1 - National Labor Relations Board

Representation Cases 69
a letter explaining that the sum deducted represented the amount
of dues employees at another plant in the area were paying the
union. The letter, after acknowledging the union's statement
that dues at the instant plant would be at a lower level, went
on to point out the disparity in amount of dues being paid at
various other plants in the area. In refusing to set aside the
election, the Board concluded that the letter "was expressed in
terms that employees would clearly evaluate as argumentation,"
and merely stressed the uncertainty that dues would remain at
announced low levels.84
b. Preelection Statements
Among the cases decided during the report year were two in
which the question presented was whether the employer's preelection
statements contained threats warranting the setting aside
of an election. In Duche Nut Co., 85 speeches were made to the effect
that the company was in a difficult financial position and any
increase in employee benefits would necessitate altering the employer's
operation. The Board, in appraising the situation against
a background free from unfair labor practices, refused to set
aside the election, concluding that the statements represented "a
reasoned noninflamatory attempt to explain the difficult economic
condition in which the company was placed." The Board concluded
that "such expressions constitute permissible predictions
of the possible economic consequences of increased costs rather
than threats of reprisal to force employees into abandoning the
union." Moreover, the Board found that the statements were not
rendered coercive by an additional statement expressing an intention
to continue operations with replacements in the event of
a strike. 88 An opposite result was reached in Boaz Spinning Co.87
The Board set aside the election and found that the employer
"exceeded the brink of permissible campaign propaganda" by
speeches connoting the "futility of union representation." In prepared
statements the employees were told that the selection of
the union would mean strikes, bitterness and dissension, job and
income loss, violence and bloodshed, and disruptive community
relationships. 88 The Board stated :
In arguing against unionism, an employer is free to discuss rationally the
" The election was set aside on other grounds.
85 174 NLRB No. 72.
86 Chairman McCulloch and Member JPnkins for the majority. Member Brown, dissenting,
would sustain the objection to the election.
87 177 NLRB No 103.
88 Chairman McCulloch and Member Jenkins for the majority. Member Zagoria, dissenting,
would overrule the objection to the election.