Frank Smith & Sons

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 13, 1955

112 N.L.R.B. 144 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I particularly find it difficult to understand my colleagues' reiterated
conclusion that such housing has no substantial effect on the national
defense in view of the liberality with which they have applied the new
Maytag standard in other areas. Thus in Hospital Hato Tejas, 111
NLRB 155, they applied the Maytag standard to assert jurisdiction
over a private, for-profit hospital in Puerto Rico, finding that because
it treated veterans under a contract with the Veterans Administration,
its operations were "directly related to the national defense." I The
Board having held (and I agree) that the treatment of veterans of
past wars should be considered an activity "directly related to the na-
tional defense," I would think that a fortiori the provision of necessary
housing to active military personnel at important military installa-
tions would be deemed "directly related to the national defense." In.
any event, I believe that the Armed Services and the Congress have
clearly established their judgment that such activity is so related to
the national defense and I propose to respect that judgment.
Accordingly, I would assert jurisdiction herein on either or both the
direct outflow standard or the national defense standard.
MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Order.
°I found it unnecessary to consider that question as I concurred in the assertion of
jurisdiction in accordance with the rule of plenary jurisdiction in the Territories.
Frank H. Smith , Claude L. Smith , Frank B . Smith , Howard P..
Smith , Morris M. Smith , and Billy J. Smith , d/b/a Frank Smith
& Sons and Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of
North America, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 16-RC-1506. April
13, 1955
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 an election by
secret ballot was conducted on February 11, 1955, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region,.
among the employees in the unit found appropriate in the above-
mentioned Decision. Thereafter, a tally of ballots was furnished the
parties showing that, out of 81 voters casting valid ballots, 45 voted for
the Petitioner, 35 voted against the Petitioner, and 1 cast a challenged
ballot. On February 17, 1955, the Employer filed objections to the
election.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
Director conducted an investigation of the Employer's objections and,.
1 111 NLRB 241.
112 NLRB No. 29.
FRANK SMITH & SONS 145
on March 1, 1955, issued and duly served upon the parties his report
on objections, in which he found that the objections raised no material
and substantial issues with respect to the election and recommended
that the objections be overruled. Thereafter, the Employer filed
timely exceptions to the report on objections.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
In its objections, the Employer alleges that, during May and June
1954 and at various times since, the Petitioner obtained from em-
ployees signatures on authorization cards which contained a pledge
to vote for the Petitioner in the event that a Board election was con-
ducted. The Employer argues therefrom that, as the Petitioner did
not at any time release employees from the pledge, they were unable
to make a free uncoerced choice in the election. The Regional Direc-
tor found that, as the Employer did not submit any evidence that such
cards were solicited after the date of the Decision and Direction of
Election herein, the alleged conduct should not be considered on its
merits under the F. V. Woolrworth Company case,' and recommended
that the objections be overruled. In its exceptions, the Employer
alleges that investigation would reveal that sigiatures to such cards
were obtained up to within a few hours before the election and that, at
any rate, unlike the conduct in the Woolworth case, the pledges ob-
tained prior to the date of the Decision and Direction of Election con-
tinue in their effect up to and including the date of the election. The
Employer renews its contention that the use of such cards constitutes
interference with the free election process.
Assuming that the cards containing the pledge were solicited up to
the time of the election, we find no merit in the Employer's objections.
There is no contention that any coercion or illegal means were em-
ployed in obtaining signatures to these cards. Nor is there any basis
for concluding, as the Employer urges, that the signatories to the
cards weie irrevocably committed to vote for the Petitioner.' Indeed,
the freedom of the employees to vote according to their own desires
was fully protected by the secret ballot in the Board election. We
conclude, therefore, that the solicitation of the pledges herein was a
permissible campaign tactic. Accordingly, as there were no other ob-
jections, we will adopt the Regional Director's recommendations that
the objections be overruled and will certify the Petitioner as the col-
lective-bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit.'
[The Board certified Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Work-
men of North America, AFL, as the designated collective-bargaining
2 109 NLRB 1446
3 Under the Act, whenever a question of representation is found to exist, the only means
provided for resolving the question is a Board election , and pledge cards such as those
here involved cannot be substituted for the election.
4 The challenged ballot does not affect the results of the election
146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate in the
Decision and Direction of Election herein.]
MEMBER LEEnoM took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
Coats & Clark , Inc. (Acworth Plant ) and Textile Workers Union
of America , CIO. Case No. 10-CA-1941. April 14, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 10, 1954, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his
Intermediate Report 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 copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recoinnlenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the following addition.'
We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent
discriminatorily discharged Walker Glover. The Respondent con-
tends that it discharged Glover because it had received numerous com-
plaints concerning his frequent and inordinately long absences from
his place of work, and because on the day of his discharge he disre-
garded his instructions to stay on a specifically assigned job until it
was completed.
The record shows that Glover, a twister cleaner, had been a "pretty
good hand," and that the Respondent had made no complaints about
his work for a period of 6 years. Then, on August 20, 1953, he signed
a union card and became active in the organization of the Respond-
ent's employees. The Respondent knew of and disapproved Glover's
union activities,2 and, significantly, its appraisal of him and his work
performance began to deteriorate simultaneously with this knowledge.
Furthermore, in the period that followed, it unlawfully interrogated
Glover on 2 occasions, and on 5 other occasions, it either threatened
I The Tiial Examiner incorrectly repotted that Dir . and Mrs Glover attended a u n ion
meeting on October 17, 1954 The co rest date is October 17, 1953
2 Although the Respondent denied knowledge of Glover ' s union activities its witnesses
admitted that they knew in August 1953, that Glover was talking to other employees about
the Union. In November 1933, the Respondent 's second shift overseer told an employee
that the union o•ganiz en was not going to do his work for him, and if lie was lined up
with the Glovers, "to hell" with him.
112 NLRB No. 27.