General Shoe Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 3, 1959

123 N.L.R.B. 1492 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

1492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. On September 25, 1957, the Respondents caused to be picketed the site of a
church undergoing construction in Rothschild , Wisconsin , on which project Heiser
supplied ready-mixed concrete to Fred Piette and Sons, general contractor.
6. The picketing of the church site occurred while Heiser's concrete truck was
on the premises for the purpose of delivering concrete.
7. As a consequence and because of the picketing, employees of various con-
tractors on the project refused to enter the premises, and thus did not perform their
customary work.
8. The picketing of the church site ceased when Piette's representative agreed to
cease purchasing material from Heiser.
9. The picket sign carried before each project contained the following legend
on one side:
Heiser Ready Mix is Produced and Hauled
under Inferior Working Conditions
AFL Teamsters Local 446
Wausau
On the reverse side it contained the following legend:
Inferior Working
Conditions at
Heiser Ready-Mix
Destroy Our Standards
AFL Teamsters Local 446
Wausau
10. The picketing was caused by Heiser's failure to sign a collective-bargaining
contract with the Respondent Teamsters.
11. The Respondent Teamsters did not, at any material time, represent or claim
to represent any of Heiser's employees.
12. A purpose of the picketing of the projects was to induce and encourage em-
ployees of contractors engaged on the projects to cease working thereon, or to refuse
to work, during the continuance of the picketing.
13. An object of the picketing was to force and require Langer and Piette to
cease doing business with Heiser.
14. The aforementioned acts of the Respondents are such as would, upon a
proper complaint, constitute unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b) (4) (A) of the Act and require appropriate remedial action. Associated
General Contractors Employers Association of Omaha, Nebraska, Inc., 1116 NLRB
461; Ready Mixed Concrete Company, 117 NLRB 1266.
In its brief Heiser seems to suggest that the actions of the Respondents also con-
stituted violations of Section 8(b)(1) and (2) of the Act, and that appropriate
relief should be granted. However, the General Counsel has alleged violations only
of Section 8(b)(4)(A). The contents of the complaint and prosecution before the
Board are matters entrusted to the sole discretion of the General Counsel. In no
event, therefore, would findings of violation of Section 8(b)(1) and (2) or relief
thereunder be authorized. Moore Dry Dock Co., 92 NLRB 547, footnote 1;
American Snuff Company, 109 NLRB 885, footnote 2.
V. ORDER
The Respondents' motion and prayer to dismiss the complaint is hereby granted.
General Shoe Corporation and Boot and Shoe Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 9-RC-3177. June 3, 1959
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board on January 3, 1958,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted
1 Unpublished.
123 NLRB No. 174.
GENERAL SHOE CORPORATION 1493
on January 31, 1958, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Ninth Region among the employees in the
unit found appropriate by the Board. At the close of the election,
the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that, of
approximately 274 eligible voters, 131 votes were cast for, and 121
against, the Petitioner. Two ballots were challenged and one was
void. The challenged ballots are insufficient to affect the results of
the election.
Thereafter, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct affect-
ing the results of the election 2 In accordance with the Board's Rules
and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation of
the objections and, on January 13, 1959, issued and duly served upon
the parties his report on election, objections to election, and recom-
mendations to the Board. In his report, the Regional Director found
the objections to be without merit and recommended that they be
overruled. The Employer filed timely exceptions to the report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
The Employer filed a general objection and eight specific objections
to the conduct of the election. The Regional Director's recommenda-
tions that the general objection and Objection No. 3 be overruled were
not excepted to and they are hereby adopted.
Objection No. 1 alleges that the Petitioner informed a laid-off em-
ployee who was in fact eligible to vote that she was ineligible to do
so. However, the Regional Director's investigation does not disclose
any evidence of responsibility by the Petitioner for the letter which
the employee involved claims she received advising her of her in-
eligibility to vote. In its exceptions, the Employer asserts that the
Danville Central Labor Union assisted the Petitioner in organizing
its plant and that that organization "might have sent such a letter."
But the Employer's latter assertion is so speculative in character as to
afford no support for this objection. For the reasons given, apart
from other considerations, we agree with the Regional Director that
this objection is without merit.
Objection No. 2 alleges that Petitioner "warned" employees not to
vote if they intended to vote against the Petitioner. Accepting for
purposes of this decision the evidence in the Regional Director's re-
port which is most favorable to the Employer in the instant connec-
tion, it appears that :
2 As recommended by the Regional Director, to which recommendation no exception was
filed, we deny Petitioner's motion to dismiss the objections on the ground that they were
untimely filed.
1494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) An employee of Employer was visited by a former female em-
ployee of the Employer, accompanied by a union representative, who
offered to drive her to the polls if she voted for the Petitioner and
who also told her that if she did not want to vote for the Petitioner
she "need not bother to come in to vote."
(b) Another employee was visited at her home by two men who
claimed to be representatives of the Petitioner. These persons asked
her to vote for Petitioner and one of them said that if she was going
to vote against the Petitioner she "shouldn't vote at all."
(c) A third employee was visited at her home by the former em-
ployee mentioned above and another person unknown to her. Both
persons asked her to vote for the Petitioner and the man who was
unknown to her "asked" her not to vote if she could not vote for
Petitioner. The callers offered the employee a ride to the polls, an
offer they did not withdraw when the employee told them she was
not "particularly in favor of the Union."
Even assuming these facts and the Petitioner's responsibility for
the statements mentioned, we find no unlawful threat or warning
therein or that there was created such a coercive atmosphere as to
prevent a free choice by the employees of a bargaining representative.
Accordingly, this objection of the Employer is also found to have
no merit.
Objection Nos. 4 to 6 allege that promises of benefits and threats
were made to employees to induce them to vote for the Petitioner.
The Regional Director's report contains evidence, which is disputed,
to the effect that one employee was told that there would be wage in-
creases for those who voted for the Petitioner, another was told that
she would not be laid off even though she had less seniority than other
employees, and a third employee was told that certain terminated
employees would be reinstated with back pay. There is no evidence
in the report linking the Petitioner with the aforementioned state-
ments. In its exceptions, the Employer asserts that the person who
promised the employee she would not be laid off was a sister of the
president of a local of the Petitioner and it points to the following
language in literature distributed by Petitioner: "Your vote for the
Boot and Shoe Workers Union means democracy and justice in the
shop, as well as immediate and permanent benefits." Assuming the
truth of the evidence in the report referred to above as well as that of
the assertions contained in Employer's exceptions, we find no re-
sponsibility by Petitioner for any threats or promises of benefits
which would warrant setting the election aside.3 These objections
are therefore rejected as being without merit.
3 Rio de Oro Uranium Mines, Inc.. 120 NLRB 91.
GENERAL SHOE CORPORATION 1495
Objection No. 7 attributes statements to employees by Petitioner
that Employer would "flood" the plant with laid-off employees,
thereby reducing the working hours of other employees, if Petitioner
did not win the election. However, there is a complete absence of
evidence showing Petitioner responsibility for such statements during
the critical period of this case. For this reason alone, the objection
has no merit.
Objection No. 8 alleges threats by Petitioner to laid-off employees
that if they did not vote for it they would be blackballed. But no evi-
dence was uncovered by the Regional Director which supports this
objection and the Employer in its exceptions refers to none. The
Regional Director's investigation does disclose a statement by a laid-
off employee that 2 or 3 weeks before the election he received two
letters from the Petitioner, one of which lefthim with the impression
that he would be recalled to work if the Petitioner won the election
while the other stated that employees at the Cowan, Tennessee, plant
of the Employer had received a raise of 7 cents and that the employees
at the plant involved herein would get a similar raise if the Petitioner
was successful in the election. Petitioner denies responsibility for
any such statements. However, even assuming that the afore-
mentioned statements were made by the Petitioner to an employee
about a week or two before the election, we find such statements to be
campaign propaganda which constitutes no basis for upsetting the
election.5 WWTe agree with the Regional Director that this objection
lacks merit.
During the Regional Director's investigation of the Employer's
objections the Employer advanced the claim that the Petitioner was
fronting for a local which was required to be, but was not, in com-
pliance with Section 9(f), (g), and (h) of the Act. In support of
this contention, the Employer relied on (a) an article in the Kentucky
Labor News of September 22, 1957, (b) provisions of Kentucky State
law, and (c) certain signed statements. The Regional Director in-
vestigated this contention of the Employer and, in his report, finds it
to be without merit and recommends that it be overruled. For the
reasons below, we agree with the Regional Director that this conten-
tion of the Employer is without merit.
With respect to (a) above, the Kentucky Labor News is owned and
published by the Kentucky State Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO.
The September 2, 1957, copy of this publication carries an article
which opens as follows: "The workers at General Shoe Company's
b P. IV. Woolworth Co., 109 NLR73 1446.
6 See General Electric Company, 119 NLRB 944: Rio de Oro Uranium Mines, Inc., supra.
Cf. Thomas Gouzoule et at. d/b /a The Calidyne Company, 117 NLRB 1026.
1496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Danville, Ky. plant have organized a local of Boot and Shoe Workers'
Union, and they invite all employees and interested citizens to a giant
mass meeting to be held the night of September 9 at the Court-
house . . . ." The Regional Director's report plainly shows that
Petitioner was in no way responsible for this article, and it appears
from the tenor of the entire article, and from the circumstances giving
rise to its publication, that the term "local" merely referred, as it was
intended to, to the organizational activity which was taking place
among employees of the Employer.
As for (b), Kentucky State law, according to the Regional Di-
rector's report, makes it unlawful for any national or international
labor organization having 100 or more members in good standing who
reside or work in Kentucky not to have one or more local or sub-
sidiary organizations in the State. The Employer asserts that Peti-
tioner represents employees in another plant in Kentucky and that
some employees at the Employer's plant were members of the Peti-
tioner prior to the election. On the basis of these alleged facts, which
we accept as true for purposes of this decision, the Employer argues
that Petitioner "undoubtedly" had 100 or more members residing or
working in Kentucky and that it therefore must have established a
local at the plant involved pursuant to the requirements of State law.
However, the aforementioned facts do not satisfy us that the Peti-
tioner either was required by Kentucky law to establish a local to
service the employees herein or that it did in fact establish such a
local.
Regarding (c), statements submitted by the Employer and others
obtained by the Regional Director show organizational activity among
employees prior to the election but the evidence is wholly inadequate
to support the Employer's contention that any local affiliated with the
Petitioner existed as of the date of the election which was required to
be in compliance with the filing provisions of the Act. In its excep-
tions, the Employer has not submitted additional evidence to support
its position.
Having found that the Employer's objections lack merit, we hereby
overrule them in their entirety. As the objections and exceptions do
not raise substantial issues of fact, we deny the Employer's request
for a hearings As the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid
ballots cast in the election, we shall certify it as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Boot and Shoe Workers Union, AFL-CIO,
as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees of General Shoe Corporation in the appropriate unit de-
scribed in the Board's Decision and Direction of Election.]
6 The Humko Co., Inc ., 117 NLRB 825.