Gilmore Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 12, 1962

140 N.L.R.B. 100 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any other labor organization, or with respect to their attendance at union meet-
ings, or other concerted activity.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our plant if our employees select a labor or-
ganization as their collective -bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT promise benefits to any employee in return for a promise to
work against a labor organization.
WE WILL NOT by any threat of reprisal or promise of benefit , induce or en-
courage our employees to vote for or against any labor organization in any elec-
tion conducted by the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self -organization , to form,
join, or assist any labor organization , to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing , to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from
any and all such activities.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the right of our employees to
make a free and untrammeled choice in any election ordered by the National
Labor Relations Board.
All our employees are free to become , remain , or to refrain from becoming or
remaining members of any labor organization.
CLEVELAND WOOLENS, A DIVISION OF
BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By------------ -------------------------------( Representative ) Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 528
Peachtree-Seventh Building , 50 Seventh Street NE ., Atlanta, Georgia, Telephone
No. Trinity 6-3311 , Extension 5357, if they have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions.
Gilmore Industries, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, Local Union No. 1377, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 8-RC-4757. December 12, 1962
DECISION ON REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
On August 14, 1962, the Regional Director for the Eighth Region
issued a Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Elec-
tion in which he found that certain conduct of the Petitioner un-
covered during the course of the investigation interfered with the elec-
tion conducted on July 13, 1962, and directed that a new election be
held.' Thereafter, the Petitioner, in accordance with the Board' s Rules
and Regulations, filed a timely request for review of the Supplemental
Decision in regard to the Regional Director's findings that certain
remarks made prior to the election by a representative of the Petitioner
and disseminated to other employees regarding the waiver of initiation
fees in the event it won the election were a basis for setting the election
The Regional Director found that the three objections filed by the Employer were
without merit and overruled them.
140 NLRB No. 8.
GILMORE INDUSTRIES, INC. 101
aside a On August 22, 1962, the Petitioner filed with the Board a
request for review of the Regional Director's decision of the above
finding. On September 12, 1962, the Board by telegraphic order
granted the request for review and, thereafter, the Petitioner filed a
brief in support of its position as to the issues under review.
The Board has considered the Regional Director's Supplemental
Decision insofar as it relates to conduct uncovered by the Regional Di-
rector during the course of his investigation, the brief filed by the
Petitioner, and the entire record in this case, and makes the following
findings :
During the course of the investigation the Regional Director found
that in order to counteract a rumor that its initiation fee would be
$300, the Petitioner had obtained permission from its International
president to waive initiation fees for all those currently employed at the
time of the election in the event the Petitioner won the election. Such
information was announced by a business representative of the Peti-
tioner to several of its supporters among employees at a meeting, and
thereafter disseminated to a number of other employees. On the basis
of the above facts the Regional Director relying upon our decision in
Lobue Bros., 109 NLRB 1182, found that the Petitioner's offer of a
waiver of initiation fees was in effect a promise of a benefit and, there-
fore, interfered with the freedom of choice of the employees. We do
not agree. We believe that the factual situation involved in the Lobue
case is clearly distinguishable from that involved herein.
The Board has long recognized that "the practice of offering special
reduced initiation fees during an organizational campaign has been
traditionally used by unions to attract new members and that such
practice in and of itself does not interfere with the conduct of elec-
tions." 3 In the Lobue case the practice was found objectionable when,
prior to the election, cards were distributed to employees which pro-
vided for free membership to those employees who signed these cards,
provided the union in question was thereafter certified as the bargain-
ing representative. Employees who signed such cards before the elec-
tion were given membership books containing an initiation fee waiver.
The Board found that the distribution by the union "of these cards
as part of its preelection campaign interfered with the conduct of the
election," since they indicated to the employees that the union's waiver
was dependent upon how the employees voted or on the results of the
election. In our opinion the Petitioner's bare statement in the instant
case did not constitute interference where it was to apply to all em-
ployees employed at the time of the election and was not contingent
on how individual employees voted.
2 The tally of ballots showed that the Petitioner received a majority of the valid
ballots cast . Of approximately 24 eligible voters, 13 ballots were cast for, and 9 ballots
were cast against, the Petitioner , and 1 ballot was challenged.
3 See, e g., J. J. Newberry Co, 100 NLRB 84, 86-87; Root Dry Goods Company, 88
NLRB 289, 290-291; The Gruen Watch Company, et al., 108 NLRB 610, 612.
102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the first place, the Petitioner's announcement was made in rebuttal
to a rumor that the initiation fee would be $300 and under the circum-
stances fell within the scope of campaign propaganda. Secondly, it
is clear that the waiver would apply to all employees regardless of
how they voted, and not, as in Lobue only to those employees who
signed cards before the election. Nor do we consider that the alleged
statement on its face could reasonably be construed by the employees
as the cards in the Lobue case, as a promise of benefit or threat of a
penalty unless they voted for the Petitioner. We find, therefore, that
the alleged objectionable statement did not impair the employees'
freedom of choice in the election 4
Accordingly, as the objections have been overruled and as the tally
of ballots shows that the Petitioner received a majority of the votes
cast in the election, we shall certify the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, Local Union No. 1377, AFL-CIO, as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees employed by the Employer.]
MEMBERS DODGERS and LEEDOMI, dissenting :
Unlike our colleagues, we agree with the Regional Director that,
under the Board's decision in the Lobue case, the Petitioner's offer of a
waiver of initiation fees was in effect a promise of benefit and, there-
fore, interfered with the employees' freedom of choice in the election
conducted in this case.
In the Lobue case, cards were distributed to employees which offered
membership in the union free of initiation fee if the union was there-
after certified as the bargaining representative. The Board there
concluded that the distribution by the union of these cards interfered
with the conduct of the election because the cards indicated to the em-
ployees that the union's waiver of initiation fees was dependent upon
how the employees voted in the election or on the results of the election.
Our colleagues assert that the factual situation in the instant case
is clearly distinguishable from that involved in the Lobue case because
here, unlike there, the announcement in question fell within the scope
of campaign propaganda; the waiver of initiation fees applied to all
employees regardless of how they voted in the election, since em-
ployees were in no way required to commit themselves prior to the
election; and the announcement could not reasonably be construed
by the employees as a promise of benefit or threat of a penalty unless
they voted for the Petitioner.
4 See General Electric Company, 120 NLRB 1035, 1036-1037; A.R.F. Prodn08, Inc,
118 NLRB 1456, 1458-1459.
DU BOIS CHEMICALS, INC. 103
We do not agree that the cases are distinguishable. In reality, our
colleagues are here overruling the Lobue principle without saying so.
Here, as in Lobue, the offer of waiver of initiation fees was made as
part of a preelection campaign. In both cases, the waiver applied
without regard to how any individual employee voted in the election.
In Lobue, no less than here, although some employees there signed
membership cards, the employees could have voted as they pleased in
the election. And, as in Lobue, the Petitioner in effect told the em-
ployees that they would save the price of the initiation fee if the
Union won the election. It is therefore clear that in this case and in
the Lobue case the quid pro quo was the same in that the waiver of
initiation fees was dependent upon how the employees voted in the
election or on the results of the election. The proffered waiver thus
constituted a clear promise of benefit calculated to induce employees
to vote for union representation and tended to interfere with the free
choice of the employees.
Under the circumstances, in agreement with the Regional Director,
we would set aside the election.
DuBois Chemicals , Inc. and United Packinghouse , Food & Allied
Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 398. Case No. 16-CA-1550. Decem-
ber 13, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 2, 1962, Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate
Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report, a brief and a supplemental brief in support of its ex-
ceptions, and a request for oral argument.'
Pursuant to the provision of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Brown].
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 entire
record in this case, including the Intermediate Report and the excep-
tions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
1 As the record, including the exceptions and briefs, adequately sets forth the issues
and the positions of the parties, the request is hereby denied.
140 NLRB No. 29.