Godchaux Sugars, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 1939

12 N.L.R.B. 568 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of GODCHAUX SUGARS, INC. and SUGAR MILL WORM MS'
UNION, LOCALS No. 21177 AND No. 21881 AFFILIATED WITH THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
Cases Nos. C-499 and 8-613.Decided April 209, 1939
Sugar Refining IndustryAgreement: not to press pending charges if an elec-
tion is agreed to, between respondent and Union, acceded to by Regional Direc-
tor, given effect in order to effectuate the policies of the Act-Alleged Unfair
Labor Practices: only those occurring after date of agreement not to press
charges considered-Complaint: dismissed-Election: held fair-Pleading: agree-
ment not to press charges put in issue by Regional Director's reply to respond-
ent's answer-Investigation of Representatives: petition for, dismissed without
prejudice because consent election fair-Intervenor's Petition for Certification:
denied because based on consent election held 18 months before order; election
results may no longer represent desire of employees.
Mr. Berdon M. Bell, for the Board.
Mr. Emile Godchaux and Mr. G. H. Pierson, Jr., of New Orleans,
La., for the respondent.
Mr. Eugene D. Saunders and Mr. William A. West, Jr., of New
Orleans, La., and Mr. C. H. Levet, of Lions, La., for Godchaux Sugars
Employees Labor Council.2
Miss Carol Agger, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 2, 1937, Sugar Mill Workers' Union, Locals No.
21177 and No. 21188, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional
Director for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana) a peti-
tion alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concern-
ing the representation of employees of Godchaux Sugars, Inc.,
Reserve, Louisiana, herein called the respondent, and requesting an
investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section
9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act. The petition further alleged that Godchaux Sugars
Employees Labor Council, a labor organization, herein called the
1 The complaint erroneously refers to Local No. 21188 as Local No. 2188.
2 At times inaccurately referred to in the record as Godchaux Sugars, Inc., Employees
Labor Council.
12 N. L. R. B., No. 67.
568
GODCHAUX SUGARS, INC. 569
Council, claimed to represent employees directly affected by the in-
vestigation and that said organization had been formed and main-
tained with the assistance and encouragement of the respondent.
On November 2, 1937 , the Union filed charges with the Regional
Director alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
On November 13, 1937 , the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board , acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act, and
Article III, Section 3, Article III, Section 10 (c) 2 , and Article II,
Section 37 (b), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu-
lations-Series 1, as amended , ordered an investigation upon the peti-
tion and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to pro-
vide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice , and further ordered
that for the purposes of hearing the two cases be consolidated and
that one record of the hearing be made. On November 15, 1937, the
Union filed its amended charges alleging that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Sec-
tion 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the charges and amended charges theretofore filed , the Boar
,
ZV
by the Regional Director, issued its complaint dated November 18
C
1937, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging
ii unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
A copy of the complaint and of the petition , accompanied by notices
of a hearing thereon to be held before a Trial Examiner on Novem-
ber 29 , 1937, were duly served upon the respondent , upon the Union,
and upon the Council.
The complaint alleged in substance that the respondent , on or about
September 1, 1937 , caused to be formed a labor organization of its
employees at its Reserve plant, known as Godchaux Sugars Em-
ployees Labor Council ,8 and has since dominated , interfered with, and
assisted , by financial and other support, in the administration of
said organization ; that on or about October 26, 1937 , while a ballot
was being taken of the employees of the respondent to determine the
exclusive representative of said employees for purposes of collective
bargaining, pursuant to an agreement by and between the respondent,
the Union , and the Council, the respondent did cause its supervisory
officials and employees to be stationed near the polling place and to
question , intimidate , and instruct the employees in regard to their
voting ; that the respondent on or about August 26, 1937 , addressed
a letter to and circulated it among its employees at the Reserve plant;
that the contents of said letter were designed to, and in fact did,
8 See footnote 2.
570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discourage, restrain, and coerce said employees in their right of
self-organization and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; that the
respondent between September 1 and November 16, 1937, threatened
to discharge employees who did not join the Council, thereby dis-
couraging employees in their affiliation with the Union; that the
respondent between October 1 and November 16, 1937, reemployed
certain employees at its Reserve plant on condition that they join
the Council, which said employees were coerced and compelled to
do; that the respondent between October 27 and November 16, 1937,
caused a petition to be circulated among its Reserve plant employees
stating in effect that the aforesaid balloting among said employees
on October 26, 1937, had been fairly conducted and that as a result
of said ballot the Council was the duly elected bargaining repre-
sentative of all the employees, and coerced employees into signing
such petition; and that the respondent on or about October 1, 1937,
terminated the employment of, and has since failed and refused to
reinstate, nine named employees because of their membership in the
Union and in order to discourage membership of employees in the
Union.4
Pursuant to notice to all parties, the hearing was twice postponed.
On or about January 19, 1938, the respondent filed its answer admit-
ting that the respondent was engaged in interstate commerce and
specifically denying the averments of unfair labor practices made in
the complaint.
The respondent's answer set up the following affirmative defense :
That on September 13, 1937, a conference was held by the Union and
the respondent concerning the Union's claim to having been con-
stituted the exclusive collective bargaining agency of the respondent's
Reserve plant employees; that at this conference the respondent con-
tested an assertion by the Union that it had been designated collec-
tive bargaining agent by a majority of these employees; that the
Union then stated that it proposed to apply to the Board for an order
directing an election for the designation of itself as the collective
bargaining agency of said employees. The answer further alleged
that at about the time of said conference the Council claimed to rep-
resent a majority of the Reserve plant employees for collective bar-
gaining purposes; that on or about September 25, 1937, the respond-
ent received a certain letter from the Regional Director dated Sep-
tember 24, 1937, advising the respondent that the Regional Director
had received from the Union a Petition for Investigation and Cer-
tification of Representatives wherein it was claimed that the Union
4 The names of these employees are Joe Cambise, Ellis Cambre, William Cambre, Mar-
garet Champagne , Rawley Hymel , John Keating, Dennis Millet, Lance Madere, and Carlo
Saragusa.
GODCHAUX SUGARS, INC. 571
was the exclusive bargaining agency for all of the respondent's em-
ployees at the Reserve plant, excluding certain classes of employees;
that said letter stated that "articles" filed by the American Federa-
tion of Labor further alleged that the respondent had attempted to
form and dominate a company union, and requested the Board to
take appropriate action to end this practice; that said letter set
forth its purpose as being to ask the respondent whether it would
agree to an election, by secret ballot, to be conducted by the Regional
Director, pursuant to the Act and Board Rules and Regulations.
The answer further alleged that on or about October 11, 1937, a cer-
tain conference was held by the Regional Director and the respond-
ent, attended by an official of the Union, namely, the Regional Direc-
tor of the American Federation of Labor, at which conference the
Regional Director of the Board, in the presence of said union official
"and with his concurrence," "represented" to the respondent, and the
respondent was "assured," that if all interested parties executed an
agreement to the conduct of an election to determine which of the
two organizations, the Union or the Council, if any, was the chosen
representative of the Reserve plant employees, the charges of unfair
labor practices under the Act, which it was alleged had been there-
tofore engaged in by the respondent, "would be effectively quashed
and finally disposed of by the effect of such execution, and that
neither the National Labor Relations Board nor the American Fed-
eration of Labor could or would in any event urge or press these
charges thereafter." The answer then avers that the respondent, rely-
ing upon the aforesaid representation and assurance, did on Octo-
ber 19, 1937, agree to execute such an agreement; that, accordingly,
on said date the respondent, the Union, the Council, and the Board
executed a certain, agreement in writing providing for a consent
election by secret ballot to be held on October 26, 1937, at Reserve,
Louisiana, and expressly providing "Should either of the two organi-
zations [the Union or the Council] obtain a majority of votes cast
by the eligible employees, [the respondent] . . . will then recognize
that organization as the exclusive agency of its eligible employees
for the purpose of collective bargaining;" that on said October 26,
1937, an election as provided in said agreement was held among the
Reserve plant employees; that in said election the Council received
511 of the 966 ballots cast; that on November 2, 1937, the respondent
was advised by the Regional Director of the official count of the
ballots, and, further, that the Union had filed with the Board a
formal protest of the ballot.
On January 22, 1938, the Council filed in the representation case
a certain petition setting forth among other things the making of
the afore-mentioned agreement of October 19, 1937, by the Board,
by the respondent, the Council and the Union; the holding pursuant
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thereto of said election of October 26, 1937; and the results of the
ballot taken. It denied all allegations of the petition filed by the
Union in the representation case "which affect adversely in any man-
ner the right of the Council to be recognized as sole bargaining
agent of the employees of" the respondent at its Reserve plant, and
requested the Board to maintain its "vested rights" in the result of
the election of October 26, and to certify the Council as a sole bar-
gaining representative of the employees at Reserve.
Pursuant to notice, a consolidated hearing in the representation
and complaint cases was held from January 24 to February 5, 1938,
inclusive, at Reserve, Louisiana, before Eugene P. Lacy, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent,
and the Council were represented at the hearing by counsel; the
Union by its representative.5 Full opportunity to be heard, to ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing
on the issues tried, was afforded all parties. At the beginning of
the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to strike from the respond-
ent's answer certain paragraphs and attached exhibits, and from the
afore-mentioned petition of the Council certain paragraphs, on the
ground that the allegations therein contained and such exhibits had
no relationship with the cause being heard. In sum, these paragraphs
and exhibits, so far as here material, related to the circumstances sur-
rounding the consent election of October 26, 1937, as heretofore set
forth in connection with the affirmative defense of the respondent's
answer. The motion was granted by the Trial Examiner. Pursuant
to this ruling, no evidence was permitted to be introduced on the
subject excluded. Accordingly, no opportunity was afforded to the
respondent to make proof of its afore-mentioned affirmative defense,
nor to the Council of the allegations stricken from its petition. Dur-
ing the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several other
rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence.
In view of the Decision and Order herein, the Board finds it unneces-
sary to review these other rulings of the Trial Examiner.
On March 11, 1938, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, a copy of which was duly served on all parties, finding that
the respondent had engaged in, and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1),
(2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommend-
ing that the respondent cease and desist from such unfair labor
practices, and that it take certain affirmative action to remedy the
situation brought about by the unfair labor practices found. The
Trial Examiner dismissed the allegations of the complaint with
a
g The Intermediate Report of the Trial Examiner notes that the Union was represented
at the hearing by Mr . Jack Adams of Vicksburg , Mississippi.
GODCHAUX SUGARS, INC. 573
respect to the discriminatory discharges of five of the nine named
persons.°
Thereafter, the respondent and the Council filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report, and the Council submitted a written argument.
Notice was served upon all the parties of a hearing to be held before
the Board on April 12, 1938, in Washington, D. C., for the purposes
of oral argument. Said hearing was called, but none of the parties
appeared.
On December 15, 1938, the Board issued an order overruling the
above ruling of the Trial Examiner in striking from the answer of
the respondent the paragraphs and attached exhibits relating, among
other things, to the circumstances surrounding the election of Octo-
ber 26, 1937, and restoring said paragraphs and exhibits to the record.
A copy of said order was duly served upon the respondent, the Union,
and the Council. On January 11, 1939, the Regional Director lodged
with the Board and duly served upon the respondent, upon the
Union, and upon the Council, a certain document entitled "Motion
and Reply of Regional Director, as Agent for the Board, to Answer
of the Respondent," herein called the "Regional Director's Reply"
or "Reply." In said Reply the Regional Director, as agent for the
Board, requested leave to file herein the document. The Board, by
order issued February 2, 1939, granted this request and also directed
that the Regional Director's Reply be incorporated in the record.
The Regional Director, as agent for the Board, in and by his
Reply, denied "each and all of the material allegations contained
and made in said [paragraphs and exhibits restored by the order
of December 15, 1938 to the record] ... except those [therein] .. .
expressly admitted," and alleged that he wrote the letter of Septem-
ber 24, 1937, referred to in the respondent's answer; that on or about
October 11, 1937, a conference was held between the Regional Attor-
ney 7 and representative of the respondent; that during the course
of said conference, the Regional Attorney conferred with representa-
tives of the Union by telephone and then advised the respondent
that it was the disposition of the Union representatives that if the
respondent consented in writing to the conduct of an election by
secret ballot among its employees in terms agreeable to the said Union
and pursuant to the Act, the Board Rules and Regulations, and the
decisions of the Board in representation cases, for the purpose of
determining the preference of said employees of the Reserve plant
as between the Union and the Council as an exclusive bargaining
agency, then certain allegations of unfair labor practices would not
6 The names of the four persons with respect to whom the charges were sustained are :
be Cambise, William Cambre, Rawley Hymel, and John Keating.
7 Said Regional Attorney referred to is the Regional Attorney for the Board assisting
the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region.
574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be pressed ; that on or about October 19, 1937, a conference was held
by the Regional Director , and representatives of the respondent and
of the Union ; that at this conference the representatives of the Union
repeated that if the respondent consented in writing to the conduct
of an election by secret ballot among said employees , in terms agree-
able to the Union and under and pursuant to the Act , the Board
Rules and Regulations , and the decisions of the Board in representa-
tion cases , for the purpose of determining the representation prefer-
ence of said employees as between the Union and the Council, the
Union would not instigate or press charges of unfair labor practices
against the respondent on matters then pending ; that on or about
October 19 , 1937, the respondent executed such a consent and agree-
ment in writing ; that said consent and agreement also was signed
by the Board, the Union , and the Council ; that on October 26, 1937,
an election pursuant to said agreement was held under the direction
of the Regional Director.
On February 2, 1939, the Board duly served upon the respondent,
upon the Union , and upon the Council, a copy of its order of said
date , afore-mentioned , accompanied by written notice to said parties,
notifying each of said parties that the Board "may rely upon the
material allegations of the `Reply of Regional Director , As Agent
for the Board, to Answer of the Respondent ' heretofore served upon
you by Charles H. Logan, Regional Director for the Fifteenth
Region, unless , within ten days from the receipt of this Notice, the
material allegations of the Reply are expressly denied." Within
the time thus prescribed , the respondent filed with the Board two
documents entitled respectively, "Return or Response of Respondent
to Ruling or Notice of the Board of February 2, 1939, to the effect
that the Board may rely upon the material allegations of the Reply
of the Regional Director to Answer of Respondent unless the mate-
rial allegations of the Reply are expressly denied, " and "Exception
and Return of respondent , Godchaux Sugars, Inc., to the Order of
February 2, 1939, granting leave to Regional Director of the Fif-
teenth Region to file reply to Answer of respondent, Godchaux
Sugars , Inc." In the first of these documents the respondent states
that it has "no objection whatever to the Board relying upon those
allegations of the reinstated portion of the respondent's answer and
accompanying exhibits that the Regional Director in his so-called
`Reply ' has expressly admitted to be true . . ."
Neither within the time allowed by the notice of February 2, 1939,
nor at any other time since that date has the respondent , the Union,
or the Council denied all or any of the allegations contained in the
Regional Director 's Reply.
The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port of the Trial Examiner, as well as the various objections and
GODCHAUX SUGARS, INC. 575
contentions which the respondent has made in papers filed herein
since the filing of its Exceptions. We find the Exceptions and said
objections and contentions, and each of them, save those which are
consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below,
to be either without merit or unnecessary to determine in view of the
order below.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a Louisiana corporation having its principal
place of business in New Orleans, Louisiana. It owns and operates
plants located at Raceland and at Reserve, Louisiana, and is licensed
to do business in the States of New York, Arkansas, Indiana, Mis-
sissippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Texas, Geor-
gia, Kansas, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Illinois, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and
Alabama. These proceedings involve only the plant at Reserve.
The respondent's operations include the cultivation, transporta-
tion, and milling of sugar cane,8 refining of raw sugar, and the proc-
essing of various byproducts. More than 80 per cent of the raw
materials and supplies used at the Reserve plant in the course of
manufacture during the past several years was obtained and shipped
to the plant from outside of the State of Louisiana. Raw sugar,
the principal of these raw materials, is procured part from within
Louisiana, and part, by boat and rail, from Puerto Rico, the Philip-
pine Islands, and Cuba. About 871/2 per cent of the refined sugars
regularly produced at the Reserve plant are shipped by rail or water
from the plant to customers located in States other than Louisiana.
An even greater percentage of the byproducts are sold and shipped
to points outside Louisiana. The average monthly sale of refined
sugar produced at the Reserve plant during past years has amounted
to 45 million pounds.
In October 1937 the respondent employed 996 employees in the
Reserve plant, excluding clerical, supervisory, and agricultural
employees.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Sugar Mill Workers' Union, Locals No. 21177 and No. 21188, are
labor organizations affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
admitting to membership employees of the respondent working in
the "mill proper," excluding supervisory, clerical, and certain other
employees. The Union also admits to membership employees en-
gaged in loading and unloading shipments to and from the plant,
8 The employees engaged in the agricultural operations are not here involved.
576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and firemen, engineers, and other employees who work on the
respondent's narrow gauge railroad.
Godchaux Sugars Employees Labor Council is an unaffiliated labor
organization, with membership limited to persons employed by the
respondent. Certain supervisory employees and agricultural workers
are ineligible for membership.
HI. TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN BY
THE RESP ('NDENT ON OR BEFORE CCTCBER 26, 1937
In accordance with the notice of February 2, 1939, the Board, in
the exercise of its discretion and for the purpose of these proceedings,
has determined to and hereby does rely upon the material allegations
contained in the Regional Director's Reply, as allegations of fact
admitted to be true by all parties.
Upon the facts thus admitted and upon the record the Board finds:
On September 24, 1937, the Regional Director, by written communi-
cation, advised the respondent of the receipt by the Board from the
Union of a petition for investigation and certification of representa-
tives; of the claim therein made by the Union that, under the Act,
it was the exclusive bargaining representative of all the respondent's
Reserve plant employees, with certain exceptions: and of the pend-
ency of charges by the American Federation of Labor, the labor
organization with which the Union was and is affiliated, concerning
the formation and domination of a company union by the respondent.
The company union thus referred to was the Council. The Regional
Director, in this communication, further made inquiry of the
respondent whether the respondent was agreeable to the conduct of
an election by the Board among the Reserve plant employees for
the purpose of determining their preference of a collective bargain-
ing representative. Thereafter, on or about October 11, 1937, the
Regional Attorney and the respondent met in conference during
which time the Regional Attorney advised the respondent, follow-
ing inquiry made by him of the Union in that respect, that it was
the disposition of the Union that if the respondent consented to
an election to determine the choice, if any, of the Reserve plant em-
ployees as between the Union and the Council for collective bar-
t aining representation, certain allegations of unfair labor practices
would not be pressed. On October 19, 1937, another conference took
place, this one participated in by the Union as well as by the Regional
Director and the respondent, during the course of which the Union
reiterated its position. that if the respondent consented to an elec-
tion, the Union would not instigate or press charges of unfair labor
practices against the respondent on matters then pending. Accord-
ingly, on October 19, 1937, the respondent, the Union, the Council,
and the Regional Director, said Director acting in that behalf as
GODCHAUX SUGARS, INC. 577
agent for the Board, executed a written consent and agreement pro-
viding for the conduct of an election on October 26, 1937, under the
direction of the Board among certain specified classes of employees
employed at the Reserve plant, for the purpose of determining
whether a majority of these employees desired to have either the
Union or the Council represent them in collective bargaining with
the respondent. The consent and agreement specifically provided
that if either of the interested labor organizations obtained a ma-
jority of the votes cast in such an election, the respondent would
recognize such organization as the exclusive collective bargaining
agency of all the employees eligible to vote. On October 26, 1937,
pursuant to the consent and agreement, an election was held in which
the Council obtained a majority of the votes cast.
It is apparent from the foregoing, and we find, that on October
19, 1937, the respondent executed the above written consent and agree-
ment of that date, in reliance upon a representation then made by
the Union, in the presence of the Regional Director, that if the
respondent would execute said consent and agreement the Union
would not instigate or press charges with respect to unfair labor
practices allegedly engaged in by the respondent prior to that time.
While this representation originated with and was put forth by the
Union and not by the Regional Director, it is manifest that the
presence of the Regional Director at the conference, coupled with
his execution of the written consent and agreement, reasonably were
calculated to and did indicate to the respondent an acquiescence by
the Board through its agent in the representation made, and, in con-
sequence, in the undertaking implicit. It is true that under the Act
the Board upon charges of unfair labor practice being filed and a
hearing upon complaint had, may in its discretion proceed to a deter-
mination of such charges irrespective of whether a representation
or undertaking, such as the above, was made or assumed. Neverthe-
less, effective administration of the Act and furtherance of its poli-
cies require that the Board pay scrupulous regard to such a repre-
sentation and undertaking of its agent, where, as here, they relate
to matters of adjustment.'
However, it is charged and alleged that subsequent to October 19,
1937, and prior to the holding of the election of October 26, as well
as during the election, the respondent engaged in various unfair
labor practices, which, among other things, interfered with, re-
Cf. Matter of Shenandoah-Dives Mining Caapany and International Union of Mine
Mfll & Smelter 11 'orheis. Local 00 6, 11 N L. It B 885, where in an analogous situa-
tion involving an agreement of the emp :oyei, participated in by an agent o, tile bluaid,
to remedy alleged unfair labor practices . the Boaud said
"Although we do not agree that the compromise agreement estop$ the Board from proceed-
ing herein , we believe that effective administration of the Act requires that the Board's
agents have the respect and confidence of labor organizations and employers with whom
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD578
strained, and coerced its Reserve plant employees in their exercise
f a free choice of representatives at that election. Plainly, were
uch charges and allegations proved, we should have little hesitancy
n disregarding the representation and undertaking of October 19.
Conduct of such character by the respondent would vitiate any claim
to exoneration.
The evidence adduced at the hearing, however, fails to establish
any unfair labor practices committed by the respondent during the
period following October 19, 1937, to and including the election of
October 26. As to matters directly relating to the election, it is
shown that during the taking of the ballot, certain individuals, in-
cluding several so-called "foremen," sat at a table near the polling
place, making notations of the names of employees who came to vote.
It is not clear that the so-called "foremen" were foremen ill, the usual
sense of persons identified in interest with the employer. They ap-
pear to have been acting solely for the Council in determining what
employees had not voted in order to furnish such employees trans-
portation facilities to the polling place. Upon request of the Union,
these individuals transferred their activities to a point farther away
from the polls. It also is shown that a company policeman was
stationed near the polling place part of the day, but it does not ap-
pear that he did anything more than direct traffic and generally
observe events. There likewise was some proof of electioneering car-
ried on by the Council near the polls; however, there is no evidence
of employer-action in that connection. No objection to any of these
activities of the Council, save the request regarding the individuals
noting the voters, was made by the Union to persons in charge of the
election at the time of their occurrence.
There also was proof regarding a parade, barbecue, and dance held
by the Council for its members and friends on the night preceding
the election. The witnesses were in agreement that this celebration
was the most elaborate they ever had attended or heard of occurring
in Reserve. The cost of the affair, an amount in excess of $400, was
met, for the most part, with money furnished by one C. I. James, a
businessman of Reserve. James testified that loans made by him to
the Council prior to February 1, 1938, aggregated $1,270, that he
promised the Council to advance all funds needed to meet the ex-
penses of its participation in these proceedings which the Council
their work brings them in contact. Repudiation of agreements entered into and relied
on in good faith necessarily impairs such respect and confidence . It may well be that
the Regional Director intended the instant agreement to be subject to acceptance by the
complainant , Gliecek , or approval by the Board, or both . There is, however , no evidence to
that effect . The respondent apparently relied and acted upon the agreement , reinstating
an employee the legality of whose discharge had not been adjudicated . We believe the
policies of the Act will best be effectuated by giving effect to the agreement and refraining
from consideration of the alleged unfair labor practices. The complaint will be
dismissed."
GODCHAUX SUGARS, INC. 579
itself could not pay, that he never discussed these loans or advances
with the respondent nor does he look to it for repayment, that he
expects to be paid by the Council some time in the future. While
James' testimony about these loans and undertakings is incredible,
and, while we have no doubt that he failed to disclose on the witness
stand the true nature of these transactions, yet the record is barren
of proof establishing that in engaging therein he acted at the instance
of the respondent. Upon the evidence before us we cannot conclude
as concerns the election that the respondent intimidated, restrained,
or otherwise interfered with its employees in their voting, as alleged
in the complaint. We find that the election of October 26, 1937, was
a proper one, in conformity with the terms of the consent and agree-
ment therefor of October 19.
We believe, because of the representation and undertaking of Octo-
ber 19, 1937, that the policies of the Act will best be effectuated in
this case if we refrain from considering the record in so far as it
relates to unfair labor practices allegedly engaged in by the respond-
ent on or before that date. Since we also have found that the re-
spondent engaged in no unfair labor practices after October 19, to and
including October 26, 1937, the complaint and the proceedings, with
regard to all such practices, allegedly occurring prior to and includ-
ing October 26, 1937, should, and will be, dismissed.
IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN BY
THE RESPONDENT AFTER OCTOBER 2 6, 19 3 7
A. Alleged domination of and interference wit1i, the administration
of the Council and support thereof
The evidence with respect solely to acts, events, and occurrences
after October 26, 1937, does not establish that the respondent subse-
quent to that date dominated or interfered with the administration
of the Council, or contributed financial or other support to it, and we
so find. Accordingly, we will dismiss the complaint in so far as it
alleges that the respondent after October 26, 1937, dominated and
interfered with the administration of the Council and contributed
financial or other support to it, that the respondent thereby inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
B. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7
About November 13', 1937, following the filing by the Union with
the Board of a protest to the election of October 26, various employ-
ees at the Reserve plant who were members of the Council circulated
a certain petition, on the respondent's time and property, addressed
169134-39-vol. 12-38
580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARB
to the Board and stating, in substance, that the signers thereof be-
lieved the election of October 26 to have been fairly conducted, that
the results were satisfactory to them, and that they desired the Coun-
cil to be certified as an exclusive bargaining agency.
The petition was circulated and the signatures thereto obtained
with the knowledge and acquiescence of at least one foreman. How-
ever, the evidence does not establish that the respondent, through its
officers, supervisory employees, or otherwise compelled employees to
sign the petition. We have held that a grant by an employer under
certain circumstances of its time and property to a labor organiza-
tion for organizational purposes constituted a violation of the Act.lo
The question in all cases, however, is whether by such grant the
employer has interfered with self-organization or collective bargain-
ing.l" We think that the respondent's grant of its time and property
for the circulation of a petition of the kind here involved, under the
circumstances here presented, did not contravene the Act.
The complaint alleged that the respondent imposed membership
in the Council as a condition to its reemploying a number of persons
whom it reemployed during the period from October 1 to November
16, 1937. With respect to persons allegedly so reemployed subse-
quent to October 26, 1937, the record does not satisfactorily establish
the imposition of such a condition by the respondent. While there
is some testimony of conduct by supervisory employees, which may
have occurred after that date, tending to show that pressures were
brought to bear upon reemployed employees to join the Council, we
cannot say that the evidence of acts and circumstances after October
26 warrants such a finding. Moreover, it appears that, of the persons
reemployed subsequent to the election who testified at the hearing,
some joined the Council after their reemployment, some never joined,
and several joined preceding their reemployment but not pursuant to
any compulsion attributable to the respondent.
We find that the respondent, subsequent to October 26, 1937, did
not interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed therein by Section 7 of the Act, as alleged in
the complaint. We, therefore, will dismiss the complaint, in so far as
it so alleges.
C. Alleged discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment
The complaint alleged that the respondent on or about October 1,
1937, terminated the employment of nine named employees and has
at all times since failed and refused to reinstate them, because of their
10 Matter of Servel, Inc and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America,
Local No 1002, 11 N L R B 1295, and cases there cited.
n Cf. Matter of Aeolian-American Corporation and Amalgamated Piano Workers of
America, 8 N. L. R. B. 1043.
GODCHAUX SUGARS, INC. 581
membership in the Union and in order to discourage membership of
employees in the Union. Three of these employees 12 were laid off
prior to October 1, 1937, during the seasonal shut-down of the plant,
and were not reemployed when the plant reopened on or about Octo-
ber 1, 1937. However, the record does not show that by acts subse-
quent to October 19, 1937, the respondent discriminated in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment. They made no application for
reinstatement after that date. One other of the nine employees is
was laid off in September 1937 and never applied for work thereafter.
We, therefore, cannot find any discrimination as to him subsequent to
October 19. Of the remaining five employees, all but one were found
by the Trial Examiner not to have been discriminated against in their
hire or tenure of employment.' In view of the failure of the Union
to file exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and its acquiescence in
the Trial Examiner's findings'15 we shall not consider whether the
respondent discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of em-
ployment subsequent to October 19, 1937. We affirm the findings of
the Trial Examiner in this respect. The remaining employee had
been laid off, apparently, in the seasonal lay-off and made applica-
tion for reinstatement after October 1. The date of his last appli-
cation is not shown. He testified that when he made this application
he was told by the plant manager that "after the election and every-
thing was settled that he [plant manager] expected everybody to go
back to work." It would appear from this that the application was
prior to October 19. In response to interrogation at the hearing
whether he had applied after November 1, 1937, the employee testified
"I wouldn't know." Under these circumstances, we cannot find that
the respondent by acts subsequent to October 19, discriminated against
him.
We find that the respondent, subsequent to October 26, 1937, did
not discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of
any of its employees, or as to any term or condition of their employ-
ment, within the meaning of the Act, thereby interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act. We, therefore, will dismiss the
complaint in so far as it so alleges that the respondent terminated
the employment of nine named employees and has at all times since
failed and refused to reinstate them, because of their membership
in the Union and in order to discourage membership of employees in
the Union.
12 The names of these employees are Cambise , William Cambre , and Saragusa.
Is His name is Keating.
14 The names of these employees are Ellis Cambre , Champagne , Madere, and Millet.
15 The Union notified the Board that it had no exceptions to file and was satisfied with
the hearing and procedure of the Trial Examiner.
582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The petition of the Union for an investigation and certification of
representatives alleges that a question has arisen concerning the rep-
resentation of certain of the respondent's Reserve plant employees,
in that, although the Union claims to represent a majority of these
employees, within a unit appropriate for collective bargaining pur-
poses, the respondent denies this claim and refuses to bargain collec-
tively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all the em-
ployees in such unit unless and until the Board certifies that the
Union is such exclusive representative. It is apparent from the char-
acter of evidence introduced at the hearing in support of the petition,
and from other circumstances shown, that the Union is here seeking
merely the direction of an election to determine representatives, not
a certification of representatives upon the record.
The employees who the Union in its petition alleges constitute an
appropriate collective bargaining unit and whom it claims to repre-
sent, were all included substantially in the group of employees eligible
to vote in the election of October 26. That election was held 1 week
before the filing herein of the petition for investigation, an election
which we have found was a fair and proper one, in accordance with
the consent and agreement of October 19. Moreover, we see no reason
for finding, especially in view of said consent and agreement, that
the unit in which the election was held was not an appropriate one
for collective bargaining.',, Since we have found that the election of
October 26 was fair and proper, and the unit in which it was held
not inappropriate, we shall dismiss the petition of the Union filed
November 2, 1937.
We construe the request of the Council for certification made in its
petition filed herein on January 22, 1938, as based upon the results
of the election of October 26. Some 18 months have intervened since
the conduct of that election, a period in which circumstances may
have so changed that the Council no longer represents a majority of
the employees employed by the respondent within an appropriate col-
lective bargaining unit. Under these circumstances, we shall deny
this request 1T For the same reason, our dismissal of the petition shall
be without prejudice.
1e Cf. Matter of Marlin-Rockwell Corporation and Local No. 338, United Automobile
Workers of America, 5 N. L. R B . 206, 210-211. The election was conducted among all
"plant employees ," that is, "all employees at the Reserve , Louisiana , plant paid by the
hour or by piece except those in clerical or supervisory capacities , and those whose normal
employment is in agricultural or field work."
11 Matter of Bamberger-Reinthal Company and International Ladies' Garment Workers
Union, 9 N. L. R. B. 1057 . Matter of American France Line et at. (Seatrain Lines, Inc.)
and International Seamen's Union of America , 10 N. L. R. B. 1169.
GODCHAUX SUGARS, INC . 583
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in these proceedings, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations and business of the respondent constitute a con-
tinuous flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and between the States and foreign countries, within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. Sugar Mill Workers' Union, Locals No. 21177 and No. 21188,
and Godchaux Sugars Employees Labor Council, are labor organiza-
tions, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The respondent, since October 19, 1937,18 has not dominated or
interfered with the administration of, or contributed financial or
other support to, Godchaux Sugars Employees Labor Council, within
the, meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
4. The respondent, since October 19, 1937, has not interfered with, re-
strained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
5. The respondent, since October 19, 1937, has not discriminated in
regard to the hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condi-
tion of, employment of its Reserve plant employees, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
6. No question concerning the representation of employees of the
respondent, Godchaux Sugars, Inc., for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining has arisen, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the com-
plaint, as amended, against the respondent, Godchaux Sugars, Inc.,
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Investigation and
Certification filed by Sugar Mill Workers' Union Locals No. 21177
and No. 21188, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, be,
and it hereby is, dismissed, without prejudice.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the application by Godchaux Sugars
Employees Labor Council for certification as representative of the
employees of the respondent, Godchaux Sugars, Inc., be, and it hereby
is, denied.
MR. DONALD WAKEFIELD SMITH took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.
Is "Since October 19, 1937," as used in the Conclusions of Law , means from October 19,
1937, until the date of the hearing , January 24, 1938.