right to do so. Smith then advised HR Vice President Johnson to be careful not to promise the employees anything as a result of not being unionized or to threaten them with anything if they did because the NLRB could find them guilty of an unfair labor practice. There was never any direct statements made by First Central to the employees concerning promises or threats. However, in the Question and Answer sessions with the employee groups the subject of a union endorsed strike and related issues was stressed by Johnson. I believe this instilled fear in the employees and was a not-so-subtle hint that if the union was voted in that they would be forced to go on strike and thus lose money. Also in the sessions it was suggested by Johnson that if the union was voted in the members could not vote it out if they were dissatisfied. That was an untrue statement. There are procedures according to the NLRA to handle such cases.In Kramer’s first letter to the employees there was another not-so-subtle hint that if the union was voted in that the employees would lose a benefit. In the last paragraph of that letter he states that the pension and profit sharing plans were purely voluntary on the part of the bank and that the bank would not have to continue to pay for them if it chose not to for economic reasons. I see this as a hint to the employees that they would lose these precious benefits if they chose unionization.An employer may not refuse to bargain and is, under the law, required to bargain with a union in good faith. This is generally taken to mean that there is an expectation that there will be a resolution of the problem or issues discussed. However, it was stated in Kramer’s first letter and in Johnson’s employee sessions that if the union won the election, the bank was not required to sign any contract that it felt was not in its best interest. This would suggest to the employees that First Central would not engage in a...
