Genesco

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 22, 1967

164 N.L.R.B. 862 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hobco Mfg . Co., an Operating Division of
Genesco and International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union , AFL-CIO. Case 10-RC-6449.
May 22,1967
DECISION ON REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVE
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election
issued on November 10, 1965, by the Regional
Director for Region 10 of the National Labor
Relations Board, an election was conducted under
his supervision on December 22, 1965, among the
employees in the unit found appropriate.' At the
conclusion of the election, the parties were
furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of
approximately 111 eligible voters, 110 cast ballots, of
which 60 were for, and 49 were against, Petitioner,
with 1 ballot challenged. Thereafter, the Employer
filed timely objections to the results of the election.
Pursuant to the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure,
Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director
conducted an investigation and, on February 18,
1966, issued and served on the parties his
supplemental decision, order, and direction of
second election. He found that objection 1, to the
extent it involved the Petitioner's alleged
reproduction of the Board's official ballot in
Petitioner's handbill, and objection 5, which involved
the failure of the Petitioner to identify itself as the
sponsor of certain campaign propaganda, each
constituted grounds for setting aside the election.
The Regional Director therefore sustained these
objections, ordered that the election conducted on
December 22, 1965, be set aside, and directed that a
second election be conducted. He further found that
the remaining portions of objection 1 and
objections 2, 3, and 4 were without merit and
overruled them. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed with
the Board a timely request for review of the Regional
Director's supplemental decision with respect to
objection 1, to the extent it involved the alleged
reproduction of a ballot, and to objection 5. The
Employer filed a timely request for review of the
Regional Director's finding that the alleged racial
propaganda involved in objection 2 did not
constitute a basis for setting aside the election.
i All production and maintenance employees of the Employer
at its Hobson City, Alabama, plant, including the plant clerical
employees and trainers, but excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act
2 Many of the Employer ' s exceptions are to the Trial
On April 1, 1966, the Board granted the
Petitioner's request for review and reserved
consideration of the issues raised by the Employer's
request for review. Upon grant of review, the
Employer filed a brief.
On May 31, 1966, the Board issued its Decision on
Review and Order in which it overruled objections 1
and 5, found that objection 2 raised substantial and
material issues which could best be resolved by a
hearing, and ordered that a hearing be held before a
Trial Examiner for the purpose of taking testimony
to resolve the issues raised by objection 2 and the
Employer's request for review of the Regional
Director's supplemental decision, order, and
direction of second election.
Pursuant to the Board's Order, a hearing was held
on July 19, 20, and 21, 1966, before
David S. Davidson, Trial Examiner. All parties
participated and were given full opportunity to
examine and cross-examine witnesses and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues. On
November 28, 1966, the Trial Examiner issued and
duly served on the parties his report on objections,
hereto attached, wherein he recommended the
Employer's objection 2 be overruled and that the
Petitioner be certified as the bargaining
representative of the employees in the unit found
appropriate. Thereafter the Employer filed
exceptions and a supporting brief; the Petitioner
filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's
report on objections.
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 case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's report on objections, the Employer's
exceptions2 thereto and brief, the Petitioner's brief,
and the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
1. We agree, for the reasons stated by the Trial
Examiner, that the Petitioner's racial propaganda in
this case was not designed to inflame racial hatred,
but rather was designed to encourage racial
economic betterment through concerted activity,
Examiner's credibility resolutions It is the Board's policy,
however, not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with
respect to credibility unless, as is not the case here, the clear
preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91
NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3)
164 NLRB No. 118
HOBCO MFG. CO. 863
and therefore may not properly be considered as a
basis for setting aside the election.3
2. With respect to the rumor that the Employer
would replace the Negro employees with white
employees if the Petitioner lost the election, we do
not believe that it was sufficiently widespread
among the employees to warrant setting the election
aside.
Accordingly, we overrule the Employer's
objections to the election. As a tally of the ballots
indicates that a majority of the employees voted for
the Union, we shall certify it as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that the International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO, has
been designated and selected by a majority of the
employees in the unit found appropriate in
footnote 1, above, as their representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining , and that , pursuant
to Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the said labor organization is the
exclusive representative of all employees in such
unit for purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of employment,
and other terms and conditions of employment.
second election, and the Employer requested review of the
Regional Director's decision to the extent that it overruled
the Employer's second objection.
By order dated April 1, 1966, the Board granted the
Union's request for review and reserved consideration of
the issues raised by the Employer's request for review.
Thereafter, on May 31, 1966, the Board issued its Decision
on Review and Order. In it the Board reversed the
Regional Director's disposition of the first and fifth
objections and overruled them, but ordered that a hearing
be held before a Trial Examiner to be designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner "for the purpose of taking testimony
to resolve the issues raised by objection 2 and the
Employer's request for review of the Regional Director's
Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of Second
Election." The Board's Order provided further that upon
conclusion of the hearing the designated Trial Examiner
"shall prepare and cause to be served on the parties a
report containing resolutions of the credibility of
witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to the
Board as to the disposition of said issues."
Pursuant to the Board's Order, a hearing was held at
Anniston, Alabama, on July 19, 20, and 21, 1966. All
parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to adduce relevant evidence, and to examine and
cross-examine witnesses. At the conclusion of the hearing
the parties were given leave to file briefs, which were
received from the Employer and Petitioner. I
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
1. FINDINGS OF FACT
3 See The Baltimore Luggage Company, 162 NLRB 1230.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S REPORT ON OBJECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID S. DAVIDSON, Trial Examiner: Pursuant to a
decision and direction of election in this case by the
Regional Director for Region 10, an election by secret
ballot was conducted on December 22, 1965, among the
employees in the unit found appropriate therein to
determine whether or not they wished to be represented
by Petitioner. The results of the election showed that of
approximately 111 eligible voters, 60 cast valid votes for,
and 49 cast valid votes against the Union. One challenged
ballot was cast, and there were no void ballots.
On December 29, 1965, the Employer filed timely
objections to the election. Following an investigation, on
February 18, 1966, the Regional Director issued his
supplemental decision, order, and direction of second
election. In it the Regional Director found that the
Employer's first and fifth objections raised substantial and
material issues with respect to conduct affecting the
results of the election, and he ordered that the election be
set aside and a second election conducted. The Regional
Director found that the remaining objections filed by the
Employer were without merit and overruled them.
Thereafter, Petitioner requested review of the Regional
Director's supplemental decision, order, and direction of
' At the conclusion of the hearing , pursuant to the agreement of
the parties at the hearing , a stipulation relating to Petitioner's
Exh 2 was submitted The stipulation is received in evidence as
part of Petitioner's Exh 2 to which it is attached After the close
A. Introduction
The Employer's second objection to the election is as
follows:
For the purpose of improperly and unlawfully
influencing the outcome of the election, the Union, its
agents, representatives and others on its behalf,
circulated false and misleading information about the
employer and other material facts, and injected
extraneous issues designed to instill racial
discrimination and hatred into its organizing
campaign.
Hobson City, Alabama, is a city inhabited entirely by
Negroes a few miles from Anniston , Alabama. Until 1964,
Hobson City had no industry . At that time, the Employer
opened its plant in Hobson City to manufacture women's
undergarments. At all times material since then the plant
has had a work force composed entirely of Negroes.
Approximately 25 of the more than 100 employees
employed by the Employer reside in Hobson City, and the
remainder come from Anniston and the surrounding area.
In June 1965, the Union began an organizing campaign
at the Hobson City plant. It first sent to the area one
organizer and later two more, all Negroes, to contact the
employees in the plant and persuade them to sign
authorization cards and vote for the Union . With the
exception of the limited participation of Ben Dansavage,
organizational coordinator for the Union 's Southeast
Region , the organizing campaign was conducted entirely
of the hearing both Employer and Petitioner filed motions to
correct the transcript of the hearing I have ruled on these
motions by separate order
864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by Negroes. In the course of the campaign the Union
asked for and received organizing assistance from leaders
of local civil rights organizations, the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference in Atlanta, and from officials of
other unions in the area.
B. The Participation of Civil Rights Leaders in the
Campaign
On two occasions in December 1965, before the
election, Rev. Joseph E. Boone, of Atlanta, Georgia, came
to Anniston and Hobson City, to address gatherings to
which the Employer's employees were invited. Rev. Boone
is a member of the staff of the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference, referred to hereafter as the
SCLC, and is an assistant to Dr. Martin Luther King. He
works primarily in connection with an effort known as
Operation Breadbasket, which has as its purpose the
economic improvement of deprived Negroes. He also is a
representative of the SCLC in an alliance formed between
it and certain unions, including the International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, which work together to pursue
similar goals by helping unions win elections. Prior to
1959, Rev. Boone had lived in Anniston, where he served
as pastor of a church and as president of the Calhoun
County Voters Registration Group, a civil rights oriented
organization which was the predecessor to the Calhoun
County Improvement Association.
One of the meetings which Rev. Boone was asked to
address was a meeting of the Calhoun County
Improvement Association, referred to hereafter as the
CCIA, which was held on December 12, 1965, in Hobson
City at the Rising Star Methodist Church. Notices of this
meeting were distributed to the employees of the
Employer by Petitioner. Rev. Boone's second visit to
Anniston in connection with the campaign was on
December 21, 1965, the night before the election, to
address an assembly of employees at a party held by
Petitioner at Club 35 in Anniston. Insofar as the record
shows, Rev. Boone's appearances at the meeting and the
party constituted the full extent of his activity in this
campaign. The content of his remarks on these occasions
is set forth separately below.
Petitioner also requested and received assistance from
Dr. Gordon A. Rodgers, Jr., a dentist prominent in civil
rights activities in Anniston. Dr. Rodgers is president of
the Alabama State Coordinating Association for
Registration and Voting, president of the Anniston
Calhoun County Voters League, and a vice president of
the CCIA. He is also a member of the NAACP, and has
served as president of the Calhoun County branch and of
the State chapter. Dr. Rodgers spoke by invitation of
Petitioner at a union meeting held on December 8, 1965,
and at the party held on December 21, 1965, at Club 35.
Rev. N. Q. Reynolds, an active minister in Anniston, is
president of the CCIA and a member of the Human
Relations Council appointed by the City of Anniston.
Rev. Reynolds presided at and spoke at the December 12
meeting of the CCIA.
I Even before this meeting, about a month or two before the
election, Striplin was asked by the Employer's plant manager if he
knew any persons who would like to work at the plant As a result,
he visited some prospective employees at their homes and in
talking to some who subsequently went to work at the plant, he
urged them to vote against the Union in the election
9 The ad pointed out that the citizens of Hobson City had
worked long and hard to attract industry to Hobson City and that
In addition to their participation in the above-described
meeting, Dr Rodgers and Rev. Reynolds supplied to
Petitioner statements for incorporation in a full-page ad
placed in the Anniston Star on Sunday, December 19, by
the Union. The ad, in general, urged the Hobco employees
to vote for the Union in the election. Their statements
were:
The Anniston Calhoun County Voters' League thinks
that the working man has made great strides through
organization; therefore, we endorse those efforts.
Dr. Gordon A. Rodgers
President
The Calhoun County Improvement Association, Inc.,
is in favor of organized labor and believes that it has
shared in a most favorable and forceful manner in the
advancement of labor . We therefore endorse the
effort of the International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union , AFL-CIO.
N. G. Reynolds
President
Other prominent Negroes who had no direct connection
with Petitioner or the plant but participated in the
campaign were D. D. Glover and Grant Oden . Glover is
president of Local 414, International Molders and Allied
Workers' Union , AFL-CIO , and a vice president of the
Northern District of the Alabama Labor Council
AFL-CIO. Glover and other officers of his local furnished
a statement supporting Petitioner for its December 19 ad.
In addition , he made a number of calls to employees'
homes with Petitioner 's representatives and spoke at the
December 21 party. Oden, a member of another union and
treasurer of the Calhoun County Improvement
Association, was present at the December 12 meeting of
the Association and at the December 21 party. According
to one witness , Oden made a brief statement at the party
in support of the Petitioner.
Not all the Negro leadership in the area, however,
supported the Union . J. R. Striplin , mayor of Hobson City,
attended the December 12 meeting of the CCIA and, as
set forth below , spoke in opposition to organization of the
plant . 2 After Petitioner 's ad appeared in the Anniston Star
on December 19, containing the endorsements of the
Calhoun County Voters League and the CCIA, Mayor
Striplin was asked by the editor of the paper if he would
like to make a reply. Two days later, a full-page ad
appeared in the paper signed by Mayor Striplin and the
Council for Hobson City, all of whom are Negroes , urging
the employees to reject the Union.3
C. The December 8 Union Meeting
On December 8, Petitioner held a special meeting at the
hall of Local 414 of the Molders' Union. Notices for the
meeting, which were distributed at the plant by Petitioner,
announced that Dr. Rodgers would be the keynote
the Union had done nothing to help Hobson City In obvious
reference to the civil rights leaders of the area, the ad stated,
"There are some people of Calhoun County who have taken it
upon themselves to tell the workers of our GENESCO plant to
vote in a union Where were these people and the Union when we
were busy trying to get GENESCO to build a plant in Hobson
City"
HOBCO MFG. CO. 865
speaker.4 About nine employees attended the December 8
meeting. To the extent that the evidence indicates,
Dr. Rodgers' remarks concerned the reasons for the
development of the labor movement. There is no evidence
that Dr. Rodgers or anyone else touched on any racial or
civil rights matters at this meeting.
D. The December 12 Meeting of the Calhoun County
Improvement Association
On December 12, CCIA held a meeting in Hobson City
at the Rising Star Methodist Church." Approximately 75 to
100 persons attended , an undisclosed number of whom
were employees of Hobson .6 Rev. Boone was the principal
speaker at the meeting and was introduced by
Rev. Reynolds. Rev. Boone spoke for about half an hour.
His speech covered a number of topics of general interest
in the civil rights field , including voter registration,
poverty, employment, Operation Breadbasket, educational
facilities, and housing. Near the end of his speech
Rev. Boone mentioned the alliance of SCLC with a
number of unions and the organizing campaign at Hobco.
He urged that Hobco be unionized.
According to Mayor Striplin, who was present at the
meeting, in the course of Rev. Boone's remarks about
Hobco he said "that any plants that would hire Negroes
and so forth, you might know they are trying to get by
paying cheap wages."' Mayor Striplin also testified that
after Rev. Boone finished his remarks, Rev. Reynolds
spoke in favor of the Union and said "that any company
with all Negro employees were trying to get out for cheap
labor, and this is what they are trying to do, and he didn't
go along with that." Rev. Reynolds and Rev. Boone each
denied making the statements attributed to them.8
All three witnesses who testified with respect to this
meeting at times displayed less than clear recollection of
the events, perhaps understandably in view of the time
which elapsed between the meeting and the hearing.
Rev. Boone in particular is a busy man who speaks on
numerous occasions as spokesman for Operation
Breadbasket to similar groups on similar themes.
Rev. Boone conceded that he held the opinion embodied
in the statement which Mayor Striplin attributed to him
and that on other occasions he had stated it in connection
with the Scripto plant in Atlanta. Rev. Boone also
conceded that he knew that the employees of Hobco were
all Negroes. Rev. Reynolds could not recall what
Rev. Boone said with respect to Hobco but remembered
that Rev. Boone referred to the Scripto plant in his
remarks. Griggs and Glover who were identified as present
at this meeting and might have been questioned with
respect to the statements made at this meeting were called
as witnesses by the Union but not questioned about it.
Although weaknesses were apparent in the testimony of
Mayor Striplin as well," I am presuaded that he did not
invent the remarks which he attributed to Rev. Boone at
the December 12 meeting. Although it may well have
faded from Rev. Boone's memory, I find that at this
meeting he said that any company that employed all
Negroes was trying to get away with paying cheap wages.10
E. The December 21 Party
On December 21, the Union held a party at Club 35, a
restaurant in Anniston, to which employees of Hobco and
guests were invited. Alcoholic beverages were served.
From 100 to 130 persons attended of whom about 65 or 70
were employees at Hobco. Late in the evening speeches in
support of the Union were made by Glover, Dr. Rodgers,
Rev. Boone, who came to Anniston for the meeting, and by
Dansavage. Much of what was said is undisputed.
Rev. Boone introduced the other speakers and spoke
last.]' Glover spoke for a few minutes about the
advantages of organizing, the future of organizing in the
area if Hobco was organized, and what the employees in
the plant where he worked were paid before they had a
union as compared to their present wages.
Dr. Rodgers told the employees that they were
privileged to be able to vote and compared their State to
that of his foreparents who he said were slaves, worked for
nothing all their lives, and had no opportunity to organize.
He told them that the next day was their day of decision
and ended his remarks by leading the group in singing,
"Which Side are You on."
Rev. Boone covered a number of the same topics that he
mentioned in his earlier speech at the CCIA meeting on
December 12, including education, unemployment, and
poverty. He told the employees that the University of
" This same notice also informed the employees of the CCIA
meeting scheduled for December 12 with Rev Boone as keynote
speaker
'This was a regular meeting. It appears that the CCIA
meetings were held at various churches around Anniston and
Calhoun County. As I believe it immaterial to the issues herein, I
find it unnecessary to resolve a conflict in the testimony as to
whether CCIA had ever met previously in Hobson City
6 No accurate estimate of the number of the employees present
was given by any witness However , according to Union
Representative Griggs, who attended but had only been in the
area a short time, he recognized about five employees of Hobco in
the audience He testified 80 percent of the audience were male
while 95 percent of the employees in the plant are female In
addition to the December 8 notice, a second notice of this meeting
was delivered to the employees at the plant by Petitioner on
December 10
° Mayor Stnplm testified that before this remark , Rev Boone
said that anyone who was working for $1 25 was still living in
poverty and then turned to the Hobco campaign , pointing out that
Hobco employees were making $ 1.25 an hour and were still living
in poverty . These statements were related to Federal guidelines
defining poverty
8 Striphn also testified without contradiction that after the close
of the meeting a small discussion started between Striplin and
several others over the union campaign at Hobco in which he said
that the plant had only been there 6 months and that if it was
organized at that time there was a question whether the plant
would stay or go Striplin said that the people of Hobson City did
not want it to go Rev Reynolds commented that if it would leave
for that reason , they should let it go Rev Reynolds and
Rev Boone . testified that Mayor Striplin also spoke to this effect
from the floor to the assembled group before the meeting
adjourned
" Mayor Striplin was evasive in response to questions about the
December 21 newspaper ad which he signed , and his testimony
generally with respect to his own activities in connection with the
campaign impressed me as not completely candid
10 In this connection, I have concluded that all three witnesses
were more accurate in their testimony as to what they recalled
than they were in their denials I thus find that Rev Reynolds
made the remark attributed to him by Striplin , and that Striplin
expressed his opposition to the Union to the assembled group
before the meeting adjourned as well as thereafter to a smaller
group
" Dansavage spoke only briefly to urge a "Yes" vote the next
day
866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Alabama and Auburn were open and expensive and that
they should try to break the barrier by sending their
children there. In his speech Rev. Boone pointed out their
need for unity and sacrifices . He said that the late
Medgar Evers had made a sacrifice , that he had chosen to
stay in Mississippi when he could have left, and that when
he was shot in the back, he fell forward . He told the
employees that Evers was a man who stood up for his
rights and believed in justice and that the employees
should do the same in the coming election.
During his speech , Rev. Boone read a copy of a telegram
from Martin Luther King, copies of which were distributed
to the employees at the meeting. The telegram referred to
prior joint efforts of the Negro ministers of Atlanta and the
SCLC with the Chemical Workers' Union to win a victory
in "a struggle to obtain better wages , working conditions,
and human dignity" for more than 700 Negro women who
had been paid a maximum of $1.30 an hour. The telegram
included:
ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT CONFRONTS AMERICA
TODAY IS THE LOW POVERTY LEVEL TO WHICH SO
MANY OF OUR NEGRO CITIZENS ARE SUBJECTED. THE
CHURCH AND COMMUNITY CAN NO LONGER REMAIN
SILENT WHILE THE INJUSTICE OF ECONOMIC
DEPRIVATION, HUMILIATION, AND EXPLOITATION
FACE A LARGE SEGMENT OF AMERICA'S PEOPLE.
I THEREFORE APPEAL TO FREEDOM-LOVING
CITIZENS OF CALHOUN COUNTY, ALABAMA, TO JOIN
WITH THESE FINE WOMEN AND THE INTERNATIONAL
LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION IN THEIR
EFFORTS TO OBTAIN THE GOALS OF BETTER WORKING
CONDITIONS, BETTER WAGES, AND HUMAN DIGNITY.
Boone explained that Dr. King had wanted to be present
with the employees that night but had been prevented
from coming by the illness of his father. In the course of
his remarks, Boone also stated that President Johnson and
the Federal Government had set an income of $3,000 a
year as a guideline for determining whether a family was in
poverty. He asked for a show of hands from those
employees present to indicate whether any there made
that much or more, no hands were raised. At some point
during the meeting, Rev. Boone led the employees in
singing "We Shall Overcome."
Four employees, called as witnesses by the Employer,
testified that additional statements were made by the
speakers. Employee Junnie Hill testified that Dr. Rodgers
told the employees that "we should wake up and stick
together and not let white people make a fool of us."
According to Mrs. Hill, he also said, "they would pat us on
our back and lie to us." Employee Elizabeth Graham
similarly testified that Dr. Rodgers said that "the white
man would tell us lies and pat us on the back and smile in
our faces." She testified further that Rev. Boone in his
speech said that the colored people had been made fools of
by the white people. Employee Smith Rowe, Jr., testified
that Dr. Rodgers said that the employees were "nothing
but fools for working for poor white trash" and that they
should be getting paid more. Employee Patricia Harris
testified that Dr. Rodgers told the employees that it was
time for the Negro employees to wake up and not let the
white people make fools of them. According to
Mrs. Harris, Rodgers also said that "they will tell you lies
and grin in your face or pat you on the back."
Rev. Boone and Dr. Rodgers each denied making at any
time the statements attributed to them by these
witnesses.12 Glover testified that he might have listened
some but not wholeheartedly to the other speakers and
that he did not hear anyone say anything about anyone
making a fool out of anyone else. Union Representative
Mason London testified that he did not hear the other
speakers too well, did not hear any reference to race at the
party, and did not hear "white" used as a racial
description. Union Representative Griggs, who was
present at the party and testified with respect to other
matters, was not asked about the speeches at the party.
The testimony of the four employee witnesses indicates
that all four were referring to a single statement or
sequence of statements made by Dr. Rodgers and that
variances in their testimony as to the content of
Dr. Rodgers' remarks are attributable to the inaccuracies
of perception, recollection, and articulation that to some
extent affect all testimony and particularly testimony
relating to oral statements of another at some point in the
past. Again, however, as in the case of Mayor Striplin,
their testimony did not impress me as invented, and I am
satisfied that the common thread of their testimony had
basis in fact. Accordingly, I find that in the course of his
remarks, Dr. Rodgers told the employees that whites
would lie to them, smile at them, and pat them on their
backs, and that they should stick together and not let
whites make fools of them. I do not find, however, that
Dr. Rodgers used the term "poor white trash," or that
Rev. Boone made any remarks similar to those that I have
found were made by Dr. Rodgers. Employee Smith Rowe
was not corroborated by any other witness.
Patricia Harris, who testified after Rowe, did not hear any
speaker use the words "poor white trash" and the two
other witnesses, who testified before Rowe, did not
mention the use of these words. Elizabeth Graham was the
only witness who attributed any of the statements at issue
to Rev. Boone, and I am persuaded that she was mistaken
in her recollection.
F. The Statements Attributed to the Union Organizers and
Related Rumors
Four employees testified to statements made by union
organizers while visiting employees at their homes during
the campaign. Dorothy Cunningham testified that she was
visited at her home by Mason London and a minister
whom she could not name. According to her testimony,
London urged her to sign a card for the Union and told her
"we really wasn't being treated fair and if they hired some
whites that we would be treated more fairly, and that we
would get more pay." She added that he said that the
Company "didn't want to hire any because if they hired
them that our paychecks would have to go up because the
whites wouldn't work for what we were working for."
Mrs. Cunningham on direct examination did not testify
as to the date of this incident. On cross-examination, she
placed it in September or October. She also testified that it
was during the fall of the year when they first started
trying to get the Union in. She ultimately testified that she
did not know whether it was in late July, August,
September, or October, that it was around the time her
11 Rev Boone also testified that he could not recall what the
other speakers said at the party
HOBCO MFG. CO.
first child started to school on September 6, 1965, but she
could not say whether it was before or after her child
started school. She also testified that London visited her
twice.
Helen Copeland testified that London made two visits to
her home a few days apart in mid-November, shortly after
she was employed at the plant. She testified that on both
occasions, London urged her to join the Union and said
that by April the Employer would hire some white
employees and that they would be paid higher wages than
the Negro girls but that if the Union got in, they would all
be paid equally. According to Mrs. Copeland, on the
second visit someone who looked like Union Organizer
Griggs accompanied London Mrs. Copeland could not
estimate how long London stayed on either of his visits but
stated that she was busy on both occasions with house
chores. She testified further that until London's visits she
had heard no rumor about whites being hired in April.
During the week which followed, however, she heard a
similar rumor from one other girl in the plant who had not
been there any length of time,'and thereafter she heard no
further reference to the hiring of whites.
Mary Alice Coleman testified that shortly after she
started work, also in November, she was visited by a man
who said he was from the Union and asked to talk to her,
but she refused to talk at that time. About a week or two
later, someone else came and identified himself as from
the Union but did not give his name. She said that she did
not want to talk about it but, according to her testimony,
he said, "I want to let you in on what is going to happen
after the first of the year.... In the first place, they have
no intention of keeping all the new girls they have hired.
... After the first of the year, they are going to put in a
weaving machine and hire all whites and they are going to
let all the Negroes go and they are supposed to be making
at least $1.65 an hour and that is why we need a union."
She testified further that he also said that the employer
could not fire the girls who were there if the Union was
there. On her direct examination Mrs. Coleman did not
name her visitor. On cross-examination, Mrs. Coleman
testified that she did not know his name, but when asked if
she saw him in the hearing room, pointed to Griggs, adding
that he had glasses on at the time of the visit.
Mrs. Coleman said that she talked to her supervisor and
Mrs. Copeland about the visit after it occurred.
Anna Belle Abernathy testified that about a week
before the election she was visited by a man whose first
name was Clarence.13 According to Mrs. Abernathy, he
asked her if she heard anyone say that they were going to
hire all white girls at the plant and that they (the Negro
women) would be out. She said she had not. He told her to
try to get all the people she could at the plant to vote for
the Union so that they would not be out because the Union
would not let all white girls be hired. Mrs. Abernathy
13 Mrs Abernathy testified that she could not remember his
last name The Union had an organizer in the campaign named
Clarence Loftin
14 With respect to Loftin, her affidavit stated, "About a week
before the election Clarence Loftin, the union organizer visited
me in my home And he said if the Union wins we will see that you
get more than $1 25 an hour, and more paid holidays and more
vacation time " Her affidavit was taken on January 19, 1966,
about a month after the election
15 London also testified that he made a few house calls with
Rev Davis, a minister in Hobson City, but that these visits were
all at the homes of employees who lived in Hobson City Glover
testified that he accompanied London on two visits to
Mrs Cunningham's home
867
testified that she believed the man stayed more than an
hour. He did not talk too much about the Union, but was
interested in going out with her.
In an affidavit given to the Board agent who investigated
the objections, Mrs. Abernathy mentioned Loftin's visit to
her home but did not mention the statement which she
attributed to Loftin in her testimony. 14 Her affidavit also
stated, however, "I heard a rumor from a girl who no
longer works here to the effect that Genesco was going to
hire white girls and they would make more money than the
Negro girls." Mrs. Abernathy testified that this incident
occurred after the election. She conceded that the
investigator asked her where she heard the rumor and that
she did not tell him that she had heard it from Loftin,
explaining that Loftin had not called it a rumor but had
merely asked her if she had heard it and that she did not
think to tell the investigator she had heard it from Loftin.
However, she also conceded that the investigator asked
her if a union man had been to her house and what Loftin
had said to her. She also conceded that he wrote down
everything she told him in the statement which she signed.
Union Organizers London and Griggs denied that they
made the statements attributed to them or similar
statements or that they made any reference to race in any
of the house calls. D. D. Glover, an official of another
union in Anniston, testified that he accompanied London
on a number of house calls and denied that London made
the statements attributed to him at any time in Glover's
presence or that either of them made any reference to race
when they were together. London testified that he visited
Mrs. Cunningham five or six times near the beginning of
the union organizing campaign and that the last time was
in July or August. He denied that he visited her in the
company of a minister but testified that on two occasions
he was accompanied by Glover.15
London testified that he visited Mrs. Copeland four or
five times, once with Glover, and Griggs testified that he
visited her twice. However, London and Griggs denied that
they made house calls together, except for a few visits to
key members of the union committee shortly after Griggs
arrived in Anniston.ts London and Griggs both testified
that they always identified themselves to employees on
house calls, and Griggs, who Mrs. Coleman described as
her second visitor from the Union, denied visiting her. He
testified that he had never worn glasses , having perfect
vision. Loftin, the third union organizer in the campaign,
did not appear at the hearing. He wears glasses and was
described as 6 feet tall and thin.
Although London and Griggs denied that they authored
or furthered rumors relating to the employment of whites
in the plant, both testified that they encountered
employees who talked of such matters in the course of the
campaign.17 London testified that one Friday or Saturday
night, after the hearing ,ls at a Legion club while drinking
16 Griggs testified that he arrived in Anniston around mid-
November which was lust at the time Mrs Copeland was hired
" At the hearing, counsel for the Union conceded that there
was a rumor around the plant concerning the matter of whites
coming into the plant but stated that he wished to establish that
the rumor existed without any responsibility on the part of the
Union He did not concede that there was a rumor that whites
would replace Negroes, however
's London initially stated that this incident occurred in the
summer when it was quite warm but then added that it was
probably after the preelection hearing in early September The
preelection hearing was held on September 15
298-668 0-69-56
868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
beer with an employee named Bradford , at the plant, the
employee asked London , "Do you know that we are going
to have some white people hired in the plant ?" London
answered affirmatively . Bradford asked London what he
thought about it , and according to London , he replied, "I
have no thoughts about it," and did not pursue the matter.
London also testified that he never repeated the story and
could not remember hearing it repeated although it could
have been. He also testified that in his house calls to
employees ' homes, neither he nor employees ever raised
this matter.]"
Griggs, who was in Anniston for the last 5 or 6 weeks of
the campaign , unlike London , testified that late in the
campaign on a couple of occasions he heard rumors that
whites would replace Negroes and receive higher wages.
He testified that he tried to "disperse it" as a rumor and to
belittle it. Griggs testified that he also heard , on numerous
occasions from employees that the plant was expanding
and bringing in additional machinery for a new operation
for which white employees would be hired. According to
Griggs, at times the two rumors were related . He testified
that he believed that there was something in the rumor
about money but he tried to play it down because rumors
are not good organizationally . He also testified that he did
not mention these rumors to his superiors and could not
remember whether he discussed them with Loftin or
London, the two other organizers on the campaign.
A possible source suggested by Petitioner for these
rumors was evidence taken at the preelection hearing
relating to possible expansion of the plant . At that time,
the Employer projected a substantial expansion to take
place over a period of the next 8 months requiring
employment of approximately 190 employees above the
number employed at the time of the preelection hearing.
The evidence taken at the preelection hearing established
that most of the additional employees would be employed
in classifications similar to those already in existence at
the plant . However, in connection with a proposed circular
knitting section , the Employer predicted employment of
six circular knitters and six fixers not then needed in the
plant . During that hearing , there was no discussion of the
skills the Employer would require in hiring these
employees, whether they would be white or Negro, or what
their pay would be.21
At the preelection hearing there were several employees
from Petitioner's organizing committee present who heard
the testimony with respect to the Employer 's expansion
plans. London testified initially that he never raised the
matter of the plant expansion with these employees, that
they never raised it with him , and that no one asked him
about it. However, he testified later that the committee
members present at the hearing asked him about what
they had heard at the hearing and that he could not answer
their questions because he was not a lawyer.21 London
testified that he could not remember whether he asked his
attorney to explain the hearing to them, whether he
attempted to answer questions for the committee, or if so,
what the answers were.
I find after having observed and heard the witnesses
that Dorothy Cunningham and Helen Copeland sought to
testify truthfully to the best of their recollections and do
not find London's denials directed to their testimony
persuasive. London's testimony to explain the admitted
existence of rumors concerning plant expansion and the
employment of whites at the plant was not convincing and
itself casts doubt on his denial of any role in spreading the
rumor. Although London denied repeating the rumor, his
denial was equivocal, and he testified that he confirmed
the rumor when first asked about it soon after the hearing
and then refused to discuss it further with the questioning
employee. Moreover, although Petitioner points to the
preelection hearing as the likely source of the rumor,
London testified inconsistently and evasively as to his
conversations about the hearing with union committee
members who were present at the hearing. If, as Petitioner
suggests, the rumor stemmed from the hearing, it seems
unlikely that the inference that the new jobs would be
filled by whites would have been drawn without the
suggestion of those experienced in the industry who had
knowledge of the skills required and the likelihood that
Negroes would not be qualified to fill some of the
additional jobs. I conclude that London was not candid in
his testimony and find in his attempted explanation of the
rumor more cause to question his testimony than to accept
it. 22,
With respect to Mary Alice Coleman, Griggs denied
visiting Mrs. Coleman and supported his denial with
testimony that he had never worn glasses. Mrs. Coleman's
failure to identify Griggs in her direct examination, the
manner in which she identified him in the hearing room
with the simultaneous observation that he had worn
glasses when he visited her, and the absence of any
evidence to refute Griggs' claim that he never wore
glasses, despite the fact that a number of other employees
must have seen Griggs while he was in Anniston, persuade
me that Mrs. Coleman's identification of Griggs was
erroneous. Although the description of Clarence Loftin in
the record raises some suspicion that it was Loftin who
visited Mrs. Coleman, the evidence is insufficient to
support a conclusion that Loftin or any other agent of the
Union visited Mrs. Coleman. However, notwithstanding
her erroneous identification of Griggs, I find no reason to
1" Glover testified similarly with respect to the house calls on
which he accompanied London
10 There was some evidence at the preelection hearing that jobs
throughout the plant would be evaluated after April 1966, and that
all rates would be reset based on the evaluation of job content
21 The only issue litigated at the preelection hearing was
whether an election was timely because of the projected
expansion of the plant
22 Griggs' testimony is only incidentally involved in these two
incidents Thus, Mrs Copeland testified that someone who
looked like Griggs accompanied London on his second visit to her
home. Griggs testified that he visited Mrs Copeland but not with
London Although I am of the opinion that Griggs accurately
recalled the occasions of his visits to Mrs Copeland, there is no
irreconcilable conflict between their testimony, as
Mrs. Copeland 's identification of Griggs did not purport to be
positive Glover denied hearing London make statements similar
to these attributed to him by Mrs Copeland and
Mrs Cunningham He testified that he accompanied London to
Mrs Cunningham ' s house , but he was not asked whether he
accompanied London in visiting Mrs Copeland Whether
Glover' s denial has any significance in connection with the
Copeland visit depends entirely upon resolution of the conflict
between London and Mrs Copeland . London testified that he
believed Clover accompanied him. Mrs Copeland was confronted
with Glover who bears little resemblance to Griggs She testified
emphatically that he did not accompany Mrs Copeland I credit
Mrs Copeland With respect to the Cunningham visits, Glover's
testimony leaves the accuracy of his recollection with respect to
specific house calls in considerable doubt and I am satisfied that
he was not the visitor to whom Mrs Cunningham referred
HOBCO MFG. CO. 869
discredit her testimony otherwise , and I find that she was
visited by a man who identified himself as a union
organizer and who spoke to her as she testified.
In the case of Mrs. Abernathy, although Loftin did not
testify and her testimony is uncontradicted , I find it
unworthy of credit in the light of the omission from her
affidavit of any reference to the critical statement
attributed to Loftin. It is true that omission of a fact from
an affidavit is not always determinative . However , in this
case, it is clear that both Loftin's visit and the rumor about
white employees being hired to replace Negro employees
were explored by the Board agent who took the statement,
and his questioning should have disclosed the remarks
attributed to Loftin by Mrs. Abernathy at the hearing. She
did not claim that she told the investigator what she now
attributes to Loftin or that it was inadvertently omitted
from her statement . To the contrary, she conceded that
she did not mention it to the investigator despite the fact
that she was asked to tell him what Loftin said when he
visited her and whether she had heard the rumor
elsewhere . In light of the above and my observation of
Mrs. Abernathy while she testified, I find her explanation
for the omission from her affidavit insufficient to persuade
me that her memory at the time of the hearing was better
than at the time she gave the affidavit . Accordingly, I do
not credit her testimony with respect to what Loftin
allegedly told her when he visited her home.23
G. Other Aspects of the Campaign
Apart from the above , with one exception , the election
campaign otherwise utilized traditional written and verbal
appeals to employee sympathies by both the Petitioner
and the Employer without any reference to racial matters.
The exception concerns a booklet entitled , "Equal
Opportunity Union Made," published by the Educational
Department of Petitioner , the theme of which is that
Petitioner is a multinational , multiracial , multilingual
group of workers who had joined together to work for
improved wages, hours, and working conditions for all.
There is no evidence that Petitioner made any effort to
distribute the booklet among the employees at Hobco;
rather it appears that a small number of copies were left at
the hall of Local 414 of the Molders' Union where
Petitioner sometimes held meetings and that Hobco
employees may have seen it there.
It. CONCLUSIONS
The Employer contends that the facts set forth above
demonstrate that there was a calculated effort on the part
of the Union through its own organizers and others acting
on its behalf "to fan the flames of division between the
Negro employees and their white employer" and "to
create hatred and hostility to the white employer" by
injection of false, misleading, and irrelevant issues in the
campaign . The Employer contends that under the
standards set forth in Sewall Manufacturing Company,
138 NLRB 66, the election must be set aside.
The Petitioner contends , on the other hand , that all of
the conduct complained of related to the overriding theme
of economic improvement , which was the basic theme of
the campaign , and occurred in the context of a dialogue
over the campaign in the Negro community of Anniston
and Hobson City. The Petitioner contends that the
references to race were germane to the campaign, were
not designed to generate hatred of whites as a race, and
were permissible under the Board 's decisions in Archer
Laundry Company, 150 NLRB 1427, and Aristocrat Linen
Supply Company, Inc., 150 NLRB 1448.
In Sewall Manufacturing Company, supra , antiunion
appeals were made to white employees which included
pictures of whites dancing with Negroes, a newspaper
article with a similar picture relating to another election
involving a different union some 4 years earlier which
stated that race mixing was an issue in that election, and
frequent references to the contributions of other unions to
the NAACP and CORE. In the face of this campaign, the
Board set aside the election and set forth standards
for evaluating appeals to racial prejudice . Noting that
"[s]ome appeal to prejudice of one kind or another is
an evitable part of electoral campaigning " and must be left
"to the good sense and judgment of the electorate" to
evaluate, the Board stated its belief " that appeals to racial
prejudice on matters unrelated to the election issues or the
union's activities are not mere `prattle' or puffing." It
announced that it did not intend "to tolerate as `electoral
propaganda ' appeals or agruments which can have no
purpose except to inflame the racial feelings of the voters in
the election ." 138 N1 RB at 70. 71 (e mphasis supplied).
The Board summarized its holding:24
So long, therefore , as a party limits itself to
truthfully setting forth another party's position on
matters of racial interest and does not deliberately
seek to overstress and exacerbate racial feelings by
irrelevant , inflammatory appeals, we shall not set
aside an election on this ground . However , the burden
will be on the party making use of a racial message to
establish that it was truthful and germane , and where
there is doubt as to whether the total conduct of such
party is within described bounds, the doubt will be
resolved against him.
In the Archer Laundry Company case the facts were
similar in a number of respects to those in the instant case.
There at the invitation of a group of Negro ministers and
with their aid , a union sought to organize a group of
laundry workers who were for the most part Negroes.
Along with the union representatives, the ministers and
other civil rights leaders talked with workers about the
Union 's goals and objectives and conducted an organizing
campaign . A number of leaflets were passed out
identifying the union organizing campaign with a fight for
freedom . One leaflet entitled "FREEDOM IS
EVERYONE'S FIGHT" stated with accompanying
pictures , "DOGS couldn 't stop us ! POLICE BRUTALITY
couldn 't stop us! ! FIRE HOSES couldn 't stop us!! ! Are
you going to let your [boss] stop you?? A yes vote for the
Union is a yes vote for FREEDOM ." Another leaflet
headed , "WHAT DOES THE REVEREND MARTIN
LUTHER KING JR. HAVE TO SAY ABOUT LABOR
UNIONS?" identified " our" needs with labor 's needs, and
continued:
THAT IS WHY NEGROES SUPPORT LABOR 'S DEMANDS.
THAT IS WHY THE LABOR HATER IS ALMOST ALWAYS A
TWIN-HEADED CREATURE SPEWING ANTI-NEGRO TALK
23 To the extent that her affidavit indicates that she heard a
rumor from some girls , she testified that she heard it after the
election when it could not have had any bearing on the outcome of
the election
24 138 NLRB at 71-72 (emphasis in original)
870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FROM ONE MOUTH AND ANTI-UNION PROPAGANDA
FROM THE OTHER.
It concluded by urging a yes vote for the Union.
Another leaflet entitled "NEWS FLASH" contained
typical organizational propaganda urging a vote for the
Union but also included the slogan, "Be a free person-not
a'Handkerchief-head Uncle Tom."'
A leaflet signed by three ministers urged organization,
stating among other things, "It is a simple fact that colored
workers who belong to unions are far better off than those
who don't."
The Board overruled objections to the election based on
these and related appeals, adopting the Regional
Director's report on objections. In his report, the Regional
Director distinguished Sewall Manufacturing Company,
supra, observing that "there is a vital difference between
the basic themes of these two campaigns. In each, the idea
that unions support racial integration and equality was
hammered home, yet the purpose of such emphasis was
different in the two cases."
Thus, he found that in Sewall the literature "was
designed solely to inflame racial hatred and to engender a
conflict between Negro and white workers in a southern
plant .. . . There was little mention in these campaign
activities by the Employer or its agents that unions would
or would not bring economic benefit to the workers." On
the other hand, the Regional Director found that the racial
issues in the Archer campaign had different implications:
The literature distributed did not deliberately seek to
invoke the hatred of the Negro employees for white
people. The literature in the instant case was not
designed to engender race hatred, but instead, racial
self-consciousness. Negro workers were told that
because they were Negroes, they were discriminated
against in the economic sphere. The point was made
that Negroes have, in the past, received lower wages
and were subject to poorer working conditions than
white workers, primarily because they were Negroes
They were urged to join a union, which is not an act
against the white race, to permit concerted action
which could bring Negroes to equality with whites.
The Regional Director distinguished between "racial
propaganda designed to inflame racial hatred and set the
tone of a union campaign as a battle of one race against
another as in Sewall and racial propaganda designed to
encourage racial pride and concerted action."
After careful consideration of these decisions and the
facts in this case, I am of the view that the conduct
complained of in this case is similar to that in Archer and
that the objections must be overruled for similar reasons.25
As in Archer, there appears to have been no attempt to
invoke the hatred of Negroes for whites as a class to
25 See also Aristocrat Linen Supply Company, supra, Archer
Laundry Company, 155 NLRB 24 Even it is assumed that the
decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in N L R B
v Schapiro & Whitehouse, Inc , 356 F 2d 675, is at variance with
these decisions, they are controlling unless and until the Board
indicates that its views have been modified
21 In view of the Union's notices urging attendance at the
December 12 CCIA meeting and its sponsorship of the
December 8 union meeting and the December 21 party, I find that
the Union is responsible for any statements on these occasions
made by the scheduled speakers which might be considered to
have had an effect on the election
induce votes for the Union without regard to whether the
Union would improve or harm the employees. Rather all
racial references complained of were in the context of
appeals to vote for the Union because it would be of
economic benefit to the employees to do so.26
The statements of Rev. Boone and Rev. Reynolds on
December 12, that one could be sure that any employer
who hired all Negroes was trying to get along with cheap
wages, convey an opinion assessing motivation little
different from those found in typical organizing campaigns
with respect to employers who move their plants from one
place to another or who employ nonunion labor. The
remarks by Rev. Boone on December 21, referring to
Medgar Evers and urging the employees to stand up for
their rights and vote yes, were in a sense less graphic than
the leaflet in Archer which compared dogs, fire hoses, and
bosses. Rev. Boone made no odious comparison of the
Employer but drew on a symbol of Negro strength in
urging the employees not to falter. Dr. Rodgers' appeals on
the same occasion went no further than the leaflet in
Archer which compared labor haters to two-headed
creatures. None of these statements were made in
isolation; all were in the context of appeals to the
employees to vote for the Union in order to achieve
improved wages, benefits, and working conditions in
harmony with the goals of the civil rights organizations to
improve the overall condition of Negroes.27 None of these
statements urged a vote for the Union as an act against
whites; all urged unionization as a means to self-
improvement .211
With respect to the statements made by London to
Mrs Cunningham at her home, although I have credited
her testimony, it leaves me in considerable doubt whether
London's visit to her occurred before or after the Union's
election petition was filed.29 Mrs. Cunningham's
testimony revealed rather clearly that her initial estimate
that the visit occurred in September or October was not
based on any firm recollection. The only event to which
she could relate the visit, the start of her child at school,
occurred soon after the petition was filed. In the light of
her inability to say whether London's visit was before or
after that event, I am of the opinion that her testimony is
insufficient to establish that London visited her after the
petition was filed. In these circumstances, this incident
may not properly be considered as a basis for setting aside
the election.30
However, even if the evidence were sufficient to
establish that London visited Mrs. Cunningham after the
petition was filed, I am of the further view that neither the
statement to her nor the statements which I have found
London made to Mrs. Copeland would warrant setting
2' With respect to the booklet entitled, "Equal Opportunity
Union Made," I am of the view that its role in the campaign was
insignificant But if it had impact, it could have served only to
impress the employees that the Union did not believe in pitting
race against race but sought improvement of conditions of
employment for all regardless of race
28 In the light of these conclusions I find it unnecessary to
consider whether Mayor Striplin's role in the campaign gave
justification to the Union's campaign tactics
2° The petition was filed on August 25, 1965
"' The Ideal Electric and Manufacturing Company, 134 NLRB
1275
HOBCO MFG. CO. 871
aside the election.31 I do not find in either case an
irrelevant appeal designed to inflame racial feeling against
whites. To the contrary, London suggested in one case that
an integrated plant was essential to the betterment of
conditions of the Negroes who worked there and in the
other that whites would be hired at higher wages which the
Union would help the present Negro employees to achieve
also. London's assertions and arguments, whether or not
valid, are difficult to distinguish from traditional
propaganda directed at employees in representation
campaigns. Like the appeals discussed above, they were
appeals to racial self-consciousness designed not to cause
action against whites but to encourage concerted action to
bring Negroes to equality with whites. Again, following the
Board's decision in Archer, supra, I find no basis in
London's statements to Mrs. Cunningham or
Mrs. Copeland to warrant setting aside the election.
With respect to rumors that the Negro employees would
be replaced, the testimony of Mrs. Coleman establishes
one instance approximately a month before the election in
which an unidentified man who purported to represent the
Union told an employee that the Employer was going to let
its Negro employees go and replace them with whites.
Apart from this, there is only the concession of Griggs that
on a couple of occasions he heard a rumor that whites were
going to be hired to replace Negroes, which Griggs
testified that he tried to belittle as a rumor.
In these circumstances, I find this case even weaker
than that decided by the Board in Kresge-Newark, Inc., 112
NLRB 869. There a union representative was alleged to
have said at an employee meeting that if the petitioner did
not win the election, the employer would lay off all colored
employees and the only way to save their votes was to vote
for the petitioner. The Board found that such a statement
even if made by a representative of the petitioning union
did not constitute a threat of reprisal which it was
within the power of the Petitioner to take thus
preventing the employees from exercising a free
choice in the election. The statement constituted at
most an accusation against the Employer in the
nature of campaign propaganda which the employees
were capable of evaluating in choosing their bargain-
ing representative
Here, whether or not an agent of the Union made the
statement to Mrs. Coleman, she at least believed that its
source was a union representative, so that the same may
be said of this statement as was said of the statement in
Kresge. Moreover, there is no evidence that the rumor
concerning replacement of the employees was extensively
circulated. Griggs' testimony is uncontradicted that when
he encountered it he sought to belittle it. In these
circumstances I conclude that the evidence does not
establish that this rumor became a factor of sufficient
significance in the election to have created an atmosphere
of fear which would warrant overturning the election,
without regard to responsibility for its circulation. '12
RECOMMENDATION
On the basis of the findings and conclusions set forth
above, I recommend that the Employer's second objection
be overruled and that the Petitioner be certified as the
bargaining representative of the employees in the unit
found appropriate in the Regional Director's decision and
direction of election.
11 As I have found above, London told Mrs Cunningham that
the employees were not being treated fairly and that if the
Employer hired some whites, the Negro employees would be
treated more fairly and would get more pay He also told her that
the Employer did not want to hire whites because whites would
not work for what the Negroes were working for London told
Mrs Copeland that by April the Employer would hire some whites
and they would be paid more than the Negro employees but that if
the Union came in, they would all be paid equally
11 Cf N L R B v Staub Cleaners, Inc , 357 F 2d 1, remanding
Staub Cleaners, Inc , 148 NLRB 278, for further hearing