Labor Relations and Collective

Bargaining Private and Public Sectors

10th Edition Carrell Solutions Manual
Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankfan.com/product/labor-relations-and-collective-bargaining-private-and-
public-sectors-10th-edition-carrell-solutions-manual/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining Private and

Public Sectors 10th Edition Carrell Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/labor-relations-and-collective-
bargaining-private-and-public-sectors-10th-edition-carrell-test-
bank/

Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining 9th Edition

Carrell Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/labor-relations-and-collective-
bargaining-9th-edition-carrell-test-bank/

Public Relations Writing Form and Style 10th Edition

Newsom Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/public-relations-writing-form-
and-style-10th-edition-newsom-solutions-manual/

Labor Relations Process 10th Edition Holley Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/labor-relations-process-10th-
edition-holley-test-bank/
Labor Relations Development Structure Process 10th
Edition John Fossum Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/labor-relations-development-
structure-process-10th-edition-john-fossum-solutions-manual/

Economics Private and Public Choice 14th Edition

Macpherson Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/economics-private-and-public-
choice-14th-edition-macpherson-test-bank/

Macroeconomics Private and Public Choice 15th Edition

Gwartney Test Bank

https://testbankfan.com/product/macroeconomics-private-and-
public-choice-15th-edition-gwartney-test-bank/

Labor Relations Process 11th Edition Holley Solutions

Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/labor-relations-process-11th-
edition-holley-solutions-manual/

Modern Labor Economics Theory and Public Policy 12th

Edition Ehrenberg Solutions Manual

https://testbankfan.com/product/modern-labor-economics-theory-
and-public-policy-12th-edition-ehrenberg-solutions-manual/
 PART IV: THE LABOR RELATIONS PROCESS IN ACTON

CHAPTER 10: UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT

LABOR NEWS: UNFAIR LABOR CHARGES

FILED AGAINST AFSCME UNION

CHAPTER 10: OUTLINE

I. Union Organizational Campaigns: Organizing and Avoidance Strategies

A. Employer—interference with employee rights
1. Reasonable probability test—employer’s conduct could have an interfering,
restraining, or coercive effect on employees.
2. If employer has a legitimate business reason for conduct, union may have to
prove actual intent.
B. Organizing at the workplace
1. Republican Aviation. Rules prohibiting union solicitation by employees outside
working time, even on employer’s property, were an unreasonable impediment to
self-organization.
2. Oral solicitation allowed during nonworking times.
3. Distribution of literature restricted to nonworking times and areas.
4. Right to wear insignias is balanced against employer’s right to conduct business.
5. If access is allowed to employees on an unrestricted basis for bulletin boards,
meeting halls and mailboxes, union access can’t be the only exception.
6. Lechmere case. Supreme court in Lechmere case said employers could ban
leaflets from their property, even property open to the public, such as a parking
lot (1996, UFCW vs. NLRB), if there was any other way for a union to reach the
employees.
7. E-mail solicitation now being used in workplace as well.
8. Employer rules

II. Unfair Labor Practices

A. Typical Unfair Labor Practices in organizing campaign
1 Table 10-1 lists examples of prohibited and allowed activities
2 Misleading information, misrepresentations
3. Threats of withholding benefits
Gissel case. In certain cases, employer can communicate general views as long as
predictions involve consequences outside employer’s control.
Cannot promise economic benefit if union is rejected.
4. Interrogation and polling of employees (Case 10-1)
a. Struksnes Construction, Inc. Polling is unlawful unless done by secret
ballot and purpose is to determine truth of union’s claim of majority; this
purpose is communicated to employees, assurances against reprisals are
given, and no coercive atmosphere is present.
b. NLRB has developed criteria to protect interests of both parties.
c. Employer can poll if has a good faith reasonable doubt that union has
majority status
5. Surveillance. Usually viewed as unfair labor practice.
6. Poll activity. NLRB prohibits it within 100 feet of polls.

213
 7. 24-hour rule. Peerless Plywood Case no campaign speeches 24 hours before an
election. Employer cannot distribute propaganda regarding possible loss of
benefits within 24 hours of an election
B. Domination of and Assistance to Labor Organization
1. Must establish labor organization exists and that it is the focal point of
domination, interference, or assistance.
2. Domination—actual control.
a. Remedy—disestablish union.
3. Support—if it has no effect on employees’ rights and is trivial, it may not be a
violation.
a. If violation—union recognition is withdrawn until support is eliminated
and new certification election is held.
4. “Tips from the Experts” discusses most common employer unfair labor practices.
5. Employee Teams
a. Under Electromation case, court ruled that employee action committees,
which were established by the employer and which would make
recommendations regarding the workplace, were “labor organizations”
and the employer had engaged in an unfair labor practice by creating
them.
b. In the DuPont case, employer–employee committees created to deal with
safety and recreation issues also violated the unfair labor practices
section of NLRA by bypassing the established union.
c. In 1994, 32 percent of companies had teams that hurt union election
chances.
C. Discrimination in Employment
1. Employee is required to present prima facie case that employer’s antiunion
animus played a substantial role in action taken.
D. Concerted Activities
1. Protected concerted activity
a. Issue is work related.
b. Goal is to further group interest.
c. Specific remedy sought.
d. Act not unlawful.
e. Case 10.2 discusses employer retaliation for employees exercising their
protected activity.
2. Unprotected concerted activity
a. Violent acts
b. Acts in breach of contract
c. Secondary boycotts
3. Primary Strike. Protected if called for economic reasons or to protest an unfair
labor practice.
a. Economic Strike—employer only required to reinstate workers if vacant
positions available.
b. Unfair labor strike—workers entitled to reinstatement plus back pay.
4. Weingarten rule. Protected concerted activity includes insistence by employee
for union representation at an investigatory interview that could lead to
disciplinary action. Had been expanded to nonunion employees by NLRB in
2001, but reversed that decision in 2004.

III. Unfair Labor Practices by Labor Organizations

A. Imposed by Taft-Hartley Amendments

214
 B. Restraint or Coercion of Employees
1. Employee has right to refrain from union activities.
2. Pattern Makers League v. NLRB. Union guilty of unfair labor practice when it
attempted to fine members for resigning from union and returning to work during
a strike.
C. Union Interference with Elections
1. 24-hour electioneering at polls.
2. Threat of violence (Sec. 8, NLRA).
3. NLRB may overturn election.

IV. Duty to Bargain in Good Faith

A. Duty imposed upon both employer and employee—refusal to bargain—unfair labor
practice
1. Active participation with intent to find agreement
2. Sincere effort
3. Binding agreement
4. Must put agreement in writing
B. Totality of Conduct Doctrine
1. Look at total conduct to determine if there is a refusal to bargain
2 Boulwarism—take it or leave it
3. Surface bargaining—going through motions with no intent to reach an agreement
4. Auction bargaining—state positions, make proposals, then trade off
C. Factors NLRB looks at in totality doctrine
1. Character of proposals and demands
2. Delaying tactics
3. Conditions imposed on scope of bargaining
4. Unilateral change of conditions
5. Bypassing the bargaining representative
6. Authority of negotiators
7. Willingness to make concessions
D. Duty to Furnish Information
1. Employer has duty to furnish information to union that enables it to carry on
negotiation process, if union makes a request in good faith.
2. Information requested must be relevant.
a. Financial information relevant when company claims it is unable to meet
wage demands.
3. Information must be promptly delivered in workable form.
4. Information must be furnished on mandatory bargaining issues and usually on
wages paid.
V. Rights and prohibited conduct during term of contract (Table 10-5)
A. Duty to bargain during the contract term
1. Good faith collective bargaining includes the duty to bargain during
the contract term if party wishes to terminate or modify contract.
Duty is not absolute
2. Zipper Clause/wrap-up-clause—waiver of right of either party to
require other party to bargain on any matter not covered in the
contract during the life of the contract
3. Opener Clause—allows negotiations to take place during the term of
the contract, e.g., wages
4. Separability Clause—a clause that states any portions conflicting
with state or federal law are declared null and void

215
 5. Union demand to negotiate
a. NLRB view on union’s demand for bargaining on a new item during
contract term—if item is not contained in contract or was not discussed
during negotiations, the employer has a duty to bargain on that item.
6. Employer’s Unilateral Action
a. If employer takes unilateral action that changes a stated term of the
contract, employer has committed an unfair labor practice.
C. Prohibited Economic Activity
1. Secondary Boycotts
a. In DeBartola Corp v. Florida Gulf Coast Trades Council, the Supreme
Court held that union members may hand out leaflets in a secondary
boycott action.
b. “Shop–ins”: a new form of secondary boycott used to pressure retailers.
2. Hot Cargo Agreements
3. Jurisdictional Disputes
4. Featherbedding—“services not performed”

VI. The Authority of NLRB

A. Filing of appropriate form with NLRB regional office starts an unfair labor practice
charge.
B. Investigation
C. Hearing before an administrative law judge
D. Appeal—NLRB (subpanel of three members)
E. In 2006 36.9 percent of cases before NLRB were settled, 28.3 percent dismissed, 31.3
percent withdrawn, and on 1.8 percent ending with Board Order. (Figure 4-3)
F. Settlements increased after 1995 institution of Unfair Labor Practice Settlement Program.
G. Section 10(j) Court Injunctions
1. NLRA permits NLRB to seek court injunction if an unfair labor practice will
cause irreparable harm.
2. Examples of 10(j) cases fall into 13 categories listed in text.
H. Unfair Labor Charges can be filed against unions as well.

VIII. Contract Enforcement by NLRB

A. NLRB can investigate unfair labor practice claims.
1. Refusal to bargain.
2. Violation of NLRA.
3. Contract or clause can be invalidated if union doesn’t have majority
representation or clause prohibited by act.
4. Unilateral actions of employer has modified contract.
B. Court and NLRB deferral to arbitration
1. Resolution of a dispute by an outside party 2. If arbitration is required by the
agreement, resorting to other means to settle the dispute is illegal.
2. Court and Board Enforcement
a. Function of court is limited.
i. Lincoln Mills Case. Court held that where either party has
refused to arbitrate as provided in the agreement, the other party
may require specific performance of the other party’s promise.
ii. Steelworkers Trilogy. Court held that the function of the court is
limited to whether the issue to be arbitrated is governed by the
contract. Any doubt as to coverage should be resolved in favor of

216
 arbitration unless the award is ambiguous; the court should
enforce the decision even if it wouldn’t have reached the same
decision. (Case 10-3, Misco, Inc.)
iii. Collyer decision. Defers jurisdiction if: stable CB relationship,
party defending is willing to arbitrate, and dispute is centered on
the contract.

VIII. Public Sector Unfair Labor Practices

A. Federal employees covered by FLRA; therefore, Federal Labor Relations Authority
enforces unfair labor practices. Including those involving NLRB employees as seen in
Case 4-3.
B. Same guidelines as in private sector.
C. FLRA launched innovative procedures to resolve unfair labor practice.
by resolving underlying problem.

IX. Public Sector Contract Enforcement Issues

A. Reducing the Contract to Writing
1. If either party requests, contract must be reduced to writing.
B. Contract Enforcement
1. Federal Labor Relations Authority has the same authority as NLRB for federal
agencies.
2. FLRA has jurisdiction in unfair labor practices and in all arbitration awards
appealed to it.

X. Individual Rights within Unions

A. Duty of Fair Representation
1. Exclusive right to represent all employees in unit. (Profile 3-3 discusses how that
representation has caused some college faculties to lose participation in
university decisions.)
2. Must represent all fairly.
3. Steele v. Louisville and N.R.R. The court held the Railway Labor Act implicitly
imposed a duty to represent all employees fairly.
4. Unfavorable treatment may result; however, it can’t be the result of irrelevant or
insidious consideration.
5. In one case, the court ruled that the facts need to be looked at where the union
enforces a last hired, first fired seniority provision where majority of those laid
off were blacks.
6. Vaca v. Sipes. The court states that a breach of duty to represent an employee
occurs only if the union’s conduct toward the member is arbitrary, discriminatory
or in bad faith. There is no absolute right to have a grievance pursued.
7. Union will not breach its duty if it in good faith determines a grievance should
not be pursued or if it properly processes the grievance.
8. A cause of action exists against both employer and union when employee is
treated unfairly.
9. Bowen v. The U.S. Postal Service. The court apportioned damages between the
union and employer where an employee was wrongfully discharged.

217
 CHAPTER 10: CASE DISCUSSION

Case 10.1: Unlawful Interrogation

1. Explain why you agree or disagree with the decision of the court.

Agree: There is no doubt that the goal of the inquiry was to find a way to keep the union from
being brought into this workplace. The supervisor obviously knew that the employee being
questioned was an employee who would be eligible to be a part of a bargaining unit, or else why
would he think she had information on the union? And, suggesting that the employer would make
changes to keep the union out is a promise that violates the Act.

Disagree: The employee was not being “interrogated” in any coercive manner. If the supervisor
statement was true, and the union did not contradict it, then this supervisor had talked to this
employee in the past and there would be no reason to think she would be intimidated.
Furthermore, suggesting that an employee who may be causing problems in the workforce could
be removed is not the type of promise or threat contemplated by the Act. Such a threat or promise
should be something that will directly affect the employees.

2. Do you think the supervisor in this example had a realistic expectation that replacing one
supervisor would so satisfy the employees that they would reject the union?

Probably not. The problem supervisor was probably not high up enough in the organization that
just removing him would improve the workplace to the point that employees, who for their own
reasons were looking to a union for help, would make a difference.

Case 10.2: Employer’s Unfair Labor Practice—Retaliation

1. Explain why you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Agree: The courts have always protected a citizen’s right to bring a lawsuit. Winning a lawsuit is
not the right test to apply to determine if the case had merit. Many cases based upon an untested
legal theory make new law. If plaintiffs are prevented from bringing such cases out of fear, the
court system would not be open to citizens. Certainly labor unions would not want that result.

Disagree: The National Labor Relations Act is one law with a very specific goal: industrial peace.
It promotes peace by making certain that employees and employers are on a level playing field.
Because the control of “capital” is in the employers’ hands, the NLRB is tilted in favor of
employees. The Supreme Court dealt employees a terrible blow by allowing this company to
retaliate against the union for exercising its rights under NLRA. It isn’t necessary for the courts to
allow any lawsuit in order to preserve the “courts are open” theory upon which the United States
jurisprudence is based. The courts exercise discretion in dismissing harassing lawsuits, but
sometimes, as in this case, more is needed to preserve the employees’ rights. The unfair labor
practice charge against the company should have been upheld.

2. The union’s aggressive behavior in this case led to the claims and cross claims that finally
reached the U.S. Supreme Court where the union lost. Do you think this was a good use of union
resources?

Yes: The union’s aggressive behavior was necessary to counteract the overall decline in

218
unionization. There was no way for the union to know that the company would bring the lawsuit
that it did. Certainly when the suit was summarily dismissed, the union would have had cause to
believe it would win its case against the company for an unfair labor practice. The Supreme Court
ruling was not one that would have been easy to predict.

No: The union made its point when it won the case brought against it by the company. There was
really no reason to pursue the NLRB charge of an unfair labor practice.

219
 CHAPTER 10: END CASE DISCUSSION

Case Study 10.1: Unfair Labor Practice by Employer

Decision:

The court ruled that the following actions did violate the standards for an employer’s actions during a
certification campaign and called for another election:
• Moving the manufacturing item from the plant without an explanation AFTER distributing
the news article. (2 and 3)
• Not telling the employees that the contract renegotiations with a customer involved more than
concerns on the union vote. (4)
• Having the representatives of a customer do a walk-through inspection while distributing
warnings about customers concerns over the union vote. (6 and 7)
• However, information about the closing of union plants by letter and putting up displays of
closed plants were not found to have violated the Act. (1 and 5)

Questions for Discussion:

1. Which, if any, of the employer’s actions might the court find violated the Act which would cause
the election to be set aside?

a. The Human Resource Director distributed a letter to employees asserting that two-thirds
of the 600 plants that had closed in their state over the past 20 years had been unionized.

Not grounds because state objective facts.

b. The employer distributed an article concerning Ford’s decision to move a parts contract
from a supplier whose workforce had gone out on strike, emphasizing that the striking
union was the UAW.

By itself, not grounds because it is also an objective fact but with #3 and without
explanation, it becomes linked and it was the employer’s choice to move the work, the
employer could not claim it was out of his control.

c. Around Christmas, the employer relocated production of a Ford part to another one of its
plants at a location not subject to the pending election petition. The employer offered no
explanation for the move.

See above.

d. The employer told the employees that negotiations on a renewal contract with a customer
was being held in abeyance until the outcome of the union election, although the
customer also had issues of quality and delivery to discuss.

The employer misled the employees by failure to mention the other items of concern to
the customer.

e. The employer displayed large photo posters of closed manufacturing plants and
distributed a letter noting that all of the plants had been unionized.

220
 Not grounds because the photos being displayed were true.

f. On January 9, 1985, the President of the company sent a letter to employees telling of his
concern that its manufacturing partners would become nervous and go elsewhere if the
company developed “... a reputation for not being dependable because of labor problems,
a UAW–led strike, or even the possibility of a strike every time the contract comes up for
renewal....”

By itself, it was probably OK—as merely a prediction involving consequences out of the
employer’s control.

g. On January 10, 1985, the Division Manager told employees that the employer was
concerned about the impact of the union vote on its manufacturing customers. On January
9 and 10, one such customer did a very visible “walk-through” inspection of the facility
accompanied by numerous managers.

Linked with #6, this action gave the impression that the customer was getting “nervous.”
This was a misleading impression within the control of the employer.

2. Recognizing that this election took place in 1985, do you think the employees would see through
the employer’s tactics and vote the way they wanted in spite of the employer’s actions?

Yes: In 1995, one would expect the employees of a small manufacturing firm such as this not to
be naive or unsophisticated. Most of the employer’s actions were transparently antiunion and
would be so perceived by the employees.

No: Although the employees are neither naive nor unsophisticated, the court could not let such
blatant antiunion tactics go unchallenged.

3. Would you have been swayed by the employer’s actions to the point where you could not have
voted with “freedom of choice”?

This question is intended to generate discussion.

Case Study 10.2: Unfair Labor Practice by a Union

Decision:

The hearing officer found that the kinds of acts outlined in the case established a pattern and practice of
coercive conduct on the part of the union. The hearing officer found the statement “Sometimes it takes
this kind of thing to get the point across” as an admission on the union’s part that it intended to capitalize
on, if not to exacerbate the fear of, an infected environment in the plant. The hearing officer found that the
intimidating and threatening activities, if not sponsored by the union, were encouraged by the union’s
attitude. In addition, the racial references alone were enough to taint the conduct of the decertification
election. The decertification election that had been won by the incumbent union was set aside and a new
election ordered.

Questions for Discussion:

221
1. Would you set aside the election results and order another election? Explain your answer.

Yes. The pattern of intimidation would certainly taint the results. It didn’t matter whether the
union directed the activities; the atmosphere caused by it meant an employee could be afraid to
vote “no” on the union.

2. How could the union have stopped individuals from the intimidating actions that allegedly went
on in this case?

Although the individuals possibly could not have been stopped, a statement by union officials
disowning such activities and pledging to guarantee that employees could vote free from fear of
retaliation, might have helped.

3. Does the racial nature of the rhetoric involved in this case put a heavier burden on the union than
does the usual rhetoric about the employer? Explain your answer.

Yes: Usually “employee rhetoric” is about the particular facts at the place being organized. In this
case, the reference to Pearl Harbor was to focus workers on the Japanese as enemies in World
War II and not this work situation.

222
 CHAPTER 10: REVIEW QUESTIONS

1. What might the NLRB consider to be a breach of the good faith bargaining principle?

The “good faith” bargaining principle can be breached if:

a. The parties refuse to bargain.
b. The employer bargains directly with employees and not their representatives.
c. Either side proposes a take-it-or-leave-it bargaining stance.
d. Either side engages in surface bargaining.

2. How does the NLRB review an unfair labor practice charge of surface bargaining?

The board reviews a charge of surface bargaining by use of a “totality test” which analyzes:
a. Prior bargaining history of parties
b. Parties’ willingness to make concessions
c. Character of exchanged proposals and demands
d. Any dilatory tactics employed
e. Conditions imposed on either party
f. Unilateral changes made during negotiations
g. Unfair labor practices committed during bargaining

3. What is the Weingarten rule?

The Weingarten Rule is that employees are entitled to have a union representative present
during an investigatory interview where the employee fears the interview may result in their
receiving discipline. The role of the union representative is to protect the employees without
interfering with the legitimate rights of the employer.

For what purpose did the Supreme Court adopt the rule?

The basis for the rule was that employee representation is appropriate due to the NLRA’s
purpose of eliminating the inequality of power between the employer and the employee.

4. What are the “rules” employers and union organizers must follow during an organizational
campaign?

a. Employees may solicit union support on the employer’s property during off-work time.
b. Nonemployees may not solicit union support on employer’s property if there are other
ways to reach employees.
c. Employees may not solicit public areas of an employer’s property.
d. Union buttons or insignia may not be worn if it would incite a disturbance.
e. Bulletin boards and meeting halls can be used by employees for union activities if the
employer allows access for other employee programs.

5. When is an employer illegally discriminating against employees based upon their union
activities?

Discrimination occurs when a union member is treated differently from a nonunion worker or is
treated in a different manner than he would have been had he not been involved in union activity.

6. What union activities are prohibited under the Taft-Hartley unfair labor practices provision?

223
 Taft-Hartley amendments prohibit a union from restraining or coercing employees in the exercise
of their rights by (a) violent, threatening, and nonpeaceful behavior; (b) threats of economic
reprisals; (c) mass picketing which bars lawful entry or exits from work site; (d) causing an
employer to discriminate against an employee; (e) discriminating provisions in collective
bargaining agreements.

7. By what methods are collective bargaining agreements enforced?

There are three methods by which collective bargaining agreements are enforced:

a. Enforcement by either the NLRB or the courts

b. Enforcement through adherence to grievance and arbitration procedures by the parties to
the contract
c. Enforcement by resort to economic “self help” pressure activities

8. How did the “Steelworkers Trilogy” help clarify the role of arbitration and court enforcement of
contracts?

These cases held that the function of the court is limited to a review of whether or not the issue to
be arbitrated is governed by the contract. Any doubt as to the coverage should be resolved in
favor of arbitration. In addition, unless the arbitrator’s award is ambiguous, the courts should
enforce it even if the court would not have decided the substantive issues in the same way.

9. What individual rights do employees have within the collective bargaining process?

a. The right to refrain from union activities

b. The right to fair representation by the employee’s union
c. The right to due process

10. Why does management often desire to add a zipper clause to a CBA?

A zipper clause waives the right of either party to require the other to bargain on any matter not
covered in an agreement during the life of the contract, thus limiting the terms and conditions of
employment to those set forth in the contract. Employers want such a clause to avoid having to
open negotiations during a contract term.

224
 CHAPTER 10: YOU BE THE ARBITRATOR!
Refusing to Arbitrate

1. As arbitrator, what would be your award and opinion in this arbitration?

I would have ruled for the Employer that the grievances did not fit within the arbitration clause.
The collective bargaining agreement contained a very narrow arbitration clause, expressly
excluding, inter alia, “[d]isputes concerning contract interpretation.” As to the four
grievances at issue, the Union itself initially took the position that the grievance involved contract
interpretation. Thus, in the Union’s letters requesting the arbitration of those grievances, the
Union’s attorney stated that the “matter is a labor dispute involving interpretation and application
of a collective-bargaining agreement.” Given the Union’s own characterization of the grievances
as involving contract interpretation and the express exclusion of such disputes from arbitration,
the Employer was under no obligation to arbitrate these grievances.

2. Explain why the relevant provisions of the CBA as applied to the facts of this case dictate the
award.

The Arbitration clause was very narrowly drawn so that the usual kind of issues to be arbitrated,
“matters which involve management decisions or business judgment” are not covered. The
performance of an employee, paying employees from a piece work pool of funds and employees
violating work rules, are definitely management decisions or business judgment or an
interpretation of the application of the contract to piecework employees.

3. What actions might the employer and/or the union have taken to avoid this conflict?

The union should try to revise the arbitration process in the next negotiations.

225
 CHAPTER 10: EXTRA CASES

Unfair Labor Practice by Employer

Facts:

For 20 years, the experienced and apprentice wire weavers of the company had been represented by a
union. But after a 13-week strike, the relationship ended. For almost 13 years thereafter, the employees
were not represented by any union. A new union began organizing employees, and having reached
majority status, requested that it meet with the company. The company refused to recognize the union. An
election was held, and the union lost by a vote of seven to six. The union petitioned the NLRB to set aside
the election because the pre-election conduct of the company’s president was an unfair labor practice. The
Board agreed, set aside the election, and entered an unfair labor practice charge. The company appealed.

Decision:

The court examined the pre-election conduct of the president. He had on numerous occasions, orally and
in writing, urged the 14 employees to reject the union. He claimed that the union’s only weapon was a
strike, and that the last strike had nearly ruined the company. He also warned that the company was still
not financially secure and that a strike could close the plant. He denounced the particular union and its top
officials as corrupt and strike-happy. He added that the wire weavers’ age and lack of education would
make it difficult for them to find other jobs. The company defended the pre-election remarks on the
grounds that the remarks were true. The court pointed out that an employer’s predictions of economic
consequences must be demonstrable and not just based on the feelings of the employer. It also stated that
the test of the coercive effect of such statements includes the total circumstances surrounding them.
The court affirmed the Board’s finding that the president’s conduct interfered with the
employees’ exercise of a free and untrammeled choice in the election.1

Questions for Discussion

1. Do you think the fact that there were only 14 employees involved influenced the finding of the
Board and the Court?

Yes: With so few employees, references to age and experience by the President would be very
personal and threatening. If it were a plant with 300 employees, however, they would not feel as
if the President knew each worker personally and was referring to him.

No: The conduct of the President was objectively a violation of law even if no employee was
found to have been influenced.

2. If the President truly feared economic hardship because of unionization, how could he
communicate that without violating the employee’s right to a free choice?

Perhaps the company’s financial records could have been distributed without editorial comment.
Theoretically, the information, even if it showed a nonsecure company, would not discourage
unionization but merely limit the expectations of the employees as to how much better off they
would be with a union.

1 Adapted from National Labor Relations Board v. Sinclair Company, 397 F.2d 157 (1968).

226
Domination

Facts:

The professional employees of a medium-size architectural firm voted to be represented by a union. More
than a year later, after months of unsuccessful negotiations, an employee petitioned for a decertification
election.
The union lost the election. Immediately after the election, a partner in the firm called a meeting
of partners and professional personnel to ask for suggestions on ensuring management–employee
dialogue.
An employee suggested a committee system whereby five in-house committees, composed of five
employees and one management representative, would examine a different area of employee concern,
such as wages. Two employees seconded his idea, and the plan was overwhelmingly approved. An
employee suggested that the partners vote on the proposal, too. They did, and it passed unanimously. The
committees met on company time without loss of pay. On some committees the managers voted; on some
they did not.
The union filed an unfair labor practice charge against the employer for supporting and
dominating a labor organization. The National Labor Relations Board agreed and ordered the employer to
withdraw its recognition and support, and to disestablish the employees’ committees. The employer
appealed.

Decision:

The Supreme Court pointed out that there is a line between employer cooperation, which the act
encourages, and employer domination, which the act condemns. That line is crossed when, from the
standpoint of the employee, freedom of choice has been stifled.
The court found that the totality of circumstances in this case did not show such domination.
Allowing the committees to meet on company time alone is not unlawful support. The court noted that the
idea for the committee system came from an employee and was supported and approved by other
employees. Placing a management representative on the committees was also an employee’s idea. The
court noted that the manager’s vote, when he has a vote at all, is just one of six.
Under these facts, the court reversed the Board’s finding.2

Questions for Discussion

1. Do you think the court was influenced by the fact that the employees in question were
professional employees in an architectural firm? Why?

Yes: Because the type of interaction between the partners and professional staff on a regular basis
would enable the employees to allow employer participation in the committee system without
being intimidated.

No: The fact of employer involvement in and of itself decided the court’s decision.

2. Was the Board’s finding of employer domination more of a reaction to the unusual nature of the
employee committee than to the facts of the alleged interference?

The NLRB probably felt that the line the court drew between cooperation and domination was
harder to discern with this unconventional “collective” arrangement.

2 Adapted from Hertzka & Knowles v. National Labor Relations Board, 46 L.Ed. 2d 106 (1975).

227
3. The union had failed to reach an agreement with the employer after more than a year of
bargaining. Was the employees’ freedom of choice stifled by that fact, so that the selection of the
alternative system did represent employer domination?

No, the alternative system obviously addressed the needs of this particular group of employees
better than a formal union—collective bargaining situation.

Unfair Labor Practice by a Union

Facts:

A union decided to try to organize employees of four direct mail companies. A plan was devised whereby
a union organizer, accompanied by a group of persons acting on behalf of the union, would descend upon
the four companies without permission and distribute union literature during working hours.
The nature of the union’s conduct is illustrated by the following:
1. In the first incident, 25 men and women swarmed into the plant, moved to where
employees were working, and began talking to employees about the union. All
production stopped as a result of the commotion. When asked to leave, a union member
suggested they call the police.
2. Two days later at another plant, 25 men and women entered by the front entrance and
began talking to employees in the same manner as just described. At the same time, 12
men entered the plant from the rear and pushed by a manager who attempted to stop
them. Again work came to a halt.
3. One company, fearing it would be next, hired a uniformed guard. 25 union members
found the door unlocked, pushed past the armed guard, threatened to kill him with his
own gun, and created a commotion.
The Board found that the union had violated the National Labor Relations Act section prohibiting
unfair labor practices by labor organizations. The union appealed.

Decision:

The court upheld the Board.

The act forbids a union from restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights. The
court noted that one right is to refrain from collective bargaining activities. The union’s conduct, which
included threats and physical violence, constituted illegal coercion.3

Questions for Discussion

1. The defiant attitude of the union organizers was primarily directed at the employer’s
representatives who asked them to leave. Why would this have any affect on the employee’s
exercise of their rights?

Certainly, such a display could intimidate employees who fear not supporting a union whose
members so obviously ignore the law.

3Adapted from National Labor Relations Board v. District 65, Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, 375
F.2d 745 (1967).

228
2. If the union activity had been limited to one location, would the finding have been the same?

Probably, although the conduct at all four locations indicated a willingness to undertake such
activities. That willingness is what could intimidate the workers.

3. Why did the union think such a plan might succeed in encouraging union membership?

Theoretically, a majority of the workers at the direct mail companies could be expected to support
a union if they had information about it. In addition, the union may have believed this macho
approach would convince the workers that the union could do a good job of representing them to
the employer.

Good Faith

Facts:

An employer manufactures oil field pumping equipment that it delivers by its own transportation
department throughout the United States and Canada. Because of previous violations of the Interstate
Commerce Act, the company notified its employees in all future trucking activity it would comply with
ICC regulations. The employees, fearing such compliance would affect their earnings, began a union
drive. The union requested recognition to which the employer did not respond directly. However, the
employer, over the next three months, did three things: 1) replaced the trucking foreman with someone
obviously antiunion, 2) announced significant alterations of wages, working, and trucking conditions,
apparently to be in compliance with the ICC, and 3) subcontracted the work. The union charged the
employer with unfair labor practice for failure to bargain in good faith.
The Board found that the new foreman questioned the employees about the union, urged them to
withdraw, and promised pay raises if they complied. He also threatened that the employer would sell the
trucks before accepting a union. He suggested a counter petition to the one pending before the National
Labor Relations Board requesting union recognition.
All of these activities violated the employer’s duty to bargain in good faith. In addition, the
unilateral change of wages and working conditions clearly violated the good faith duty to bargain. The
Board also found the decision to contract out the transportation work to be antiunion motivated and thus
an unfair labor practice. The employer appealed.

Decision:

The court had no trouble finding the foreman’s activities and the unilateral change of wages and benefits
as a breach of the good faith duty. Nevertheless, it examined the decision to subcontract more closely
because of the employer’s contention that it was motivated by a genuine desire to alleviate its ICC
problems. The court upheld the Board, however, because the facts justified a finding that the employer
believed it could solve both its ICC problem and its union problem by eliminating the trucks. Such an
action becomes, therefore, a violation of the employer’s good faith duty to bargain.4

Questions for Discussion

4 Adapted from National Labor Relations Board v. American Manufacturing Company of Texas, 351 F. 2d 74 (1965).

229
1. Was the foreman’s “prediction” that the employer would sell the trucks before accepting the
union, a good indication of the employer’s dual goal, that is, of satisfying the ICC and busting the
union?

Yes, because the desired result was to kill the union movement; therefore the hint was given.

2. How could the employer have eliminated the trucking department without violating its good faith
obligation?

Negotiation on other items demonstrates a willingness to negotiate.

3. Although the court upheld the Board’s decision, it reversed the Board’s order requiring the
employer to resume its trucking operation. The court noted that all the trucks were sold already
and such a remedy may well frustrate the union’s future ability to bargain. Can you speculate as
to the court’s reasons?

If the court allowed the NLRB to make such a management decision, the employer could have
used its financial situation against the union in future negotiations. Perhaps the start-up costs for
resuming the trucking operation would have reduced the money available for wage increases.

Discrimination

Facts:

The employee in this case was reportedly under the influence of liquor while on duty. He helped other
employees obtain liquor while on the job and would punch their time cards for them. His supervisor had
tried to fire him, but his superiors always prevented it because the employee was a representative of the
company-dominated union. Circumstances changed, however, after it was rumored that he had joined a
union that was trying to organize the plant. The day after he was seen talking to a union official, he was
fired. The Board found that the employee was fired because of his activities on behalf of the union and
ordered him reinstated. The company appealed.

Decision:

The Supreme Court agreed with the Board. It pointed out that although an employer can hire or fire an
employee for a good, bad, or no reason, the employer couldn’t do so to encourage or discourage
membership in any labor organization. The facts of this case showed that although the employer had
legitimate reasons to fire the employee, the employee was let go when he became active on behalf of the
union. This clearly violates the Act.5

Questions for Discussion

1. If the employer has a good reason for firing an employee (absenteeism) and a bad reason (union
activity), should the employer be allowed to prove the weight given to both before being found
guilty of “discrimination” under the Act?

No: Under the Act, discriminating against an employee because of union activity—regardless of
degree—is a violation.

5 Adapted from Edward G. Budd Manufacturing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 88 L. Ed. 1071 (1943).

230
 Yes: Union activists could be fired for good and sufficient reasons. Other employees can discern
the reasons and not be afraid to pursue unionization because a bad employee was fired.

2. The Act assumes that discrimination of one employee will discourage union activity. Is that
assumption valid?

Yes: It creates an atmosphere of fear and employees would wait to let another employee try to
unionize to see if he was also fired or disciplined.

No: Discrimination against one employee can be seen as a desperate attempt of the employer to
stop unionization. If enough employees band together, they believe that not all of them could be
fired.

Employer Retaliation

Facts:

The company operates about 700 convenience stores. A sales assistant at one of the company’s stores was
murdered while on duty. The murder was widely publicized, and employees complained of inadequate
security measures. As a result of the murder, 15 sales assistants telephoned the union requesting a union
organization effort. The union sent representatives to 60 stores in the area where the murder had occurred
and left union authorization cards. Two days later, the company notified the union that an injunction had
been issued during a prior union campaign prohibiting solicitation on company property.
The next workday, the company had a meeting with the store managers in the area and talked
about the need to improve security. The company officials also discussed the union’s organization
activities and reminded the managers of the “no solicitation” policy and stated that a union would not
necessarily do the employees any good. Later that week, the company had an unprecedented meeting for
all sales assistants. Approximately 200 sales assistants attended and were paid for their time. The
company officials told the employees that they did not need a union and that the employees from the
union could retrieve their authorization cards. The employees were asked to voice their complaints and
the employees listed the following: getting less than 40 hours work per week, not having breaks, not
being paid for overtime work, working alone at night, and poor lighting at the stores.
The next day, the company sent a memo to all regional personnel directing that sales assistants
should work a 40-hour workweek; canopy lights were installed at all the stores; a policy was adopted that
no one would be required to work alone at night; and sales assistants began receiving wages for after-
hours overtime work. The company posted “no solicitation” signs in all stores and directed that those
signs be enforced; if the employees did not enforce the signs, they would lose their jobs. Later that month
the company held further meetings with sales assistants, who again were paid for their time. They were
asked to select committee representatives to meet with management to discuss their complaints.
Management officials left the room while the employees selected their representatives. The company
made a list of the 10 most frequently mentioned items from the employees’ recommended subjects for the
committee to discuss.
Meanwhile, the union filed a representation petition with the NLRB seeking an election in a unit
of all Summitt, Ohio, sales assistants. The company president told the managers to tell the sales assistants
that if they joined the union, the company would close those stores. The first meeting of the Employee
Management Committee was held and the 10 priority items were listed, granting employees a new
vacation policy, improved health-care benefits, sick days, change in holiday hours for pay, recognition of
seniority ranks, and improved security systems. Not long after that, the company sent an additional memo

231
around announcing other improvements in life, major medical, and accident insurance plans, in addition
to death and family benefits and a revised disciplinary appeal system.
The union charged the company with unfair labor practice for granting benefits to prevent a fair
election and for creating an employer-dominated labor union. The company denied that the motivation for
the benefits was to prevent a union, and furthermore that the employee organization was a “labor
organization” under the NLRA. Even if it was a “labor organization,” the company denied that it was a
company-dominated organization.6

Decision:

The hearing officer found clear patterns of antiunion animus in the company’s activities and thereby
rejected the company’s contention that motivation was other than antiunion. In addition, the hearing
officer found that the employee committee created by the employer was, indeed, a labor organization in
that it was “an employee representation committee … for the purpose in whole or in part of dealing with
employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions
of work.”
Also, the hearing officer felt that the record clearly showed an unlawful domination or
interference by the employer with the employee committee. The company formed the committee in direct
response to the organizational campaign. The committee had no meetings apart from its discussions with
management; formed no independent program or plan of action, and discussed only those subjects that the
company determined was of the greatest concern to the employees. The meetings with management were
held on company premises and the company paid the employees for their time. The agenda was as
prepared by management, and management took the minutes and controlled all the communications
concerning the committee’s work.

Questions for Discussion

1. Did the company’s actions in forming an Employee Management Committee interfere with the
union’s organizational efforts? Explain your answer.

Yes: Clearly, the committee was intended to prove to the employees that they didn’t need a union.
By allowing the employees to meet on company time, the union would have little if any
opportunity to organize.

No: The union still had the ability to attract the workers if they indeed wanted to organize.

2. Should a company be prevented from instituting necessary employee benefits because of union
organizing?

Yes: If the purpose is to prevent unionization. The workers may find those benefits withdrawn
after the union is discouraged and gone.

No: Workers will still benefit regardless of why the improved conditions are instituted.

3. Explain why the Employee Management Committee could be considered a “company union.”

The company requested the formation of the committee; the committee only met when it met with
management; it had no independent program but discussed only company determined items; all
support was through management; and the employees were on work time during their meetings.

6 Adapted from The Lawson Company, 118 LRRM 2505 (1985).

232
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 XVI

— Épargne-moi, Maÿ ! Je suis malheureux : on m’insulte, on me

frappe, et je perds la tête. Je ne sais plus ce que je dis, ni ce que je
fais, ni même qui je suis… C’est la folie qui vient… Alors je vais vers
toi comme une jonque en détresse vers le feu entrevu dans
l’obscurité. Aie pitié de moi ! Parle-moi avec douceur, comme une
mère à son enfant.
Maÿ retire de sa bouche la canne à sucre qu’elle est en train de
grignoter, tourne ses grands yeux durs vers Hiên et déclare
tranquillement :
— Finis de geindre ! tu m’ennuies !
Hiên et Maÿ sont assis côte à côte sur un petit banc devant
l’étalage d’un restaurant. Le tirailleur a offert une dînette à sa
fiancée, et celle-ci a consenti à le suivre au marché, parce qu’elle
compte, ce matin de dimanche ensoleillé, avec son collier d’or et ses
deux tuniques superposées, éblouir ses amies et fasciner quelque
jeune Français.
Elle recommence de mordre la canne à sucre et s’amuse de la
foule qui gesticule et crie sous la halle. Des taches de soleil tombées
de tuiles disjointes éclairent le carreau cimenté qu’empourpre le
bétel. Accroupies sur des nattes, les marchandes pérorent avec des
mines importantes et pénétrées de notables commerçantes. Un
collecteur hindou, ceint d’un pagne flottant qui découvre ses
chevilles noires, circule entre les groupes de femmes bavardes et
recueille quelques sapèques et force injures : car ces dames, en tout
pareilles à leurs congénères de France, usent d’un vocabulaire peu
choisi, mais abondant. Entre toutes, les marchandes de poisson se
manifestent bruyantes et rebelles aux sommations de l’agent du
fisc : retranchées derrière leurs remparts de requins-marteaux
glauques, de langoustes brunes, de crabes indisciplinés et sans
cesse prêts à la fuite, elles montrent le poing au malheureux
fonctionnaire et le traitent de « nègre », pour l’hilarité débordante des
gamins assemblés et nus.
Des fruitières vident leurs paniers, d’où s’écroulent les régimes
de bananes vertes, jaunes, tachetées d’ocre, les oranges, les
citrons, les pamplemousses, les mangoustans coiffés d’une capsule
étoilée, les fruits de jaquiers rugueux comme un dos de râpe, les
letchis rougissants, les ananas bosselés et dorés comme des
pommes de pin, les mangues oblongues et veloutées. Les
maraîchères venues des villages tapis dans les clairières de la forêt
ont étagé les patates violettes et difformes, les faisceaux de cannes
à sucre semblables à des roseaux, les courges, les citrouilles, les
plants de salade, les pastèques, les arachides à coque terreuse.
Des brocanteurs débitent une foule d’ustensiles agréables ou utiles :
cadenas de cuivre à sonnerie, fourneaux de pipes à opium frettés
d’argent, couteaux à bétel, pipes de fer-blanc décoré de fleurettes de
nacre, boîtes d’amidon, sachets de papier rouge renfermant du fiel
d’ours séché, pinces à épiler, peignes de bois, bobines de fil,
cristaux de borax, chandeliers laqués pour l’autel des ancêtres,
brûle-parfums de bronze, théières de faïence, rouleaux de papier
argenté et doré pour cérémonies funèbres, nippes déteintes, fleurs
artificielles, baguettes d’encens.
Entre les éventaires s’attardent des paysans en longues tuniques
garance, teintes au cu-nao ; accoutumés au silence profond des
rizières jaunissantes où pataugent les buffles muets, tout ce
mouvement et tout ce bruit les épouvantent. Les habitants de la ville
les étonnent singulièrement par leur luxe et leur liberté d’allures : au
passage d’un boy chaussé de bottines vernies, les rustres s’écartent
précipitamment, les mains prêtes aux lay [11] et les yeux ronds
d’admiration naïve, convaincus que le passant est un important
mandarin ou tout au moins un gros richard. D’autres mandarins de
même rang, cuisiniers de fonctionnaires français, se carrent sur les
tabourets d’un rôtisseur, fument les cigares de leurs patrons qu’ils
ont pris soin de ne pas dépouiller de leurs bagues écarlates et font
de grands éclats de rire entre deux assiettes de riz, que paieront tout
à l’heure les piastres des maîtres.
[11] Salut cérémonieux que l’on adresse aux
personnages de marque et qui se fait avec les deux
mains réunies sur la poitrine.

— Aie pitié de moi ; sois douce ! répète à voix basse le triste

Hiên.
— Laisse-moi tranquille !
Elle s’est détournée de lui pour contempler, avec des yeux de
convoitise, des congaï qui font leur entrée dans la halle. Les rais de
soleil, où dansent follement des poussières brillantes, plaquent les
tuniques raides de reflets brusques, noyés dans l’ombre et rallumés
aussitôt ; les mouchoirs de crépon rose noués sous les mentons
poudrés chatoient ; les colliers de grains d’or étagent sur les
poitrines menues, habillées de velours mauve, lilas et grenat, leur
triple rangée d’étincelles ; les diamants, les rubis, les émeraudes des
bagues, des bracelets montant jusqu’aux coudes s’embrasent de
courtes lueurs multicolores. Et l’envie ronge le cœur de Maÿ. Pour
acquérir ces richesses, il a suffi à ces filles de se vendre à des
Français : qu’importe le mépris de l’opinion publique, lorsque
l’admiration et le dépit l’accompagnent ? A côté des courtisanes
cheminent des femmes de tirailleurs ; visages noircis par la sueur,
seins affaissés sous les vestes de coton décoloré, dos courbés sous
le poids des paniers ; ni bagues, ni bracelets, ni boucles d’oreilles, ni
mules brodées de paillettes… Voilà ce qui attend Maÿ, si elle épouse
le simple et pauvre guerrier qui lui parle avec des sanglots dans la
gorge :
— Pourquoi es-tu indifférente ? Pourquoi n’as-tu pour moi que
des regards mauvais ? Que t’ai-je fait ? Si tu ne peux me donner ton
amour, fais-moi l’aumône au moins du sourire que tu adresses aux
inconnus dans la rue !… Ah ! si l’Aïeul était là !…
Hiên ferme les yeux, se rappelle d’autres marchés qu’illuminait la
présence de l’Aïeul. Les marchandes, vieilles et jeunes, le saluaient
avec des cris de joie ; il leur parlait, écoutait leurs confidences
interminables, leur donnait des conseils pratiques qui provoquaient
les rires inextinguibles de ces dames. Il plaisantait avec elles.
— Ah ! si j’avais vingt ans, soupirait une fruitière édentée et ridée,
je ne voudrais point d’autre mari que toi, Aïeul à deux galons !
— Et moi, bonne mère, si j’avais ton âge, je voudrais me souvenir
que nous avons été jeunes ensemble et que nous avons dormi sur la
même natte !
Les garçonnets qui jouaient dans les ruisseaux accouraient lui
prendre la main ou se pendre aux pans de son dolman où leurs
doigts s’imprimaient en rouge. Il finissait par s’échouer dans la
boutique d’un restaurateur et grignotait des gâteaux chinois en
buvant du thé ; il conviait Hiên et Maÿ à s’asseoir à ses côtés et le
visage de la fillette s’illuminait ; elle devenait aimable et gaie, et son
rire sonnait à chaque mot.
Hiên étouffe un soupir et considère sa fiancée silencieuse et
impénétrable. Il voit le front bombé, lisse et blanc, les sourcils
tendres et légers, relevés vers les tempes, les paupières abaissées
à demi, les cils immobiles voilant les yeux cruels, le nez
imperceptible aux narines retroussées, les lèvres charnues et
rougies par le bétel. Un désir insensé et brutal lui étreint le cœur, de
saisir cet animal sournois et indéchiffrable, de l’emporter loin de
cette humanité compliquée, loin de ces femmes trop parées, loin de
ces hommes aux regards effrontés, d’emporter son aimée vers la
forêt, où elle et lui seront seuls. Un mal nouveau brûle ses veines et
trouble son cerveau : la jalousie, la jalousie qu’il ignorait et qui le fait
souffrir tout de suite atrocement.
Là-bas, dans l’église de pisé où tintent les cloches et ronflent les
gongs, la messe vient de finir. Le marché se remplit de Français :
officiers d’artillerie descendus de leurs villas qui s’accrochent aux
pentes de la montagne dans le feuillage nuageux des bambous ;
pilotes massifs, tanguant et roulant, parlant très haut ; troupiers
étiques dont les figures minces et trop blanches disparaissent sous
les casques trop larges enfoncés jusqu’aux épaules, braves gens
peu soucieux de coquetterie dans leurs amples tuniques de toile
grise ; femmes coiffées de casques de liège qu’habillent des
dentelles et qui sont trop pareils à des abat-jour ; robes flottantes de
crépon, souliers découverts et bas à flèches d’or, teints fadasses
criblés de taches de rousseur ; garçonnets arrogants et pâlots,
contemplant avec des yeux effarés les gamins annamites vêtus
d’une ficelle ; sous-officiers pommadés et parfumés frisant des
moustaches avantageuses ; fonctionnaires de la douane et de
l’administration, empesés et solennels.
Entre tous ses congénères, un jeune mulâtre de la Guadeloupe,
vague comptable du Sanatorium, se distingue par la hauteur de ses
faux cols, le miroitement de son plastron garni de faux brillants, le pli
impeccable de son pantalon et la pomme d’or de sa canne.
Maÿ tressaille à son approche. Débarqué fraîchement au Cap-
Saint-Jacques, le mulâtre a été sensible au charme et aux œillades
de la petite personne ; il l’a rencontrée deux ou trois fois sur
l’appontement, l’a complimentée en annamite sur son collier, cadeau
de l’Aïeul, sur la couleur de ses yeux. Elle a rougi et a paru froissée ;
mais, tout au fond de son cœur de petite femme, elle a tressailli
d’aise. Dès la deuxième entrevue, il lui a offert de lui faire visiter sa
demeure, lui promettant de lui donner un mouchoir brodé de fleurs ;
elle n’a rien répondu et s’est détournée avec une majesté de reine
offensée ; mais l’offre n’a pas été oubliée : le mouchoir à bordure
fleurie hante les rêves de Maÿ, qui se promet d’aller voir le « nègre ».
Quant au gentleman de la Pointe-à-Pitre, qu’une épaisse couche de
fatuité cuirasse contre le doute, il se persuade bonnement que son
physique de commis-voyageur et son langage zézayant ont produit
sur la petite Vénus jaune l’irrésistible effet auquel l’ont accoutumé
les mulâtresses.
Hiên a surpris la rougeur de Maÿ, le clignement d’yeux complice
du jeune homme olivâtre. Il pâlit ; la tête lui fait mal et ses yeux
voient trouble ; il est las soudain comme s’il avait couru pendant des
heures, et il a envie de pleurer. Deux fois l’ennemi l’a frôlé, sans le
voir, préoccupé seulement d’attirer sur son veston immaculé les
regards de Maÿ. Il finit cependant par apercevoir le tirailleur, et,
comme la bravoure n’est point sa vertu première, il bat
précipitamment en retraite et disparaît.
— Rentrons à la maison, décrète la fillette.
— Oui ! oui ! rentrons ! Je suis fatigué de tout ce tapage, de ces
gens qui vont et qui viennent.
— Que tu es bizarre, mon pauvre Hiên ! C’est toi qui m’as
demandé de t’accompagner au marché, et te voilà maintenant
impatient de partir !
— J’en ai assez de voir ces hommes te sourire et de te voir
répondre à leurs sourires par des sourires !
— Serais-tu jaloux, par hasard ?
— Je ne sais pas ; je souffre ! J’ai vu tout à l’heure le jeune noir te
saluer et j’ai senti mes yeux se voiler, et trembler mes mains… Où
as-tu connu cet étranger ?
— Je ne le connais pas. Je commence à croire que tu deviens
réellement stupide. Personne ne m’a saluée au marché.
— J’ai cru voir…
— Tu t’es trompé !
— Je me suis trompé, sans doute ! concède l’humble amoureux.
Pardonne-moi, sœur aînée : je t’aime et je suis inquiet ; je me figure
être entouré de gens qui menacent mon bonheur, qui cherchent à
t’entraîner loin de moi. Pardonne-moi ! Vois-tu, ma tête est faible : je
suis prompt à m’épouvanter et à dire des sottises. Je ne serai plus
jaloux !
Hiên a formulé à voix trop haute sa promesse. Un lépreux
écroulé contre la haie, entre les fleurs lilas et les feuilles anémiques
des euphorbes, interrompt sa mélopée pour ricaner :
— Tu en parles à ton aise, mon jeune ami ! On guérit plus vite de
la lèpre que de la jalousie… Tu es jeune, mon garçon, tu es jeune !
Ses lèvres pourries découvrent les gencives blanches
qu’entrechoque le rire.
 *
* *

La parole du lépreux se vérifia : la promesse de Hiên n’était

qu’une vantardise d’amoureux novice. La jalousie s’installa dans son
cœur et dans son cerveau, et sa vie, dont l’amour devait faire un
paradis terrestre, fut un enfer. Pietro et Maÿ, sans se concerter, se
partagèrent la tâche de torturer cette âme simple, l’un par la terreur,
l’autre par le doute.
Les rares instants de répit que l’adjudant accordait au tirailleur,
celui-ci les employait à suivre Maÿ par la pensée, à se répéter :
« Que fait-elle en ce moment ?… » Il s’imaginait la voir, profitant des
heures de liberté absolue que lui procuraient les exercices, endosser
en hâte sa tunique de crépon, boucler à son cou son collier, et,
trompant la surveillance de Thi-Baÿ, courir vers le Sanatorium où
l’attendait le traître au teint de citron.
Il la voyait, souriant et balançant gracieusement les bras,
cheminer sous les frangipaniers de l’avenue, franchir le portail de
briques où grimaçaient des monstres de terre émaillée. Il la voyait
apparaître, blanche et dorée, hors de la tunique dégrafée. Il
gémissait sourdement et ses mains frissonnaient, secouées par le
vent de la folie renaissante.
Souvent, comme il errait dans le crépuscule à la recherche de
l’absent, les abominables visions se présentaient à son esprit ; il
revenait en courant vers le camp, tête basse, bousculant les rondes
d’enfants qui tournoyaient dans les chemins envahis par l’ombre.
Sur l’aire battue, Maÿ chantait en s’accompagnant sur la cithare à
treize cordes. Il s’asseyait près d’elle, essoufflé, le cœur
tressautant :
— Qu’as-tu fait aujourd’hui ? interrogeait-il lorsque les fils de
cuivre cessaient de moduler leurs plaintes aigres.
— Je me suis promenée.
— Où es-tu allée ?
— Qu’est-ce que cela peut te faire ?
 Menue et sournoise, elle le défiait de ses yeux calmes et froids,
où rien ne se lisait de l’âme impénétrable. Il baissait le front, rustre
vaincu d’avance dans cette lutte inégale où son innocence même et
sa simplicité faisaient le jeu de son adversaire. Devant cette petite
fille qu’il eût aisément broyée entre ses doigts de géant, il restait
penaud et muet, désespéré de son impuissance : à quoi lui servaient
ses gros poings et ses biceps ?
Farouche, il regardait les lignes d’écume lumineuse émerger de
la nuit et mourir sur la plage ; les falots des sampans dansaient
comme un vol de lucioles. Le feu de Can-Gio ouvrait son œil
sanglant et fixe dans les ténèbres épandues sur la baie. La rumeur
de la houle emplissait l’horizon ; des massifs effacés par l’ombre,
descendaient les plaintes chuchotantes des bambous, et les vagues
et le feuillage semblaient geindre avec le sauvage affligé.
Cependant l’ironique chanson de la cithare égrenait ses notes
railleuses. Maÿ reprenait sa mélopée interrompue. Satisfaite de sa
musique, heureuse aussi de la souffrance devinée à ses côtés, elle
roucoulait à mi-voix, les paupières battantes et la gorge ondulante…
Ah ! l’écraser d’un coup de poing !
 XVII

La voix rauque de l’adjudant proféra des commandements et,

quatre par quatre, les tirailleurs sortirent du camp dans l’aube grise.
Ils défilèrent silencieux et farouches, dans les rues qui s’éveillaient ;
les chiens errants jappaient sur les talons ; la hotte sur le dos, des
sampaniers cheminaient en longue file sous les cocotiers inclinés :
joyeux de leur pêche nocturne, ils saluèrent la colonne de lazzi
égrillards. Stupéfaits de ne point rencontrer l’écho de jadis, ils se
turent, redoutant d’avoir troublé quelque grave cérémonie militaire.
Les chantiers du camp nouveau alignèrent au-dessus des talus
envahis par l’herbe leurs charpentes inachevées, rongées par les
termites, et leurs murs de torchis jaunissant. La clarté blême du petit
jour aggravait la tristesse du terre-plein désert où gisaient dans le
sable les bennes rouges des wagonnets, pareilles aux tronçons
d’une coque échouée.
Les tirailleurs détournèrent la tête : trop de souvenirs habitaient
ces cases vides et ces hangars croulants. Hiên tâcha de fermer les
yeux : trop longtemps il avait poursuivi en vain l’ombre de l’Aïeul à
travers le camp abandonné ; dans son cœur las, abreuvé de trop de
chagrins, il n’y avait plus de place pour l’espoir ; l’absent tardait trop
à revenir… Invinciblement, sa marche se ralentissait ; ses jambes
semblaient le river au sol…
— Avance, Hiên, avance : l’adjudant te regarde, dit son
compagnon en le prenant par le bras.
Le sabre court sonnait sur les pavés ; le désespéré fit un effort
pour s’arracher à la torpeur qui le gagnait et trotta lourdement,
comme un âne trop chargé.
La compagnie pénétra dans la forêt ; les sections se
dispersèrent. Hiên et Nho suivirent une patrouille que le sergent
Cang guida. Derrière les hautes fougères, le tyran disparut.
Hiên écouta craquer les branches tombées que brisaient les
pieds nus ; d’autres patrouilles, filant par des sentiers voisins,
semblaient des hardes de sangliers froissant les feuilles mortes. De
la brousse touffue montait le parfum iodé de l’humus séculaire et
inviolé, l’âcre odeur des bruyères teintées de rose, le relent fauve de
l’eau croupie. Sur la terre grasse, que les pluies avaient ravagée, se
tordaient les racines brunes, pareilles à des pythons monstrueux.
La patrouille fit halte dans une clairière, au bord d’une mare
obscure ; des arbres géants étendaient sur elle le dais de leurs
branches enchevêtrées : banyans aux troncs enrubannés de lianes,
tecks élancés et droits aux feuilles de carton terne, gommiers
balafrés de coupures béantes qui distillaient la sève sirupeuse et
blanche. Dans la boue piétinée par les chevreuils pointaient les tiges
vert tendre des herbes naissantes.
Hiên huma l’odeur de la forêt, et son cœur déborda. Toutes ses
peines vinrent à lui à la fois, au rappel des parfums familiers : l’exil,
les tortures de l’initiation, les brèves minutes de joies évanouies, les
épouvantes de chaque instant, les coups meurtrissant sa face
douloureuse, et l’amour malheureux, et l’atroce jalousie… Il arracha
de son épaule la bretelle du mousqueton, jeta l’arme loin de lui et
s’abattit dans le gazon trempé de rosée, la figure entre les mains. Il
pleura, avec des hoquets et des râles qui retentissaient dans la
clairière endormie.
— Quelle misère ! gronda Nho. Et l’Aïeul qui ne revient pas !…
Aïeul à deux galons, pourquoi nous as-tu abandonnés ?…
Il s’exaspérait, hurlait à son tour.
— Tais-toi, dit le sergent Cang. Ne trouble pas le malheureux qui
crie sa peine aux esprits de la forêt… Laisse-le pleurer en paix !…
Ils s’assirent sur une souche, écoutèrent en silence la déchirante
lamentation qui tantôt retentissait, vibrante et sinistre, sous la voûte
des banyans, et tantôt s’apaisait, basse et douce comme une plainte
d’enfant. Nho se rapprocha de Cang :
 — Maître sergent, dit-il, maître sergent, il faut écrire à l’Aïeul : il
faut que l’Aïeul sache et qu’il revienne… Écris à l’Aïeul !…
Cang hocha la tête :
— Que lui dirai-je ?
— Tu lui diras que nous souffrons…
— C’est vrai, nous souffrons… Mais faudra-t-il lui dire que nous
souffrons par la faute d’un Français ?… Pourra-t-il croire, lui qui est
juste, lui qui est bon, à l’injustice et à la méchanceté ? Ne me
parlera-t-il pas ainsi : « Cang, tu es un mauvais sous-officier ; tu
manques à ton devoir : tu dénonces ton chef parce qu’il est sévère
et sans indulgence. Tu portes contre lui de terribles accusations,
parce que tu ne l’aimes point… Je sais, je sais que tes compatriotes
ont ainsi dénoncé faussement des gradés parce que ceux-ci ne leur
plaisaient pas. Cang, tu mens !… »
— L’Aïeul ne croira pas que le vieux Cang puisse mentir !
— Il me dira : « Réfléchis bien ! Tu prétends que l’adjudant vous
insulte, qu’il lève son bâton sur vous. Songe que, s’il a commis cette
faute grave, les mandarins à cinq galons s’indigneront contre lui, le
châtieront : car de telles actions sont contraires aux lois françaises et
aux règlements, et les chefs puniront sévèrement l’homme coupable
d’avoir manqué aux lois et aux règlements. Les chefs haïssent la
brutalité ; mais le mensonge les écœure, et, si tu as menti, si tu as
calomnié ton supérieur… »
— L’Aïeul saura distinguer la vérité !
— Il ne me croira point…
— Il te croira !
— Où lui adresserai-je ma lettre ?…
— Après l’exercice, pendant la sieste, nous interrogerons les
sampaniers… Nous monterons sur les jonques qui sont dans la baie
des Cocotiers, et nous demanderons aux pêcheurs d’Annam s’ils
n’ont pas vu notre maître… Il faut que l’Aïeul sache !…
Des coups de feu lointains s’espacèrent… Hiên se leva, blême et
titubant, et suivit la patrouille qui se glissait dans la brousse.
 *
* *

Nho donna un dernier coup d’aviron : le canot vira dans l’eau

dorée, vint se coller contre la coque couturée d’une jonque. Des
sampaniers accoururent, se penchèrent sur le bordage, saisirent le
vieux Cang par les aisselles, le hissèrent sur le pont où séchaient
des queues de raies et des peaux de requins.
Autour du terrien, que le tangage inquiétait, les hommes de la
mer, leurs femmes hâlées et rieuses, leurs enfants nus et basanés
firent cercle, se poussant du coude, grimpant sur les rouleaux de
cordages et jusque dans les agrès. Tous à la fois, ils questionnaient
le sergent ; des jonques voisines, rangées bord contre bord, d’autres
curieux accouraient, avides de connaître le motif de cette visite
inattendue :
— Que veux-tu de nous, oncle sergent ?
— Pourquoi es-tu venu sur notre barque ?
— Que se passe-t-il ?
Cang ne répondait rien, demeurant adossé à l’embrasure d’un
panneau, déplorant en silence le manque total d’éducation dont
faisaient preuve ces marins.
Un vieillard le guida par la main, écarta du poing les indiscrets, fit
asseoir son hôte sur une natte :
— Apportez au grand mandarin du thé et du bétel ! commanda-t-
il.
Il prit place lui-même sur la natte en face du sergent, lui tendit
une cigarette. Et Cang lui demanda :
— N’as-tu pas vu, dans tes voyages, n’as-tu pas vu mon maître ?
— Qui est ton maître ?
— L’Aïeul à deux galons.
— Ton maître est donc un vieil homme ?…
— C’est un homme très jeune, qui a des yeux clairs et souriants,
des moustaches tombantes et couleur de maïs, et qui porte sur ses
manches deux galons d’or. C’est un homme qui est bon avec les
Annamites, qui leur parle avec une voix très douce, dans leur
langue, qui donne des remèdes aux malades, aux petits enfants des
sous et des caresses, qui sait lire dans nos livres et connaît nos
légendes et nos poèmes… Il est instruit, il est sage comme un
homme très âgé, et c’est pourquoi nous l’appelons notre Aïeul…
— Dans quelle région se trouve-t-il ?
— Il est parti par la grande route qui va de Saïgon à Hué, et,
depuis son départ, nous n’avons pas eu de ses nouvelles…
Quelqu’un des tiens l’a-t-il vu ?
— L’Annam est immense ; les ports où sont armées nos jonques
sont innombrables : les unes ont été lancées à Nha-Trang, d’autres
à Phan-Rang, d’autres à Phan-Tiet, d’autres à Cam-Ranh… Mais
nous sommes des gens de la côte et jamais aucun de nous ne se
risque à remonter les torrents, à pénétrer dans la montagne…
— Mais les montagnards viennent vendre les cardamomes aux
villageois des plaines : peut-être un marchand, causant avec les
tiens, a-t-il pu parler de mon maître ?…
— Peut-être… Holà ! vous autres, ouvrez vos oreilles : quelqu’un
d’entre vous a-t-il ouï parler d’un certain Aïeul à deux galons ?
— Moi ! moi ! crièrent plusieurs voix.
— Moi, je l’ai vu !
Un jeune pêcheur sortit du cercle, s’avança près de la natte et
répéta :
— J’ai vu l’Aïeul !
Un soir, sur la place étroite d’un hameau perdu, à la lisière des
bois profonds, il avait vu la foule des paysans et des bûcherons
assemblée autour du banc où trônait un officier, un lieutenant. Cet
officier, que les notables nommaient : « l’Aïeul à deux galons »,
narrait une histoire que les campagnards écoutaient, bouche bée ;
des garçonnets et des fillettes jouaient à ses pieds ; un tirailleur à
barbiche blanche allait et venait parmi les groupes…
— C’est lui, dit Cang, c’est mon maître !
 Alors il fit aux sampaniers consternés le récit des souffrances
endurées par leurs frères militaires ; il dit les humiliations et les
outrages quotidiens, et la folie de Hiên, et l’appel unanime des
opprimés à la justice de l’absent…
— Écris-lui, conseilla le vieux chef, fais écrire à ton maître, ce
soir, par l’écrivain public qui se tient au marché, une lettre qu’une de
nos jonques portera. Celui-là, qui a vu l’Aïeul, sera chargé de lui
remettre ta plainte et lui répétera tes paroles…
*
* *

— Relis maintenant ! dit Cang.

L’écrivain public assura sur ses oreilles les tiges de ses besicles,
prit la feuille à deux mains, l’approcha de la mèche charbonneuse du
quinquet, et lut :
« Reviens, Aïeul à deux galons. Tu as déjà trop tardé. Après ton
départ, le joug a été replacé sur nos cous, plus lourd encore parce
que le bouvier avait des rancunes à satisfaire… Le sous-lieutenant
est bon, mais il ne voit rien et nous n’osons nous plaindre à lui, car
Pietro l’a persuadé que la race annamite était fourbe et dissimulée et
que nous étions méchants entre les méchants.
» Et l’adjudant est maintenant le maître incontesté. S’il se fût
contenté, comme autrefois, de distribuer des jours de consigne, des
injures et des coups de pied, nous eussions retrouvé, pour endurer
le supplice, notre résignation d’autrefois ; on eût courbé l’échine et
invoqué ton nom en silence… Mais il a fait pire : se souvenant que tu
avais tiré une première fois Hiên de ses griffes, il s’est acharné
contre ton protégé. Du réveil à l’extinction des feux, il se complaît à
le torturer, à l’abrutir, à l’épouvanter, de sorte que l’être simple est en
train de retourner à ses ténèbres : peut-être reviendras-tu trop tard
pour lui rendre une deuxième fois la lumière.
» Pardonne à ton vieux serviteur d’avoir osé t’écrire ces choses…
Je sais que cela n’est point conforme à la discipline ; mais n’est-il
pas permis au soldat qui a servi fidèlement pendant des années
d’élever sa voix en faveur de ses frères d’armes malheureux ?
» J’ai trente ans de services, Aïeul : pendant trente ans, des
officiers français et des sous-officiers français m’ont commandé ; les
uns étaient affables et doux comme toi ; d’autres étaient rigides et
inaccessibles, mais tous étaient justes, et j’obéissais, et tous les
tirailleurs annamites obéissaient avec joie… Celui dont je te parle est
injuste et cruel, et jamais je n’avais rencontré son pareil.
» Nous plions encore devant lui : le jour est proche où le vase
trop plein débordera de toutes parts, où les victimes frémissantes
s’insurgeront…
» Hâte-toi, Aïeul à deux galons : tes petits-enfants crient vers toi
et se lassent de n’être point entendus… Hâte-toi !… »
 XVIII

Derrière les faisceaux de mousquetons que hérissaient les lames

luisantes, la compagnie piétinait depuis un quart d’heure. De l’orient
où s’effaçaient les dernières brumes nocturnes fusait vers l’azur du
zénith la lumière jaune et dorée épandue sur le ciel et la terre.
— Beau temps pour la revue ! confia Castel, épongeant ses joues
rasées de frais, au fourrier rose et joufflu que le casque trop grand
coiffait comme d’un abat-jour.
— Vrai temps de Fête nationale ! Le soleil est républicain !
— Il fera chaud sur l’esplanade de l’artillerie.
— Et pendant la route, donc !
— Pourquoi ne partons-nous pas ? Qu’est-ce qu’on attend ? Le
sous-lieutenant vient d’arriver : le voici qui cause avec Pietro sous la
véranda de la grande case.
— Tiens ! tiens ! pourquoi n’a-t-il pas mis de bottes ?
— Bizarre !… Et le fougueux Barka est dans son box !
— Qui est-ce donc qui va commander la compagnie ?
— Hein ! mon vieux ! si le lieutenant était revenu sans crier
gare !…
— Va donc ! va donc ! ne te berce pas de cette illusion, mon bon
Provençal !
— En tout cas, le citoyen Pietro porte l’oreille basse. Il était
presque aimable tout à l’heure pendant le rassemblement. Il y a
sûrement du nouveau qui se prépare. Psst ! Cang ! Tu n’as pas
entendu parler du retour de l’Aïeul, par hasard ?
Cang secoue la tête d’un air dubitatif :
 — Le bruit court que l’Aïeul est revenu ; mais personne n’en sait
rien au juste. On avait annoncé son retour tant de fois déjà que
personne n’y croit plus. J’ai questionné Hiên le Maboul : il ne sait
rien ; il est à moitié fou et tout à fait abruti. Depuis deux jours il a
cessé de rôder autour de la maison du lieutenant : il est découragé.
Bèp-Thoï n’a pas paru dans le village hier soir.
— Dis donc, le sergent-major est peut-être renseigné : faufile-toi
jusqu’à la chambre de détail. L’adjudant tourne le dos, justement : tu
ne risques rien. Donne-moi ton mousqueton.
Le fourrier trotta ; les franges jaunes des épaulettes de laine
dansaient sur le dolman blanc ; il s’insinua entre les stores verts que
décoraient des monstres garance, zébrés par les averses. La basse
puissante du sergent-major émit des paroles inintelligibles, puis le
casque démesuré du messager écarta les rideaux de rotins.
— Le chef m’a envoyé promener. Il dit qu’on se moque de lui,
qu’on lui a déjà monté ce bateau-là quatre ou cinq fois, et que ça ne
prend plus.
Ils se regardèrent, désappointés :
— C’est idiot de faire courir des bruits pareils ! grogna Castel. On
s’emballe, on s’emballe, puis tout casse et l’on se retrouve forçat
comme devant, mais le boulet est plus lourd.
Des gamins essoufflés galopèrent devant la palissade, passèrent
leurs museaux suants entre les bambous et crièrent à tue-tête :
— L’Aïeul est arrivé ! l’Aïeul est arrivé !
Les femmes accroupies sous les écussons tricolores et les
girandoles de la porte répétèrent :
— L’Aïeul est arrivé ! l’Aïeul est arrivé !
La compagnie entière se rua vers la route, abandonnant les
faisceaux, trépignant et glapissant :
— Où est-il ?
— Est-ce bien vrai ?
— Comment savez-vous cela, petits frères ?
 — C’est moi qui l’ai vu. Il fumait sa pipe sous la véranda et le
vieux Bèp-Thoï étrillait le cheval.
— Mais non ! il ne fumait pas.
— Je te dis que si !
— Je te dis que non !
— Es-tu bien sûr de l’avoir vu ?
— Si je suis sûr ?… Si je l’ai vu ?… J’allais me faufiler jusqu’au
perron lorsque Bèp-Thoï a brandi son étrille vers moi : je me suis
sauvé !… Tout le village connaît la nouvelle maintenant !
— Le voilà ! le voilà !
— Rassemblement ! hurlait l’adjudant.
— Crie, mon garçon, égosille-toi ! murmurait le fourrier, emporté
par le flot des petits soldats qui roulait sur la route…
— Rassemblement !
Au tournant du chemin, sous les frangipaniers, la robe luisante et
la crinière hirsute d’Annibal apparurent, émergeant de la cohue des
gamins loqueteux. Les jambières rouges galopèrent éperdument ;
les gamins, braillant et pleurant, se trouvèrent rejetés sur les talus ;
des mains noircies saisirent les rênes, maintinrent le petit cheval
affolé, palpèrent les bottes éperonnées de bronze doré, la culotte de
toile, le dolman blanc où scintillaient les boutons à ancre d’or et les
galons, le sabre à garde nickelée passé dans le porte-épée de la
selle ; des lèvres baisèrent les gants de fil blanc. Des gaillards
soulevèrent l’Aïeul, le placèrent sur leurs épaules ; autour d’eux, les
salaccos se heurtaient furieusement et les faces noires vociféraient :
— Salut, vénérable Aïeul !
— Salut, Aïeul à deux galons !
— Pourquoi as-tu tant tardé ?
— Reconnais-moi, Aïeul à deux galons : c’est moi, Phuc, l’élève
caporal !
— Te souviens-tu de ton serviteur ? Je suis Mao, le palefrenier !
— Je te reconnais, mon ami.