonstrably probable" consequences beyond its own con-
trol International Harvester Go, 258 NLRB 1162 (1981) (Member Zim-
merman, dissenting) In the instant case, the Employer told the employees
•.that, if required to bargain with the Union,. it would insist on a fixed,
lesser wage rate Far from implication or suggestion, this was an explicit
declaration by the Employer of an adverse consequence of unionization
* well within its own control,'
'APPENDIX
Findings of Fact
Objections 1 and 5
Since these two objections involve statements alleged-
ly occurring on or about the same dates and in the same
series of employee meetings held by Assistnat Plant Man-_ ager Henry Conly, they will be treated together, for the
purporse of this Report.
Petitioner's Position:
The Petitioner, in support of these objections (regard-
ing the threat to reduced wages and the futility of select-
ing the Petitioner as collective-bargaining agent), offered
employee witnesses Ronald Lofland, George ConwaY,2
and Ricky Almand.
It was undisputed that during the Petitioner's organiz-
ing .campaign, the Employer, through various manage-
ment personnel, held a series of employee meetings for
the purpose of explaining its positon. These meetings oc-
curred between _June 27 and July 19 on a weekly basis,
at varying times ,and places, and involved employees
grouped by departments and/or by their union' senti-
ments. The meetings lasted between 15 to 60 minutes and
were held during work hours.
The first series of employee meetings was held primar-
ly by Ben Smith, Regional Manager of the Arkansas
Wood Products Division, around June 27. Glenn
Haddox, Plant , Manager, and Henry Conly, Assistant
Plant Manager, were' present and participated in lesser
degrees. There were no allegations that objectionable
statements were made during this first series of meetings;
they are mentioned for background purposes. The em-
ployees were told of other companys and unions agree-
ing to pay cuts and reductions in benefits, after bargain-
ing. A copy of excerpts from Smith's speech was sup-
plied as Employer's Exhibit 4 and it stated therein:
At IP within the last several years, there have been
- a number of unionized operations where pay has
been negotiated, frozen or reduced. In fact, after
2 Conway's employment was terminated 7/18/83.
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining with the same union, IP has frozen
wages in several operations and actually reduced
wages in others where the employees were repre-
sented by the UPIU. While most of these freezes
and reductions were in paper and converting plants
at IP, it shows you that through good faith bargain-
ing, wages and benefits are frequently reduced.
The second series of employee meetings occurred
around July 6 -and 7 Again Ben Smith was the primary
spokesperson, with Glen Haddox participating. Petition-
er's witness Ron Lofland recalled that at the meeting he
attended, Company personnel explained why they didn't
need a union, with emphasis on strikes and "lots of em-
phasis on wages being reduced to possibly the national
average wage." Lofland recalled this latter statement oc-
curring around July 7 and 13 and that Glenn Haddox
and Ben Smith were the speakers.
The third and fourth series of employee meetings oc-
curred the weeks of July 13 and 19. At the fourth meet-
ing Lofland recalled Conly making wage comparisons
between New Boston and Coushatta, La. on a bulletin
board. He said Conly went to the board, pointed to Cou-
shatta's wages, which were consideraby lower than New
Boston's, and said, "these wages are the ones we are
shooting for." He later testified that the wages were
from $1.50 to $1.75 lower for the same type jobs at Cou-
shatta than those at New Boston.
Lofland stated that Conly also spoke of the negotia-
tions he had been involved in before, that he was a hard
negotiator and that:
—
You better bring a big lunch, because it could take a
long time to negotiate a contract.
And after this meeting Lofland testified there were wage
comparisons posted throughout the saw mill area for
people to view, up until the election. Lofland recalled
the wage comparisons being posted on a chalkboard in
the saw mill area and in an office in the breakroom.
Petitioner's witness George Conway testified as fol-
lows:
The third meeting, the fourth meeting, Henry said
that if the union came in, he would do everything
he could to get . the wages lowered to what they
was at other_ mills and—it was the third meeting be-
cause he said that he was negotiating contracts at
the mill that he came from and that he wanted to
negotiate this contract and they would get their
wages down.
Conway also recalled the Coushatta wage rates being
posted on the bulletin board on a rack.
As Conway had been discharged on July , 18, and had a
charge pending dismissal in the National Labor Relations
Board Regional Office at the time of the hearing, the
Employer requested and received (for cross-examination
purposes) a portion of Conway's affidavit 3 relating to the
3 Employer's Exhibit 2
objection issues mentioned under direct examination.
Under cross-examination Conway testified that Conly
had referred to a chart showing average wage differ-
ences between union and non-union plants, and Conley
recalled no specific columns on Coushatta'S wages. He
guessed, it was' not clear, that Coushatta was included in
those average union wages.
A part of Conway's affidavit . was read into the record,
under cross-examination, and- it stated 'that- during the
week of July 11, Conly had said. "he has a very experi-
enced contract negotiator and he Wou/d bargain our
wages down, and our benefits cut down . . ." But in ear-
lier direct testimony, Conway -had said Conly would get
their wages down. When asked which of his statements
was true, Conway replied "both." Petitioner's witness
Ricky Almand;testffied that he ,attended five of the Em-
ployer's meetings and that the fifth was held the day
before the election Almand recalled that at one of the
meetings there was a-little, "board-like deal" on a three-
legged pedestal. It had the wages on certain jobs-for Na-
cogdoches and and New Boston and the dif-
ferences between the pay,. and that Conly and Smith
were always saying "how much better, how much more
we was, making than Nacogdoches and Coushatta."
Almand's recollection was similar to Conway's in that
he recalled being told that the reason Conly was brought
to New Boston was because he negotiated. contracts at
other plants and that Conly would.
"try to negotiate the contract with the—whenever
it come time, when and if the Union made it, come
time [sic], for negotiation to get our wages down
• with Nacogdoches and Coushatta." .
He recalled the kiln operator _classification showing, a dif-
. ferenCe , between New. Boston and Coushatta and Nacog-
doches of about 38 cents
Under cross-examination Almand said that he assumed
the chart containing the comparisions between New
Boston and the.United Paperworkers International Union
average wages included Coushatta and Nacogdoches.
And he-restated that a chart was posted which included
Coushatta and Nacogdoches in front of the mill break-
room and on a three-legged pedestal in the office confer-
ence room. -
Employer Position:
The Employer, in defense of these two objections, of-
fered Ben Smith, Henry Conly, and John Clary as wit-
nesses. Smith testified that at the first meeting on June
27, it was. hiss objectiveto inform the employees that it
could be hard bargaining and that wages could be re-
duced. He referred to a newspaper, article telling the
story of unions which had agreed to pay cuts. and reduc-
tions in benefits . . . with the point that "these union-
ized companies bargain with the unions for less money
and less fringe benefits for their employees.4
4 Excerpts from Smith's speech were provided as Employer's Exhibit
4, with the Employer refusing to put the entire speech info .the record,
advising that the other portions did not deal with the objections raised
herein
INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. 619
At the second series of,meetings (July 6 and 7) Smith
testified that he read from Employer's Exhibit 5 and
referred to the ,chart" on a tripod but did not put on a
display of it. The chart reflected the differences between
average industry wages and New Boston wages for cer-
tain job titles. 6 It noted in his speech that New
Boston wages were anywhere from $1-.89. to 24 cents an
hour above the average industry wage. A copy of ex-
cerpts of Smith's speech as provided, as Employer's Ex-
hibit 5, and therein he stated:
. . . And, if need be, we will bargain in good faith
at New Boston. You need to understand, however,
that we will not agree to anything in a union con-
tract which we believe is not in the best interest of
the company. Take, ' for example, wages and bene-
fits It is clear to. me that we would have a strong
argument in any ilekotiations that wages and bene-
fits are already too high here. Now, I am not
threatening you people; you have a legal right to
have a union represent you. But because we care
about you as employees, you need to understand
that we have alegal , right to bargain hard for what
we believe is best for the business. Now we have
some further information which ' we will discuss
with you before you vote which leads us to believe
that this union will agree to lower wages and bene-
fits than we have right now in New Boston.
Smith appeared to reluctantly admit that he was aware
wages were basically higher at New Boston than at Na-
cogdoches, and that Coushatta was mentioned in the
meetings and "it may have been Nacogdoches too." He
believed Coushatta and Nacogdoches were Included in
the survey's figures (chart referred to in his speech and
previously identified as Employer's Exhibit 17.)
Henry Conly testified that he spoke from a prepared
statement on July 13 and 14,- using the statement as an
outline, and that he utilized a chart comparing UPIU av-
erage * wages with New Boston's. Ultimately, he advised
he spoke with everyone in the plant's conference room
of the office building, everyone who was logistically
available: A copy of excerpts 6 from his speech was pro-
vided as Employer's Exhibit 13. And a copy of the chart
was 'provided (minus the wages and differences in wages)
as Employer's Exhibit 48. An excerpt from the excerpts
of the speech reads. -
. . . Now, if you were bargaining for the Compa-
ny, and you found out that the Union.had never ne-
gotiated wages and benefits as good as what you
had paid before the union was voted in, what kind
of hard bargain would you demand? Of course, the
Union does not want you all .to think about ,union
wages and benefits. The. union would like to forget
about these wages, too. I . can assure you, however,
that if we are required to negotiate wages and bene-
fits with this union, these [chart] are the wages we
5 Employer's Exhibit 17
6 The Employer refused to furnish the entire speech, advising • that
other portions did not deal with the objections raised herein
will insist on in a lumbermill contract at New
Boston.7
Conly's testimony regarding the posting of Nacog-
doches and Coushatta wages was contradictory. In earli-
er testimony Conly answered.
Q. In fact, you posted the wage rates from Cou-
shatta at one point, didn't you?
A. Not any meetings that I delivered.
Q. I mean after the meetings, do you have
knowledge that the Coushatta wage rates were
posted in the plant?
A. As an official posting on a bulletin board?
Q. That the company put it up somwhere where
employees could see it.
A. We had an information room where the wage
rates were available at any of several mills.
Q I am going to ask this question again. Were
the wage rates from Coushatta posted someplace in
the plant where employees could see them?
A. Not that I recall. s
Later Conly admitted the Coushatta wages were posted
in the plant on July 19; but insisted they were not posted
during his speeches on July 13 and July 14. Conley ad-
vised- that he told employees he had been "involved in"
the negotiations of the contract at Coushatta, that he was
on the negotiation committee In other testimony, he
denied ever mentioning Coushatta or Nacogdoches in his
comments.
Conely recalled making a statement on July 13 that if
the Paperworkers were certified and they started con-
tract negotiations, that "they should pack a lunch" (per-
haps stating this in three or four of the employee meet-
ings). He specifically denied saying he was a hard bar-
gainer but said that "they would insist on bargaining for
competitive rates."
John L. Clary, Manager of Employee Programs, testi-
fied that he prepared the chart containing the average
wages paid by the UPIU represented lumber mills and
the differences in the wages (to New Boston's). No spe-
cific references were made on the chart to Coushatta or
Nacogdoches. He did not' recall Conly mentioning Cou-
shatta or Nacogdoches but he recalled responding to a
question of an employee in one of the meetings that Cou-
shatta's wages were included in the averages on the
chart.
Discussion, Analysis and Recommendation
In NLRB v. Ousel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575, 618
(1969) the standards for evaluating an employer's predici-
ton of the possible effects of unionization are measured
as follows:
(The employer) may . . . . make a prediciton as to
the precise effect he believes unionization will have
on his company. In such case, however, the predic-
tion must be carefully phrased on the basis of objec-
7 Conly stated he was aware that wages were higher at New Boston
than at Nacogdoches and Coushatta—varying from 20 cents an hour on
some jobs to 52 00 on other jobs .
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tive fact to convey an employer's belief as to de-
monstrably probable consequences beyond his con-
trol . . If there is any implication that an em-
ployer may or may not take action soley on his own
initiative for reasons Unrelated to economic necessi-
ties and known only to him, the statement is no
longer a reasonable prediction based on available
facts but a threat of retaliation based on misrepre-
sentation and coenon, and as such without the pro-
tection of the First Amendment . . . •
The employees who listened to the Employer's
speeches were not aware of the legal terms which can
make a speech either coercive or non-coercive, but were
average-type production workers. Almand recalled
Conly stating s that he would try to negotiate New Bos-
ton's wages down with those at Coushatta, and Nacog-
doches (both UPIU represented mills) Almand recalled
Conly stating they were being paid too much. Lofland
also testified that Conly made wage comparisons be-
tween New Boston and Coushatta and pointed to Cou-
shatta's wages on a bulletin board and said "these wages
are the ones we are shooting for." Similarly, Conway
stated that Conly told the emplOyee group he attended
that he (Conly) would do everything he could to get
wages lowered to that of other mills; that he wanted to
negotiate and they would get their wages lowered.
Whether the terms used were "bargain" or "negotiate"
the wages down, the effect was the same to these em-
ployees.
One of the issues of fact was whether the Employer's
charts used in the meetings contained wage Comparisons
between Coushatta, Nacogdoches, and New Boston
While the charts provided as exhibits by the Employer
(after the close of the hearing) do not indicate any refer-
ence to Coushatta or Nacogdoches, the undersigned con-
cludes that this is not pivotal because the chart 'contain-
ing Coushatta and Nacogdoches wages compared to
New Boston wages was posted shortly before the elec-
tion. Conly himself, finally, testified that the Nacog-
doches and Coushatta wages were posted on July .19
(transcript pages 183-184). Lofland, Conway and
Almand all concurred in their testimony of seeing these
wage comparisons and seeing that the New Boston
wages were higher Further, both employer witnesses
Smith and Clary recalled "Coushatta" and "Nacog-
doches" being mentioned in the meetings. It would not
be difficult for anyone to get confused, after a series of
meetings where charts were shown, and to believe that
the figures recalled were on one set of charts rather than
another, especially as these figures were posted (and the
speeches referring to UPIU wage averages all occurred)
within a short span of time in July.
While the petitioner's witnesses may not have been
knowledgeable on dates of speeches, the undersigned
8 While it was not clear at which meeting in July he heard this state-
ment, this did not cause his recollections to be lacking in crediblility
specifically credits the testimony of Almand, Conway,
and' Lofland regarding the Employer negotiating- or bar-
gaining their wages down, or "shooting for Coushatta's
wages." Both Almand , and Lofland were direct and care-
ful 'in their testimony. Lofland had made some notes of
Conly's remarks some time after the speeches, voluntari-
ly obtained- them from his vehicle upon request of Em-
ployer's counsel, and testified consistently with those
notes thereafter. While Conway was credible, he ap-
peared to be easily led by both the petitioner and Em-
ployer's counsel, and his recall was not - as accurate as
Lofland's and Almand's. Further, the excerpts from the
Employer's speeches confirmed many of the ideas ex-
pressed by these witnesses. . _
Conly, on the other hand, was not as credible, espe-
cially with respect to his testimony concerning the post-
ing of the - Coushatta wage rates. He appeared to be
knowledgeable but reluctant, and at times he was evasive
in his answers. While some of this could be explained by
the "critical" position in which he was placed during this
campaign, the undersigned does not believe this was the
reason for his lack of forthrightness.
As seen by all of the Employer's literature (excerpts
provided) and by the testimony of Smith and Conly, the
campaign was obviously designed to emphasize and re-
emphasize the Employer's higher wage rates vs the
Union's lower wage rates at other IP lumber mills While
Section 8(c) of the Act permits an employer to portray
its practices (and furnish specific details) with respect to
its represented employees so that the voters can be com-
pletely informed, the employer is not free to predict
and/or warn of wage and benefit decreases if The em-
ployees do not vote against the union representation.
The undersigned concludes that the general tone of
the Employer's meetings was negative and left the im-
pressions that: (1) the employees were making more
money than the Employer's union-represented mills; (2)
the UPIU had not been able to negotiate wages as good
as those currently enjoyed in New Boston, (3) Conly had
negotiated (or been involved in the negotiations (at Cou-
shatta) and would be involved in negotiations in New
Boston if theUPIU were elected, (4), Conly indicated the
bargaining could be long (bring a sack lunch) and, that
they would bargain for wages like those at the other
union:represented mills, i.e. like Coushatta and Nacog-
doches. The undersigned further conludes that the rea-
sonable effects upon the employees of such an
campaign (with Coushatta's wages being posted two
days before the election), could only be inhibitory, incul-
cate in employees a sense of futility, create an "atmos-
phere of apprehension in the voters' minds" and interfere
with the employees' choice in the elechon to come.
Mohawk Bedding Co. 204 NLRB 277. North American
Car Corporation 253 NLRB 958.
Accordingly, it is recommended that these objections
be sustained and a second election directed