Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 28, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 943 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

in the Matter of FULTON BAG & COTTON MILLS, EMPLOYER and TEx-
TILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA , CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 21-RC-844
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
ORDER
April 28, 1950
On August 17, 1949, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion issued by the Board on August 4, 1949,1 an election by secret ballot
was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Twenty-first Region. Upon completion of the elec-
tion, a tally of ballots was issued and duly served by the Regional
Director upon the parties concerned. The tally revealed that, of ap-
proximately 60 eligible voters, 56 cast ballots, of which 23 were for
the Petitioner, and 33 were against the Petitioner.
On August 19, 1949, the Petitioner filed a statement of objections to
the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations,
the Regional Director conducted an investigation and issued and duly
served upon the parties a Report on Objections, in which he recom-
mended that a hearing be held on certain objections.
No exceptions having been filed by either of the parties to the Re-
gional Director's Report, the Board, on December 6, 1949, adopted the
recommendation in the Report and ordered that a hearing be held and
directed the hearing officer to make findings and recommendations in
this matter.
Thereafter, a hearing was held January 12 and 13, 1950, before
Daniel J. Harrington, hearing officer of the Board. All parties ap-
peared and participated. In accordance with the Board Order, the
hearing officer issued and caused to be served upon all concerned a
report on objections to the election containing findings of fact and
recommendations to the Board, a copy of which is attached hereto.
I Unpublished.
89 NLRB No. 138.
943
944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although finding the Employer's conduct in one instance "an inter-
ference with employee rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act,"
the hearing officer recommended dismissal of the Petitioner's objec-
tions to the election, feeling "that this single instance of employee.
interrogation was not of sufficient import to interfere with the free
choice of a bargaining representative by the Employer." Thereafter
the Petitioner and the Employer filed exceptions to the report.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the hearing officer and.
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
The Board, having considered the report containing findings of fact,
and recommendations to the Board, the exceptions filed by the Peti-
tioner and the Employer, the briefs filed by the parties, and the entire
record in this case, makes the following findings :
As the hearing officer's findings, based upon testimony involving
the credibility of witnesses, are supported by the record, we adopt the
findings of the hearing officer with respect to objections 2 and 3.
With respect to objection 1, the hearing officer found that Plant
Superintendent Kelly interrogated employee Mildred Sias as to how
she was going to vote in the election. This interrogation occurred.
about a week before the election, and the hearing officer felt that this
incident was too remote in time from the date of the election. We
disagree. The interrogation seems clearly to have been made during:
the preelection campaign period. Nevertheless, we agree with the
hearing officer that Kelly's questioning of Sias does not warrant setting
:aside the election. This was a single instance by a single supervisor
of interrogation unrelated to any other antiunion conduct of the Em-
ployer. It was followed by a protected speech by the plant manager
2 clays before the election in which he stated, among other things, that
the voting was secret and no one would know how the employees voted
tied that if the Petitioner Avon the election, the Employer would bar-
gain with .it in good faith. Under these circumstances, we conclude
that the employees were not prevented by the Employer from exer-
cising a free choice at the polls.2
As the Petitioner has not obtained a majority of valid votes cast
we shall dismiss the petition.
IT IS IIEIEBY ORDERED that the. Petitioner's objections 1, 2, and 3 to
conduct affecting the results of the election conducted on August 4,
1949, be, and they are hereby, overruled.
2 Cf. Rice-Stir of Arkansas , Inc., -79 NLRB 1. 333 ; Opelika Textile Mills, Inc., 81 NLRB
594. Cf . West Texas Utilities Company, Inc., 85 NLRB 1396 ; The Pure Oil Company,
75 NLRB 539.
FULTON BAG & COTTON MILLS
ORDER
945
IT IS x1EREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HEEzoG and Member Styles took no part in the Con-
sideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Order.
HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT ON OBJECTIONS TO ELECTION
Latham cE Watkins , by Mr. R. W. Lnad, for the Employer.
Mr. Anthony Ram glia , for the Petitioner.
Upon a petition duly filed, the Board on August 4, 1949, issued its Decision
and Direction of Election in which it directed that an election be conducted
among certain employees of Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills, hereinafter referred
to as the Employer. On August 17, 1949, pursuant to the direction of the Board,
an election was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California). On the same.
day a tally of ballots was furnished the parties by the Regional Director which
showed that, of approximately 60 eligible voters, 56 cast ballots, of which 23:
were for Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, hereinafter referred to as the
Petitioner, and 33 were against the Petitioner.
On August 19, 1949, the Petitioner filed with the Regional Director objections.
to conduct affecting results of the election.
On November 21, 1949, the Regional Director, following an investigation,.
issued and served on the parties his Report on Objections. The Regional
Director found that three of the objections raised substantial and material issues;
with respect to the election and recommended that a hearing be held with respect
to such objections.
No exceptions having been filed by either of the parties to the Regional-
Director's Report, the Board, on December 6, 1949, adopted the recommendation
in the report and ordered that a hearing be held.' Pursuant to notice a hearing
was held on January 12 and 13, 1950, before the undersigned Hearing Officer-
duly designated for that purpose, at which time the Employer and. the Peti-
tioner appeared and participated and were afforded full opportunity to be.
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to.introduce evidence bear-
ing upon the issues. At the close of the Petitioner's case the Employer moved
to dismiss the proceeding on the grounds of lack of substantial evidence to sustain
the objections. Ruling on said motion was reserved to the Board for appropriate.
disposition. For the reasons set forth hereafter, the undersigned recommends
that the motion be granted. Subsequent to the hearing the parties filed briefs,
which have been considered by the undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case, including the briefs, and from his obser-
vation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following :
' The Order of the Board directed the Hearing Officer to prepare and serve upon the,
parties a report containing findings of fact and recommendations to the Board as to the,
disposition of the objections.
946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Petitioner's objections, as limited in the order directing hearing on
objections, are as follows :
1. Several days before the election Employer representatives coerced and
intimidated employees by asking how they were going to vote and intimating
that "it might be disastrous for them" if the Petitioner won.
2. In the preelection period there was a wide-spread rumor in the plant
that the plant would be shut down if the Petitioner won.
3. At a meeting of employees called by the Employer two days prior to the
election, the plant manager offered to restore to the employees Christmas
bonuses which they had formerly received.
OBJECTION 1
Mildred Sias, an employee, testified that about it week prior to the election
J. C. Kelly, plant superintendent, asked her how she was going to vote in the
election. Kelly testified that, although he asked employees whether they were
going to vote, he did not remember whether or not he asked Sias anything about
the election. In view of Kelly's failure to expressly deny the statement attributed
to him and from observation of Sias and Kelly as witnesses, the undersigned
credits Sias' testimony and finds that Kelly made the statement attributed to
him by Sias.
Sias further testified that during the week preceding the election Forelady
Luella Townsend 2 asked her whether a majority of the employees was in favor
of the Union. It was not clear from Sias' testimony as to whether or not Town-
send also asked her whether she was in favor of the Union. Townsend denied
asking Sias the above questions and stated that Sias without any solicitation vol-
unteered to her the information that a number of the girls were in favor of the
Union. The undersigned credits the testimony of Townsend in this respect and
finds that she did not make the statement attributed to her by Sias.
No evidence was introduced that any threats of economic reprisal were made
to any employees and the undersigned so finds.
On August 15, 1949, 2 days before the election, two meetings of employees were
held in the plant, one a meeting of turners, the other a meeting of sewers. J. C:
Baldwin, plant manager, spoke at both meetings. Baldwin stated, inter alia,
that he had never been antiunion ; that he was not attempting to tell the em-
ployees how they should vote ; that it was it matter the employees were to decide
for themselves ; that all employees should vote; that the Employer wanted a
decisive vote one way or the other ; that the voting was secret and no one would
know how the employees voted; and that, if the Petitioner won the election, the
Employer would bargain with it in good faith. In addition, at one of the meet-
ings Baldwin stated that he had never fought organization of employees, although
he felt that a union was not needed in the plant. The Petitioner concedes that
these remarks were protected activities.
OBJECTION 2
For about 2 weeks prior to the election • there was a rumor among the
employees that the plant would be shut down if the Petitioner won the election.
2 In its Decision and Direction of Election issued in this matter on August 4, 1949, the
Board found that Townsend was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and excluded
her from the unit it found to be appropriate.
FULTON BAG & COTTON MILLS 947
There was testimony at the hearing that Harold L. Brooks, whom the Petitioner
contends to be a supervisory employee, made such statements to employees. In
the prior hearing in this matter, held on July 6, 1949, testimony was taken con-
cerning the duties of Brooks. In its brief filed subsequent to that hearing, the
Petitioner did not refer to Brooks as a supervisor although it argued that certain
other persons were supervisors. In its Decision and Direction of Election the
Board made no finding with respect to Brooks. At the election Brooks acted as
the Employer's representative without objection on the part of the Petitioner
and voted without challenge. In his report on objections the Regional Director
made no finding as to whether or not Brooks was a supervisor. Testimony at the
instant hearing showed that Brooks is a shipping clerk and was employed in that
capacity at the time of the election. He does not have authority to hire or fire,
works on an hourly wage rate as do the other employees, and works the same
hours and has the same vacation. He does not have any employees under his
supervision, although at times he has employees helping him. On such occasions
he requests help from his superiors who assign employees to help him temporarily.
Brooks does not have authority to assign work, discipline employees, handle
grievances, or make recommendations with respect to the employees who work
with him. The undersigned finds that Brooks is not a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act and that the Employer is not responsible for any remarks
attributed to him.
No supervisory employee had anything to do with initiating or circulating the
above rumor. Moreover, Plant Manager Baldwin. in the two meetings held on
August 15, 1949, with employees, positively denied the rumor and definitely stated
that the plant would not close down if the Petitioner won the election. At other
times during the preelection period when employees asked Baldwin, Kelly, and
Townsend if the plant would close if the Petitioner won the election, they replied
in the negative.
On the basis of all the testimony the undersigned finds that the Employer did
not initiate or circulate the rumor, but, on the contrary, took positive steps to
dispel it.
OBJECTION 3
The Petitioner contends that at the meetings held on August 15, 1949, Plant
Manager Baldwin offered to the employees restoration of a Christmas bonus
which they had at one time received.
In the meeting of the turners no mention was made of a Christmas bonus.
Elizabeth Provost, who attended the meeting of the sewers, testified that at the
end of Baldwin's remarks, one of the older employees in the point of seniority
asked whether the employees would ever again receive a Christmas bonus that a
predecessor of the Employer had at one time given, to which Baldwin replied
that lie did not know "but he could try" and indicated that the employees should
put the suggestion in a suggestion box maintained in the plant. According to
Provost, Baldwin also stated that he was not in a position to and did not have
authority to answer the question, inasmuch as he was merely an employee the
same as the other employees.
Baldwin stated that after lie had finished talking one of the older employees
asked if there were any possibility of again receiving Christmas bonus. Accord-
ing to Baldwin, he replied that lie was an employee the same as the other
employees, that he had no authority to discuss the matter of a bonus, and that
he doubted very much if a company as large as the Employer could consider
Christmas gifts. Baldwin denied that he stated or implied that he would take
889227-51-vol. 89-61
948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the matter up further. He testified that he stated that he did not have authority
to bring up the subject and that the suggestion box in the plant was the place to
put that or any other suggestion.3 Baldwin's testimony was corroborated by
Townsend.
On the basis of all the testimony in the case and from his observation of the
witnesses, the undersigned credits Baldwin's version of the matter.
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons set forth in this report the undersigned finds that objections
2 and 3 do not have merit.
With respect to objection 1, the undersigned finds that Plant Superintendent
Kelly's interrogation of Sias constitutes an interference with employee rights
guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act'
Kelly's interrogation of Sias occurred about a week before the election. The
question remains as to whether this interrogation, standing alone, and in view
of Plant Manager Baldwin's speeches to the employees 2 days before the elec-
tion, so interfered with the exercise of the free choice of representatives by
the employees participating in the election as to warrant setting it aside. The
undersigned is aware that "the number of instances of interference or the number
of employees directly involved are not material to the issue."' Nevertheless,
in view of Baldwin's speech as to the Employer's position with respect to the
election, and the remoteness of the time of the interrogation from the date of
the election, the undersigned concludes that this single instance of employee
interrogation was not of sufficient import to interfere with the free choice of a
bargaining representative by the Employer.'
RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned is of the opinion that the single instance of interference
found did not affect.the results of the election of August 17, 1949, so as to
warrant its being set aside and reconunends that the Board so find.
As provided in the order directing hearing on objections, any party, within
ten (10) days of receipt of this report, may file with the Board in Washington,
D C., an original and six (6) copies of exceptions thereto. Immediately upon
the filing of such exceptions, the party filing shall serve a copy thereof upon
the other party and shall file a copy with the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region.
Dated at Los Angeles, California, this 15th day of March 1950.
DANIEL J. HARRINGTON,
Hearing Officer.
3 Anything put in the suggestion box had to be referred to the Employer 's head office in
Atlanta, Georgia.
4 Empire Pencil Company, 86 NLRB 11 . 87 ; Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Company , 85 NLRB
1358; Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation , 82 NLRB 161.
5 U. S. Rubber Co., 86 NLRB 3.
NAPA New York Warehouse, Inc., 75 NLRB 1269; Kroder-Roubel Company, Inc., 72
NLRB 240.