American Cable Systems, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 24, 1966

161 N.L.R.B. 332 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
American Cable Systems , Inc. and Communications Workers of
America , AFL-CIO. Cases 26-CA-2229 and 26-RC-2x/.7. Octo-
ber 24,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 18, 1966, Trial Examiner John G. Gregg issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not
engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and
recommended that such allegations be dismissed. He found further
that the Respondent had interfered with an election held on Octo-
ber 15, 1965, and recommended that it be set aside and that a new
election be held. Thereafter, the Respondent, the Charging Party,
and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and
Zagori a] .
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record
in these cases, and finds merit in the exceptions of the Charging
Party. Accordingly, the Board adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,l
conclusions, and recommendations only to the extent they are con-
sistent herewith.
We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Respond-
ent, immediately after receiving the Union's letter demanding recog-
nition, interrogated employees about their union activities and
discharged two employees, Aclin and Goldbar, because they had
signed union authorization cards, in violation of Section 8(a) (1)
and (3) of the Act. We also find, in agreement with the Trial Exam-
iner, that the Respondent, subsequent to the Ljnioin's tiling cf a
representation petition in Case 26-RC-2447, by its interrogations,
'The Respondent operates a community antenna television system and during 1905 pur-
chased and received from out of State goods, materials , and services valued in excess of
$100,000 The parties stipulated, and we find, that foi the pun Poses of these pioceedrng,, the
Respondent s operations satisfy the B'oard's coin munications system staudai ds for a-ert,on
of jurisdiction General Telephone and Electronics Goinninnrcutions Inc, 100 NLRB 1192.
161 NLRB No. 28.
AMERICAN CABLE SYSTEMS, INC. 333
threats, and promises of benefit, interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
We also agree with the Trial Examiner that this post-petition con-
duct interfered with the election and that the election should be set
aside. However, in disagreement with the Trial Examiner, we find
that the Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union was in bad
faith and therefore in violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
We initially find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that on
July 13, the date that the Respondent received the Union's demand
for recognition, the Union had in its possession signed cards from
three of the four employees in an appropriate bargaining unit,2 and
it therefore was majority representative of these employees. The
Respondent excepted to this finding of the Trial Examiner and
contends that the union authorization cards signed by two of these
employees, Aclin and Dodson, were tainted because both of these cards
were solicited by Cook, the signer of the third card, whom the
employees considered to be a supervisor.3
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the cards of Aclin and
Dodson were not tainted for this reason, since an examination of the
circumstances surrounding the solicitation of cards by Cook shows
that neither Aclin nor Dodson was coerced in signing an authorization
card because he felt Cook was a supervisor.
We also agree with the Trial Examiner that Aclin and Dodson's
cards were not tainted because Cook misinformed them as to the
purpose of the cards. The Board has held on a number of occasions
that authorization cards designating the union as bargaining agent
do not lose their force as valid designations because the signers are
told that the cards will be used to obtain an election absent a repre-
sentation that the cards are to be used only to secure an election.'
The cards which were used by the Union in this case clearly state
on their face that the signer designates the Union as his "collective
bargaining representative." In bold letters at the bottom of the face
of the card are the words "REPRESENTATION AUTHORIZA-
TION." No other purpose for the cards is shown on either the face
or the back of the cards. Cook testified that he told both Aclin and
Dodson that the cards were to be used both for having the Union
2 In Case 26-RC-2447 , the Acting Regional Director found that the appropriate unit is :
All production and maintenance employees of American Cable Systems , Inc., at its opera-
tions at West Point , Okolona , and Tupelo , Mississippi ; excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. On October 6, 1965,
the Board denied the Respondent 's request for review of this decision and at the hearing
in this proceeding the parties agreed that they were bound by the Acting Regional Direc-
tor's unit findings.
3 In the representation case , the Acting Regional Director found that Cook was not a
supervisor and that he should be included in the unit
4 The Shelby Manufacturing Company , 155 NLRB 464.
334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
represent them and for having an election , and that he gave both
of them union literature which ;he, told them to read prior to .their
signing of the cards. The Trial Examiner neither credited nor dis-
credited this testimony by Cook. Dodson did not testify that.he was
told that the "only" purpose of the card was to have an election.
On direct examination, Aclin also did not testify that he was told
that. the "only" purpose was for an election . He testified only that
Cook did not mention to him, that the purpose of the card was to have
the Union represent him and that Cook "gave me the card and some
more information-about the Union, an& told me to take it home and
read it over. If I wanted to sign it I could sign it, but I didn't have
to if I didn't want to. He said the card was for the purpose of getting
a Union election, and told me what the election would be for, for the
Union . . . ." The Trial Examiner's statement that Aclin testified
that "lie was told the only purpose of signing the card was to get
an election," was apparently based solely on Aclin's testimony on
cross-examination. This consisted of affirmative responses by Aclin
to several questions propounded by the Respondent's counsel as to
whether he