Georgia-Pacific Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 27, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 377 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP 377
Georgia-Pacific Corporation , Crossett Division-El
Dorado and Southern Council of Lumber and
Plywood Workers , United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner . Case 26-RC-3569
February 27, 1970
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTIONS
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon
Consent Election executed by the parties and
approved by the Regional Director for Region 26 on
September 12, 1969, an election by secret ballot was
held on October 9, 1969, among the employees in
the stipulated unit. At the conclusion of the election,
the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which
showed that of approximately 141 eligible voters,
144 cast ballots, of which 67 were for, and 69
against, the Petitioner, and 8 were challenged. The
challenged ballots were sufficient in number to
affect the results of the election. Thereafter, the
Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the election.
Pursuant to the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedures, Series 8, as amended, the Regional
Director conducted an investigation, and, on
November 19, 1969, issued and duly served upon the
parties his Report on Challenges and Objections, in
which he recommended that the challenges to three
ballots be sustained and that five ballots be opened
and counted. He further recommended that the
objections be overruled in their entirety. Thereafter,
the Petitioner filed exceptions to the Regional
Director's Report.
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.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of the employees of
the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production, maintenance, timbermen and
truckdriver employees employed at the
Employer's El Dorado, Arkansas, operation,
excluding office clerical employees, watchmen,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Regional Director recommended that 3
challenges be sustained and 5 be overruled. The
Petitioner excepted only to the recommendations
that Nettie Carter and Jesse Johnson be held eligible'
and their ballots be opened and counted. The
Regional Director concluded that Nettie Carter is a
regular part-time employee whose office janitorial
duties ally her with production and maintenance
employees and who was therefore eligible to vote.
We do not agree.
The record shows that Carter's work is confined
to cleaning the main office building. There are no
production workers stationed at that location at any
time, and she has no contact with any such
employees. She works 8 1/2 hours each Monday
night, at a time when few other employees are
present Further, she does not receive holidays,
vacations, or other fringe benefits enjoyed by
production and maintenance employees. Under these
circumstances, her interests do not appear to be
sufficiently allied with those of employees who work
in the production areas of the plant to warrant
inclusion in the production and maintenance unit.2
Accordingly, we sustain the challenge to Carter's
ballot.
As we have sustained the challenge to Carter's
ballot, and have adopted, pro forma, the Regional
Director's recommendations on six challenged
ballots, only the challenge to the qualifications of
Jesse Johnson to vote remains unresolved. However,
it is possible that his ballot may not be
determinative after opening and counting the three
ballots referred to in footnote I herein. Accordingly,
we shall order them opened and counted, and, in the
event that a revised tally shows that the ballot of
Jesse Johnson is determinative of the results of the
election, we shall order a hearing to receive evidence
on the issue of Johnson's supervisory status.
However, since the revised tally may show that
Johnson's ballot would not be determinative of the
results of the election, it is appropriate to determine
at this time whether any of the Employer's
preelection conduct interfered with the election, as
asserted by the Petitioner.
The Petitioner filed objections to the election
based on eight separate grounds. The Regional
Director found them to be without merit and
recommended that the objections be overruled in
their entirety. The Petitioner has excepted to all of
'In the absence of exceptions, we adopt, pro forma , the Regional
Director 's recommendations that the challenges to the ballots of Roy Lee
Nathan, James Forrest Ford, and Jewell Morris be sustained and that the
challenges to the ballots of J C Williams, Henry Bailey, and Gentry Lee
Williams be overruled and their ballots opened and counted
'E I DuPont de Nemours & Company, 53 NLRB 473, 475
181 NLRB No. 53
378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations.'
Although we adopt the Regional Director's
recommendations in other respects, we disagree with
his finding that a speech, read essentially verbatim
from a prepared text the day before the election and
distributed by the Employer to employees the day of
the election, did not exceed the bounds of
permissible campaign propaganda.
On October 8, 1969, T. A. Reynolds, former,
owner of the Employer's plant and manager for the
Employer at the relevant time, read to the
assembled employees from a prepared text a speech
which was approximately eight pages in length.
Reynolds reviewed for employees the financial
difficulties that led to the acquisition of the plant by
Georgia-Pacific Corporation on August 4, 1969, and
detailed the benefits that had been paid employees
despite economic problems. Reynolds pointed out
that inventory continued to pile up but that overtime
had been paid and would continue. He indicated
that although the employees presently enjoyed direct
contact with management and were able to go to
management with work related and personal
problems, "[I]f a union were to get in here, this
direct contact with us as we now have it, and as you
know it, would be out the window! It could not exist
any longer. That's not because we would want it
that way, but because that's the way the union
wants it. The union law says that you cannot come
in to see us alone. You have got to give your
problem to a union steward, and he's the one that
will be presenting your problem to us." He warned
that if the union steward did not like an individual,
management might never get to see the problem.
Reynolds then added: "Finally, you have real
security. You get true job security - not union
insecurity."
During the course of his speech, Reynolds pointed
out that any increases in wages that might be
granted could be depleted by union assessments, that
the union might demand more than management
could afford, and that such demand would force a
strike on the employees. He then proceeded to give
brief accounts of what happened at nearby plants
that became unionized; i.e., at one, there was a
strike and violence, and another went bankrupt.
Reynolds concluded in his speech, that a union
could do no more than cause trouble at the plant for
employer and employees alike and that because
management can pay no more than competition
allows, which it already paid, the only motivations
the union had were dues and power. Reynolds stated
that if he had to deal with a union he would review
each of the employee benefits and would bargain in
a "hard nosed" manner. Specifically, he announced:
'As to objections I, 3, and 4 , and 6-8 , we find that the Petitioner's
exceptions raised no substantial issues of fact or law which would warrant
reversing the Regional Director's findings, conclusions, and
recommendations or require a hearing, and those objections are
accordingly overruled We find it unnecessary to consider objection 2, as
we find other grounds herein for setting aside the election
As I said to you before , if I have to bargain with
this union , I will bargain in good faith as required
by law , but that doesn ' t mean I would have to
agree to anything the union said . I would be
hardnosed about bargaining . I certainly would not
be able to agree to anything that would hurt the
continued existence of this plant . The union
salesmen want you to believe that you have
everything to gain and nothing to lose by voting
for them . That is just not true , and they know it.
If I ever have to sit down and bargain with union,
I will bargain about each and every item, term
and condition of your employment . In other
words - we will bargain about your vacation
plan, about your holidays , your hourly rates, your
insurance and everything else you have. You
might wind up with more as a result of the
bargaining but it is just as possible that you will
wind up with the same as you have now, or even
less. This has happened before when a union came
in and it can happen again.
Our examination of the preelection speech as
delivered and distributed by the Employer to the
employees in this case convinces us that it tended to
engender fear of reprisal which would interfere with
a rational, uncoerced decision by the employees.
The entire content of the speech , however, is
directed to impressing upon the employees that
selection of the Union would be futile and they
could only be adversely affected thereby. Clearly,
the intent was to demonstrate to the employees that
the Union ' s selection would not improve their
economic situation and might well result in reduced
wages, job security and fringe benefits, whereas its
rejection would result in continued job security and
benefits as high as competition would allow the
company to pay. The lip -service paid to the
requirement of bargaining in good faith was
revealed as shown by the threat to engage in
"hardnosed " bargaining . The entire tone of the
speech was one of emphasizing the futility and
economic hazards of selecting the Union. We find
that the Employer thus created an atmosphere of
confusion and fear, which interfered with the free
expression of employee choice.'
Accordingly, in the event Johnson's ballot is not
determinative, the election shall be set aside and a
new election shall be conducted.
DIRECTION
It is hereby directed that the Regional Director
for Region 26 shall, pursuant, to the Rules and
Regulations of the Board, within 10 days from the
date of this Direction, open and count the ballots of
J. C. Williams, Henry Bailey, and Gentry Lee
Williams, and thereafter, prepare and cause to be
served upon the parties a revised tally of ballots,
'Boaz Spinning Company, Inc, 177 NLRB No 103, Thomas Products
Co, Division of Thomas IndusFries, Inc, 167 NLRB No 106
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP. 379
including therein the count of said ballots. In the
event that the revised tally of ballots shows that the
challenged ballot of Jesse Johnson is determinative
of the election results, the following Provisional
Order of Hearing shall be applicable.
PROVISIONAL ORDER OF HEARING
It is hereby ordered that a hearing be held before
a Hearing Officer, to be designated by the Regional
Director for Region 26, for the purpose of receiving
evidence to resolve the issues with respect to the
eligibility of Jesse Johnson.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Hearing Officer
designated for the purpose of conducting such
hearing 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. Within 10 days from the date of
issuance of such report, either party may file with
the Board in Washington, D. C., an original and
seven copies of exceptions thereto. Immediately
upon the filing of such exceptions, the party filing
the same shall serve a copy thereof on the other
party, and shall file a copy with the Regional
Director. If no exceptions are filed thereto, the
Board will adopt the recommendations of the
Hearing Officer.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above entitled
matter be, and it hereby is, referred to the Regional
Director for Region 26 for the purpose of
conducting such hearing, and that the Regional
Director be, and he hereby is, authorized to issue
notice thereof.
However, in the event that the revised tally of
ballots shows that Johnson's ballot is not
determinative of the election results, the following
Order, setting aside the election, and Direction of
Second Election, shall be applicable
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the election conducted
herein on October 9, 1969 be, and it hereby is, set
aside.
[Direction of Second Election6 omitted from
publication.]
` In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be
informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior
Underwear, Inc. 156 NLRB 1236; N L R B v . Wyman-Gordon Company,
394 U S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility
list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be
filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 26 within 7
days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the
Regional Director The Regional Director shall make the list available to
all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be
granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances
Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside
the election whenever proper objections are filed.