Goodyear Clearwater Mill No.2

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 12, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 1329 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

GOODYEAR CLEARWATER MILL NO. 2 1329
Although the Petitioner stated at the hearing that it would accept
any unit found appropriate, its showing of interest in the appropriate
unit is not sufficient to warrant holding an election, and the Intervenors
stated at the hearing that they did not want an election at this time.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.6
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
E Rosa Lumber Company , 94 NLRB 636.
GOODYEAR CLEARWATER MILL No. 2, PETITIONER and TEXTILE WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, CIO and UNITED TExi'n i WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL. Cage No. 10-ISM-93. February 12, 1953
Decision and Order
Pursuant to a "Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Elec-
tion," an election by secret ballot was conducted on March 14, 1952,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region. Following the election, a tally of ballots was furnished
the parties.' The tally shows that of approximately 1,298 eligible
voters, 1,158 cast valid ballots, of which 455 were for the CIO, 213
were for the AFL, and 485 were against either participating union.
There were 5 challenged ballots.
On March 21, 1952, the AFL filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director investi-
gated the objections and on May 15, 1952, issued and duly served upon
the parties a report on objections, in which he recommended that the
objections based on allegations 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, and 17 be
found to be without merit and that they be overruled, and that, in the
event that the Board did not as a matter of law sustain objection 11,
the Board direct a hearing on objections with respect to the remaining
issues concerning which the Regional Director could not resolve the
credibility issues. On May 26, 1952, the Employer filed exceptions to
the Regional Director's report. On May 29, 1952, the AFL filed a
statement in support of the Regional Director's report and recom-
mendations and exceptions thereto.
On June 11, 1952, the Board ordered a hearing on objections num-
bered 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, and 13, directing that the hearing officer prepare
and cause to be served upon the parties a report resolving questions
' Textile Workers Union of America , CIO, and United Textile Workers of America, AFL,
are referred to as CIO and AFL, respectively.
102 NLRB No. 127.
1330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of credibility and containing findings of fact and recommendations.2
Pursuant to this order , a hearing was held before Charles M. Paschal,
Jr., hearing officer.
On November 6, 1952, the hearing officer issued his report, a copy
of which is attached hereto, recommending , inter alia , that the elec-
tion be set aside. The Employer filed timely exceptions to the hear-
ing officer 's report and the AFL filed a statement in support thereof
with exceptions to be considered in the event other exceptions were
filed.
The Board 3 has reviewed the rulings made by the hearing officer
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the report
on objections , the exceptions, and the entire record in the case,' and
hereby adopts the hearing officer's findings , and the hearing officer's
conclusions with respect to objections 2, 10, 12 , and 13.
Like the hearing officer , we find merit in objections 2 and 10. We
find that Overseer Camp, by the use of the sample ballot and by his
statements on the occasion in which he displayed it to employee
Langley, did threaten Langley with possible loss of employment.
Similarly, we find that Foreman McGee , in the meetings conducted
on March 11 and 13, 1952 , sought to persuade employees to vote against
union representation by threating them with the possible loss of em-
ployment. By engaging in these acts , we find that the Employer
interfered with its employees in the free choice of a bargaining
representative.
With respect to objection 1, the hearing officer found that, a few days
before the election , Second Hand Head told employee Hammond
"to vote for the Company and that it would make it lighter , or better
for him later on." Unlike the hearing officer, we do not think this
remark was converted from a promise of benefit for voting against the
Union into a mere expression of opinion by the family relationship
between Head and Hammond . Accordingly we find merit in and
sustain objection 1.
With respect to objection 3, the hearing officer found substantial
evidence of extensive interrogation of employees by supervisors of
the Company to ascertain how they would vote in the election, but
concluded that such interrogation did not, as a matter of law, con-
stitute illegal interference with the free right of employees in casting
2 On June 18, 1952, the Board reserved the right to rule on objection 11 , without the
necessity of taking any further evidence thereon. In view of our decision herein, we do
not pass upon that objection.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [ Chairman Herzog and
Members Styles and Peterson 1.
' The Employer' s request for oral argument is hereby denied because , in our opinion, the
record, report , and exceptions adequately present the positions of the parties.
GOODYEAR CLEARWATER MILL NO. 2 1331
their secret ballot. The Board has consistently held that such in-
terrogation of employees if, as here, it is reasonably related in time to
the election, constitutes such interference with the employees' free
choice of representatives as to warrant the setting aside of the election.5
As a matter of law, we shall sustain objection 3.
We find that by the above conduct the Employer interfered with its
employees in the free choice of a bargaining representative, and shall,
therefore, adopt the hearing officer's recommendation that the elec-
tion be set aside; and we shall also direct that a new election be con-
ducted as soon as the Regional Director determines that the circum-
stances permit the free choice of a bargaining representative.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on March 14,1952, among
employees of the Employer, be, and it hereby is, set aside.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded to the
Regional Director for the region in which this case was heard for
the purpose of conducting a new election at such time as he deems
the circumstances permit a free choice of a bargaining representative.
3 Morehead City Garment Company, Inc., 94 NLRB 245; F . W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289; U. S. Rubber Co ., 86 NLRB 3; cf. Fulton Bag & Cotton Ms118, 89 NLRB 943.
Hearing Officer's Report on Objections to Election
Pursuant to a "Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election," an elec-
tion was held in the above-entitled proceeding on March 14, 1952, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region of the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board. On March 21, 1952,
United Textile Workers of America, AFL, herein called U. T. W., duly filed
objections to conduct affecting the results of the election, and to conduct of the
election. After investigation of the aforesaid objections, on May 15, 1952, the
Regional Director issued his report on election, objections to election, and
recommendations to the Board. Thereafter on May 26, 1952, Goodyear Clear-
water Mill No. 2, herein called the Company, filed exceptions thereto and on
May 29, 1952, U. T. W. filed a statement in support of the Regional Director's
report and recommendations and exceptions thereto.
On June 11, 1952, the Board issued an order directing hearing on objections,
whereby it ordered that a hearing be held on objections 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, and 13
as numbered in the aforesaid Regional Director's report ; that the hearing officer
designated for the purpose of conducting the hearing prepare and cause to be
served upon the parties a report resolving questions of credibility and containing
findings of fact and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of the
said objections ; and that the above-entitled matter be referred to the Regional
Director for the purpose of such hearing, and that said Regional Director be
authorized to issue early notice thereof.
Pursuant to said order of the Board, on June 17, 1952, the Regional Director
issued a notice of hearing on objections, and thereafter, pursuant to notice, the
hearing was held in Rockmart, Georgia, on July 22, 23, and 24, 1952, before the
undersigned as the designated hearing officer. All of the parties were repre-
1332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rented at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.'
During the course of the hearing, the Company, through its counsel, objected
to the admission and moved to strike the testimony of witness Brunell Hitchcock
concerning his alleged conversations with one Earl Tomlin , a nonsupervisory
clerical employee of the Company . Hitchcock 's testimony was taken subject to
proof that Tomlin was acting as an agent of the Company or in a supervisory
capacity at the time of his statements to Hitchcock, which U. T. W. urged in
support of its objections . On the basis of affirmative evidence that Tomlin was
neither an agent nor supervisory employee of the Company, and the absence of
any showing to contrary, the motion to strike Hitchcock's testimony was granted.
The Company further objected to and moved to strike the testimony of witness
Floyd Cole concerning certain statements allegedly made to him by one Dixie
Brown, a nonsupervisory guard employed by the Company. Cole's testimony
was taken subject to proof that Brown was a supervisory employee or agent of
the Company at the time of his alleged statements to Cole. On the basis of
affirmative proof that Dixie Brown was not a supervisory employee nor agent
of the Company, and no showing to the contrary, the motion to strike was granted.
U. T. W.'s contention that the Company was bound by the statements of Dixie
Brown because he was employed as a "guard" within the meaning of the Act
and excluded by statute from the bargaining unit was rejected.
Upon reconsideration, the rulings referred to above are hereby reaffirmed.
The hearing officer reserved ruling on motions of the Company to strike the
testimony of witnesses Joseph Jacobs, the representative of U. T. W., and J. D.
Harralson on the grounds that Jacobs' testimony was an attempt to impeach his
own witnesses and Harralson's testimony was outside the scope of the objections.
Said motions are hereby denied.
The Company further moved to dismiss the objections of U. T. W., separately
and in their entirety, and ruling on this motion was reserved. The motion to
dismiss the objections is denied except as hereinafter indicated in this report.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following findings of fact and conclusions with respect
to the specific objections involved in this proceeding :
Objection No. 1
That during the time the election was being conducted and preceding those
hours, on Company property and on Company time, and at other places,
supervisory officials did openly, and with the knowledge and consent of the
company, make promises of reward and benefits to workers if they would
vote against this Union.
Employee Perry Hammond testified, and the undersigned finds, that on March
10 or 11, 1952, he was questioned about his opinion of the forthcoming election
by his step-brother, F. A. "Doe" Head, a second hand, who is a supervisory
employee within the meaning of the Act. The conversation took place in the
spinning department shortly after Hammond had completed his work shift and
while he was en route to speak to his wife who worked under Head's supervision.
i Subsequent to the Board's order of June 11, 1952, the Associate Executive Secretary of
the Board , in answer to a letter dated June 18, 1952 ( Board Exhibit 2-A), advised the
representative of U. T. W. that the Board was reserving the right to rule on objection 11,
without the necessity of any evidence being introduced at the hearing in connection with
this objection ( Board Exhibit 2-B). The parties were advised of this fact at the com-
mencement of the hearing and afforded an opportunity to state their respective positions
on the subject , although no specific e%idence with regard to this objection was taken during
the hearing.
GOODYEAR CLEARWATER MILL NO. 2 1333
Head initiated the conversation by asking employee Hammond, whom be
knew to be an A. F. L. supporter, how he thought the election was coming out,
Hammond replied that he thought the A. F. L. would win by a big majority. He
was then told to vote for the Company and that would make it lighter, or better
for him later on. Second Hand Head also told him that the A. F. L. would go
down and Hammond said that if it did he, Hammond , would go with it.
In his testimony Second Hand Head conceded that he did discuss the election
with Hammond at about this time, but denied that he advised him to vote for
the Company and that it would be lighter or better for him if he did so. Head's
testimony with reference to the conversation was not certain nor convincing.
Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the conversation did occur substantially
as related by employee Hammond and set forth above. However, Hammond
further testified that he did not work under Head's supervision, did not know
how Head could help him, and did not consider that Head was offering him any-
thing official for his vote.
Hammond had had no previous conversation with Second Hand Head about
the election, and there is no evidence that Head had made any threats or prom-
ises to any other employee. Under these circumstances, and in view of the
relationship between Hammond and Head, it is the opinion of the undersigned
that Second Hand Head's remarks to Hammond did not reasonably tend to
interfere with an employee in his choice of a bargaining agent and, at most,
constituted a mere expression of opinion.
James C. Brown, an employee of the Company for about 19 years, testified, in
substance, that several days prior to the election Overseer L. P. Hanson asked
him how he thought the election was coming out ; hinted around that he thought
the Company would win or that he should help the Company ; and asked how he
was going to vote. According to Brown, he told Overseer Hanson that he was
going to vote for the Union and Hanson told him that if he were to help the
Company-he'd better get on the right side, and maybe he would be next in line
for supervision. Brown replied that he would think it over. Employee Brown
further testified that on the day of the election Overseer Hanson told him to
go down to vote, asked if he knew how to vote, and said , "I will see you some
time tonight. Vote right and I will buy you a beer." According to Brown,
he replied, "I don't drink beer, but I will settle for a bottle of Old Grand Dad."
There were no known witnesses to either of the alleged conversations related
by Brown.
Overseer Hanson testified, in substance, that he did not at any time advise
James Brown that he would be in line for supervision or that he might receive
some reward if he voted a certain way. He did not recall any conversation
about buying Brown a beer if he voted a certain way, but did not positively deny
such a conversation. He stated that the election was common talk in his de-
partment and admitted that he may have asked Brown his opinion of the out-
come.
The undersigned was not favorably impressed by the testimony of James
Brown. It was indefinite, speculative, and self-contradictory in material parts.
Therefore, I do not credit the testimony of Brown concerning his alleged conver-
sation with Overseer Hanson several days prior to the election. I do not find,
as suggested by the testimony of Brown and urged by U. T. W., that Overseer
Hanson made any promises to Brown of a supervisory position if he would vote
for the Company. I am compelled to credit Overseer Hanson's denial of any such
occurrence. Brown's testimony that on the day of the election Overseer Hanson,
in effect, promised to buy him a beer if he would vote right, presumably for the
Company, and that he replied that he would settle for a bottle of Old Grand
Dad did not impress the undersigned with the serious importance placed on it
250983-vol. 102-53-85
1334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by U. T. W. If in fact such a conversation did occur, s hiclh the undersigned
seriously doubts, it was at most a jesting conversation, which was neither de-
signed nor intended to illegally influence employee Brown in his free choice of
a bargaining agent. Brown's version of his reply to Hanson's alleged proposition
about buying him a beer is so patently inconsistent with Brown's active mem-
bership in U. T. W., that the undersigned cannot credit Brown's version of this
incident.
The undersigned does find, however, that Overseer Hanson did question James
C. Brown several days prior to the election as to how he thought the election
was coming out. While Hanson concedes in his testimony that he may have asked
other employees similar questions about the election, there was no direct evidence
that he had ever made any illegal promises of reward or threats of reprisals in
order to influence employees to vote in any particular way.
According to the testimony of employee William Lumpkin, who has been
employed by the Company for about 14 years, during the week of the election
Assistant Superintendent M. D. Link asked Lumpkin about an A. F. L. button
that he was wearing and told Lumpkin that it wouldn't be worth 10 cents per
thousand after the election and that he replied that he was going to wear it
anyway. Lumpkin further testified that on the day of the election he met As-
sistant Superintendent Link in the lobby of the plant and was engaged in a con-
versation by Link in which Link asked him to vote like his father did ; that the
Company had always taken care of Lumpkin's father. Lumpkin's father is an
old employee of the Company and is nonunion. Lumpkin further testified that
during the same conversation in the lobby, Link "sort of intimated" that Lump-
kin would be in line for the next vacant supervision job which came up if he
would go along and support the Company. He stated that he advised Link that
he would think it over. Before the conversation concluded, Superintendent
Link also stated that he understood that "Runt," Lumpkin's brother, was going
to vote for the C. I. O. While Lumpkin's brother was not a member of the
A. F. L., Lumpkin did not know if he was pro-C. I. O.
Assistant Superintendent Link denied that he had any conversation with
Lumpkin in the lobby of the plant on the day of the election ; that he had ever
talked to Lumpkin-about how his father voted; that he had promised or in-
dicated that Lumpkin would be in line for a fixer's job or in line for supervision if
he voted for the Company ; and further denied that he had made any remarks to
Lumpkin about the A. F. L. buttons. Link admitted that he had probably dis-
cussed the Union and the election with Lumpkin prior to the election or on the
day of the election, but denied that he had attempted to influence Lumpkin's
vote.
On the basis of Lumpkin's testimony, U. T. W. contends that Assistant Super-
intendent Link promised him a fixer's job if he would go along with the Com-
pany, and he told Link he would think it over. In consideration of the testi-
mony of Lumpkin and that of Link, the undersigned is compelled to reject the
contention of U. T. W. Lumpkin's testimony with reference to the alleged
promise of a supervisory job was vague and indefinite and inconsistent. While
Lumpkin Initially testified that Assistant Superintendent Link had intimated
that he would be in line for the next vacant supervision job that would come up
if he would go along and support the Company, he subsequently stated that Link
had told him he would be next in line for a fixing job, and still later stated that
while Link did not say definitely, he "sort of intimated." Under these circum-
stances, I am constrained to accept the denial of Assistant Superintendent Link
that any such conversation did occur and I do so find. Lumpkin's testimony
pertaining to an alleged conversation in which Assistant Superintendent Link
GOODYEAR CLEARWATER MILL NO. 2 1335
advised him that the A. F. L. buttons would not be worth 10 cents per thousand
after the election is considered irrelevant and immaterial to the objections.
Even assuming that such conversation did occur, it is the opinion of the under-
signed that such a statement did not contain any express or implied promise
of benefit or threat of reprisal against Lumpkin which reasonably tended to
interfere with his free choice of his bargaining representative. If such a state-
ment was made by Assistant Superintendent Link, it could only be interpreted
as an expression of opinion, which is protected under Section 8 (c) of the Act.
No witnesses were presented to corroborate the testimony of either Link or
Lumpkin with reference to either of the conversations attested to by employee
Lumpkin.
No further witnesses were presented in support of U. T. W.'s objections based
on the allegation that supervisory officials made promises of reward and benefits
to workers if they would vote against the Union. In view of the findings with
respect to the testimony of Hammond, Brown, and Lumpkin, as hereinbefore
set forth, it is the finding of the undersigned that objection 1 is without merit
and should be dismissed. The undersigned so recommends.
Objection No. 2
That during the time the election was being conducted, and preceding those
hours, on company property and on company time, and at other places,
supervisory officials did openly and with the knowledge and consent of the
company, warn, threaten and intimidate workers as to what would happen
if they voted for this Union, and if this Union won the election.
Employee Zack Laney, who has been employed by the Company for about 22
years and holds the position as chaplain in the local of U. T. W. representing the
Company's employees, testified that on the day of the election, while he was in
the picker room at his job, Assistant Superintendent Link asked him what he
thought about the election and how he was going to vote. He replied by asking
Assistant Superintendent link if he didn't think it was a free country and Link
allegedly stated that he didn't know. Laney then said a man could vote the way
he wanted to. Laney further testified that at the time of the conversation, he
was wearing his union button and that prior to the end of the conversation
employee Dover walked by them.
Employee Dover gave a somewhat different version of the alleged conversa-
tion between Laney and Link, as did Assistant Superintendent Link. According
to Dover, he and the Assistant Superintendent were talking when Laney inter-
rupted the conversation and he departed. He stated that he did not hear the
conversation which occurred between Laney and Link.
Assistant Superintendent Link testified that Laney came up to him on the
day of the election and asked about some passages of scripture in the Bible and
that during the resulting conversation, a discussion of the election arose during
which he, Link, stated that he was glad he lived in a country where they had
an opportunity to vote, rather than be dictated to. He denied telling Laney how
to vote.
In view of the fact that Laney was admittedly wearing an A. F. L. union but-
ton at the time of his alleged conversation with Assistant Superintendent Link,
it is not reasonable to believe that Link would have asked him how he was going
to vote. Furthermore. Link was well aware of Laney's active membership in
U. T. W. and obviously would have no question as to Laney's preference in the
matter. Laney himself did not indicate in his testimony that Link in any way
attempted to persuade him to vote against union representation by the use of any
promises or threats of any nature. In view of these facts, and the fact that
1336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Laney's testimony was contradicted, in part, by both that of employee Dover
'and Link , I do not credit the testimony of Laney that such conversation did in
fact occur. With respect to this alleged conversation, I credit the testimony
of Assistant Superintendent M. D. Link.
Employee Lucius Whatley, an employee of the Company for 13 or 14 years,
testified , and the undersigned finds, that on or about February 26, 1952, Over-
seer J. C. Camp stopped him in the plant and asked him what he thought about
the election. Whatley replied that he hadn't thought much about it or hadn't
given it much idea. Camp then asked Whatley which way he was going to vote
and Whatley replied that he didn't know. Camp then stated that they could
do without a union and told Whatley that the Company had been good to him.
In reply Whatley agreed with Camp, but said that he had been good to the
Company too, that they had paid him and he had worked and been paid for what
he had done. Thereafter Camp referred to an incident in which he and another
person had picked Whatley up on the way to work a number of years in the past.
Whatley concluded the conversation by stating that he didn't think it was right
for Camp to speak to him that way because Camp was losing time talking to
him ; that he was 100 percent Negro and 100 percent union ; and that if they
fired him that morning, he would go out the gate and would be a union man as
he did so.
On the following day a grievance with respect to this interrogation by Over-
seer Camp was filed with the Company and eventually carried through several
steps, but never resolved to the satisfaction of U. T. W.
Overseer Camp concedes that he asked Whatley what he thought about the
election and contended that at that point Whatley stated that he was 100 percent
Negro and 100 percent union ; that he was a Negro and stayed in his place and
was not trying to get any white man's job. According to Camp, Whatley became
somewhat excited about his race and he , Camp , tried to soothe him down. Camp
contended further that it was Luke who referred to the fact that Camp and
another person had picked Whatley up on the way to or from work. In the
opinion of the undersigned , Camp's testimony with reference to his conversation
with Whatley was involved , overly dramatic , and unimpressive . Camp's attempt
to place the date of the conversation around the first of February instead of
February 26, which was obviously the approximate date of the occurrence, was
an apparent attempt to discredit Whatley's testimony and casts serious question
on Camp's reliability. While Superintendent Murphy 's testimony would tend
to support that of Camp with reference to the date of the occurrence of the
grievance , he too was evasive and contradictory in his statements with reference
to its occurrence . On the other hand , Whatley and witness John E . Brown,
who testified with reference to the handling of the grievance , were positive in
their testimony that the grievance was taken up on the day after it happened.
I credit the testimony of Brown and Whatley in this respect.
Despite the fact that the undersigned fully credits the testimony of Lucius
Whatley with reference to his conversation with Overseer Camp, the undersigned
cannot find that in the conversation Overseer Camp expressly or by implication
promised Whatley any reward or threatened him with any reprisal in order to
influence his vote in the forthcoming election . I do find, however, that the
interrogation, as testified to by Whatley, did in fact occur. I do not interpret
this finding as being in support of U. T . W. objection 2 as constituting a warning,
threat, or intimidation of Whatley.
Witness William Langley testified, in substance, that he had worked for the
Company about a year and a half and that Overseer J. C. Camp was his
immediate supervisor. According to Langley, on the day of the election, and
GOODYEAR CLEARWATER MILL NO. 2 1337
prior to the time he had voted, he went to the plant to get his paycheck in advance
of the regular time, but on the same day that the paycheck was due. On this
occasion, Overseer Camp asked Langley if he knew which way to vote in the
election and thereafter pulled out a sample ballot, which was the same as that
distributed by employee Bud Irwin on the previous evening (U. T. W. Exhibit 1),
and showed him an imaginary cross and told him that was where to vote, point-
ing to the center block, thereafter asking, "You know to vote now?" When
Langley said he thought he did, Camp replied, "right in the center." A circular,
including the sample ballot which Langley contends was displayed to him on
this occasion, contained an implied threat that the Company' s plant would shut
down if the employees voted for union representation . Two or three days
prior to the conversation on the day of the election, Camp had asked Langley
if he knew how to vote in the forthcoming election.
In regards to the testimony of Langley, Overseer Camp denied that any such
conversation had occurred. Instead, Camp contended that the only occasions
upon which Langley had come to the plant to get his check in advance of the
regular time was on a very cold day, on February 15, 1952, and another time
after the election. In support of his testimony, Camp offered one slip off of his
calendar pad which contained a notation "Langley check" (Company Exhibit
A). Camp testified that this notation was made at the time he paid Langley his
check in advance of the regular time. No other portions of the calendar pad
from which this slip was allegedly taken was produced for the examination of
counsel or as a part of the evidence in this case. With respect to the occasion
after the election when Langley, according to Camp, drew his pay in advance
of the regular time, Overseer Camp testified that he did not know the date of
this occasion and didn't look it up because he was positive it was after the
election. In further support of his testimony, Overseer Camp offered a check
allegedly given Langley on February 15, 1952 (Company Exhibit B), which
indicated that it had been cashed at the same place where Langley allegedly
cashed his check of March 14, 1952. The paycheck which Langley received on
about March 14, 1952, was not presented in evidence . Camp denied any con-
versation with Langley on the night of the election concerning a sample ballot
or about how Langley should vote in the election and claimed that the first time
he saw a copy of the handbill distributed by Irwin was on the day of the election
or the day after when the night overseer brought him a copy. At the same time,
however, he testified that he had a number of circulars on his desk and that he
did not know what they were.
The undersigned was not impressed by the testimony of Overseer Camp and
does not credit his denial of Langley's testimony. The mere fact that Langley
may have drawn his check in advance of the regular time on some occasion prior
to March 14, as indicated by Company's Exhibits A and B, is not proof of the
fact that he did not do so on March 14, 1952. To the undersigned, Camp did
not testify in a frank and positive manner and appeared to mislead rather than
convince. Accordingly, I do fully credit the testimony of employee William
Langley concerning his conversations with Overseer Camp, and I specifically
discredit Overseer Camp's denial of the same. It is, therefore, the finding of
the undersigned that Overseer Camp, by use of a copy of U. T. W. Exhibit 1, and
by his statements on the occasion in which he displayed this exhibit to employee
Langley, did threaten him with the possible loss of employment as clearly indi-
cated on Exhibit 1 if Langley and others voted for union representation and,
thereby, did wrongfully interfere with Langley in his choice of a bargaining
representative. To this extent, and this extent only , I find that U. T. W. objec-
tion 2 has support in the evidence.
1338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Objection No. d
That during the time the election was being conducted and preceding the
election, the company by its officers and supervisory officials, sought to
ascertain how employees would vote in the election and interfered with the
free right of employees in casting their secret ballot.
Witness James Wheeler, who has been employed by the Company approxi-
mately 20 years and is president of the local union of U. T. W., which has mem-
bers among the Company's employees, testified as to several occasions upon
which he was questioned by Assistant Superintendent Link concerning the
election. Wheeler testified that around March 3, 1952, Assistant Superintendent
Link asked him how he was going to vote in the election and that he replied,
"I wouldn't vote like you would if you could vote." About a week later , Assist-
ant Superintendent Link came by Wheeler and told him, "This here election
is just worrying you to death, Wheeler." And Wheeler replied, "Mr. Link, I
haven't lost a night's sleep yet." Wheeler further testified that several days
later, and still prior to the election, Superintendent J. E. Murphy summoned
Wheeler to his office after work and upon Wheeler' s arrival told him that he,
Murphy, had heard that Wheeler was ready to start working for the Company.
Wheeler replied that he would have to resign from the A. F. L. as president
before he could even vote against the A. F. L. let alone for the Company.
Murphy then said that maybe he was mistaken and there was no further
conversation.
While denying that he had ever asked employee Wheeler how he was going
to vote in the election, Assistant Superintendent Link testified that he had had
many discussions with Wheeler about union matters ; that he talked with
Wheeler 3 or 4 times a week and may have had the conversations as attested
to by employee Wheeler. At any rate, Link conceded that he did not recall the
details of his discussions about the Union or the election with Wheeler. He
did testify that Wheeler was afraid that the C. I. O. was going to win the
election and had told him about his fear. According to Link, it was Wheeler, not
he, who stated that the election was worrying him.
Superintendent Murphy testified, in substance, that he had heard rumors that
Wheeler had resigned from his position as president of U. T. W. local and that
he had called him into the office and asked him if he had resigned from the
Union and was "on our side of the fence now," or some such statement. He
claimed that he did not recall Wheeler's reply, nor the date upon which the
conversation occurred.
Witness Wheeler impressed the undersigned as a forthright and honest wit-
ness whose testimony is reliable. I do not credit Assistant Superintendent
Link's qualified denial of Wheeler's testimony relative to his conversations with
Link or Link's version of the conversations. Wheeler's testimony with reference
to his conversation with Superintendent Murphy is corroborated by the testimony
of Murphy in all material respects.
Therefore, it is the finding of the undersigned that the conversations between
Assistant Superintendent Link and James Wheeler and Superintendent Murphy
and James Wheeler did occur substantially as testified by employee James
Wheeler. In so finding, however, I do not hold that the conversations consti-
tuted any threat of reprisal or promise of benefits designed or intended to
wrongfully influence Wheeler in his choice of a bargaining agent. I do find
that it did amount to interrogation of Wheeler about his union membership and
activities.
GOODYEAR CLEARWATER MILL NO. 2 1339
Employee J. D. Harralson testified that on the day of the election, March 14,
his immediate supervisor, Troy Weldon, advised him it was time to go vote and
stated, "That the best was always down the middle and to vote the middle."
Harralson allegedly replied that he had got some mighty sorry stuff down the
middle and thereafter went to vote.
Olin Dewberry gave substantially similar testimony insofar as Weldon's ad-
vice was concerned. According to Dewberry, Weldon came to tell Harralson
and Dewberry to vote and told them to remember that the best stuff was down
the middle. According to Dewberry, he did not hear any reply from Harralson
before he left to go to the polls.
Second Hand Troy Weldon emphatically denied that he had any conversation
with Harralson or Dewberry about the Union, the election, or how they should
vote in the election and specifically denied that he had instructed either of
them to vote down the middle. The undersigned was most favorably impressed
by the straightforward and convincing manner in which Second Hand Weldon
testified and is strongly inclined to credit his denial of the conversations at-
tributed to him by both Harralson and Dewberry. However, even assuming that
the versions of the conversation given by Harralson and Dewberry are correct,
it is the opinion of the undersigned that Second Hand Weldon's alleged state-
ment did not constitute illegal interrogation, threats of reprisal, or promises
of benefit which wrongfully restrained or coerced Harralson or Dewberry in the
exercise of their right to freely choose a bargaining agent. In accordance with
the findings set forth in connection with the discussion of objections 1 and 2, it
is clear that Overseer Hanson, prior to the election, did question employee
James C. Brown about who was going to win the election ; that Assistant Super-
intendent Link did question employee Laney along the same line ; that Second
Hand F. A. "Doc" Head did question employee Perry Hammond about the same
matter ; that Assistant Superintendent M. D. Link questioned employee Lumpkin
about the possible results of the election ; that Overseer J. C. Camp questioned
employee Lucius Whatley as to what he thought about the election and how
he was going to vote; that Overseer Camp questioned employee Langley as to
whether or not he knew which way to vote and as above related, Assistant
Superintendent Link did question employee Wheeler as to how he was going to
vote and Murphy questioned him as to whether or not he was about ready to
start working for the Company, presumably by abandoning his pro-A. F. L.
activity. There is, therefore, substantial evidence in the record in support of
objection 2 insofar as it relates to the questioning of employees by supervisors
of the Company in order to ascertain how they would vote in the election. How-
ever, except in the one instance relating to Langley, the evidence does not sup-
port a finding that in any of these acts of interrogation the employees were ex-
pressly, or by implication, promised any reward for voting against union repre-
sentation or threatened with any reprisal if they did not do so. It is, of course,
a question of law as to whether or not interrogation of employees under the cir-
cumstances hereinabove found, constitutes illegal interference with the free right
of employees in casting their secret ballot. It is the opinion and recommen-
dation of the undersigned that the interrogation hereinabove referred to did not
interfere with the employees involved in their free choice of a bargaining agent
and, therefore, did not constitute within themselves a sufficient basis for recom-
mending that the election in this matter be set aside.'
2 N. L. R. B. v. Arthur Winer, Inc., 194 F. 2d 370 (C. A. 7), cert. denied 344 U. S. 819 ;
N. L. R. B. v. Tennessee Coach Company, 191 F. 2d 546 (C. A. 6) ; Atlas Life Insurance
Company v. N. L. R. B., 195 F. 2d 136 (C. A. 10).
1340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Objection No. 10
That prior to the election , the company by and through its supervisory
officials , agents and officers, called groups of the employees together, and
made threats that the plant would be closed if the Union was not voted out.
The only evidence in the record with reference to alleged meetings of em-
ployees prior to the election is contained in the testimonies of Joe Stallings and
Foreman Bob McGee. While Assistant Superintendent Link and Superintendent
Murphy made some reference in their testimony to the meetings, neither was
present at the meetings nor in a position to testify as to what had transpired at
the meetings . No one who was present at the meetings , other than Stallings and
Foreman McGee , testified concerning the meetings . Under these circumstances
it is somewhat difficult to resolve the credibility issue between Joe Stallings
and Foreman Bob McGee , which must , for the large part , be based on the under-
signed's impression of the respective witnesses as obtained from their demeanor
on the stand and from a careful consideration of their respective testimony.
According to the testimony of employee Joe Stallings he is employed as a mem-
ber of the warehouse gang of the Company, which is composed of 17 or 18
colored employees, who work under the immediate supervision of Foreman Bob
McGee. On March 11, 1952, on company time and premises , Foreman Bob
McGee assembled the warehouse gang in warehouse No. 3 and addressed them
about the forthcoming election . According to Stallings , during his speech to
the employees, Foreman McGee told them that the plant might go on short time
and some of them would be losing time if the Union came in.
According to Stallings, Foreman McGee also told the men that if the mill shut
down , that would mean that all of them would be out of a job. Prior to the
meeting of March 11, 1952, Foreman McGee had spoken to the warehouse gang
about an alleged grievance filed against Dec Young , an old employee of the
warehouse, by employee Cleston Clark. At this particular meeting of March 11,
he asked Cleston Clark about the remark that he had allegedly made at the
union hall and Clark said that he had been wrong about it. McGee talked to the
employees about going to vote and told them that while he could not tell therm
how to vote , to be sure to vote. McGee did not invite any of the employees
to speak , other than Cleston Clark.
On March 13, 1952, shortly after the lunch hour and on company time and
premises in warehouse No. 44, Foreman McGee again assembled the warehouse
gang and addressed them with reference to the forthcoming election . During
the course of this meeting , he told them that they all knew the election was
scheduled for March 14 and that they should go and vote ; that nobody knew
what was going to happen and that he couldn't tell them how to vote, but to go
vote. At this meeting he repeated some of the remarks that he had made at
the preceding meeting on March 11, including a remark about the mill going on
short time or possibly shutting down. Foreman McGee advised them that if
the mill did shut down they would all be out of a job. At this same meeting,
employee Freeman Poteet spoke up and told the employees about what had hap-
pened to the mill during the depression , claiming that it had gone on short time
and that he had gotten off and made a crop. McGee referred to a mill in Trion,
Georgia, and stated that it had been completely closed down by the C. I. O.
because the C. I. O. and the Company couldn 't work together and couldn 't agree.
Prior to the meeting of March 13, Stallings had heard no discussion among the
warehouse gang to the effect that they were not going to vote in the forthcom-
ing election . Stallings did not observe any employees with C. I. O. literature at
this particular meeting. Foreman McGee was the only white man and super-
visory employee in attendance at this meeting.
GOODYEAR CLEARWATER MILL NO. 2 1341
If the testimony of Stallings is credited, it appears clear that Foreman McGee
sought to convey to the colored employees the possibility that the mill might
close down or go on short time if the employees voted for union representation.
While admitting that the meetings did take place on the dates and at sub-
stantially the same time as testified to by employee Stallings, Foreman McGee
gives a somewhat different version as to the purposes and nature of the meetings.
In substance, Foreman McGee testified that it was contrary to his policy to
discuss any matter with only 1 or 2 employees on his warehouse gang and that
if he had anything to say to 1 or 2 of the men, he would talk to the whole gang
instead of to the 1 or 2 individuals. Subsequently, Foreman McGee contradicted
this statement by testimony to the effect that he discussed considerably an
alleged grievance with employee Cleston Clark by himself. McGee further testi-
fied that approximately 15 days before the election, master mechanic McDonald
reported to him that Perk Lane and Jack Douthard had reported they were
going to turn in a grievance at the warehouse because Foreman McGee had put
a colored man in charge and was letting him push, kick, and cuss the other boys
around. The colored employee referred to was an old employee by the name
of Doc Young, who served as a strawboss or gangleader. According to McGee,
he then talked to Doc Young about the alleged grievance and Young denied the
charge. According to McGee, the men in his department knew about it within
30 minutes after he had discussed the matter with Young and began making
threats against Jack Douthard, the union representative, although his name was
not used in connection with the threats. Foreman McGee then went to Mc-
Donald and told him to keep the union job steward, Douthard, away from the
warehouse department, and the next day McDonald told him that he had directed
Douthard to stay out of the department. During his testimony, McGee sub-
sequently denied that he had sent word for job steward Douthard to stay away
from his department.
McGee further testified that on the following day, after he had asked McDonald
to keep job steward Douthard away from the department to avoid trouble, he
called Cleston Clark and questioned him about the alleged report that Clark
had made at the union hall on the preceding Sunday and that Clark, in effect,
admitted that he had made a false report at the union hall to the effect that the
warehouse gang had a colored boss. Then, according to McGee, he talked to
Clark about the alleged grievance which involved Doe Young cursing employee
Clark and convinced Clark that Doe had not been cursing him and that Clark was
wrong. According to McGee, Clark then agreed to apologize to Doe Young. At
this point McGee allegedly pulled out the union contract and read to Clark the
sections of the contract which, according to McGee, provided that Clark was not
supposed to go to the union hall with grievances until after he had taken the
matter up with Foreman McGee. If McGee's testimony is correct in this in-
stance, he misinformed employee Clark as to his right to present grievances to
his union representative. McGee was unable to find in the contract which was
presented to him at the hearing any section which supported his testimony in
this connection. As a matter of fact, the grievance procedure in the then exist-
ing contract between U. T. W. and the Company provided that the first step
in the grievance procedure would be handled between the immediate supervisor
of the employee involved and the shop steward.
McGee futher testified that he had called the meeting on March 11 to try to
tell the men about Clark's mistake on the alleged grievance, which incidentally
had not been filed with the Company, and that the meeting concerned what had
been brought up at the union hall and what Clark had to say about it. He
relates that he told the employees that Clark had made a mistake in Doc Young's
1342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
case and that the best thing for them. to do was to work as one ; that somebody
was trying to mislead them or to get them into something and that it seemed
they were trying to get something on them because of the election coming up.
He further told them not to pay any attention to anybody and not to take any
mistreatment. At that point he invited questions and got, according to him,
a lot of questions on A. F. L. and C. I. 0. handbills and that he told them that
all of the handbills were true. During the course of his testimony, McGee denied
that he had called the men to the meeting of March 11 to discuss the grievance
involving Doc Young or the union hall discussion. He further denied that there
was any discussion of the election.
McGee further testified that after the meeting of March 11 the warehouse
employees seemed to get it in their heads that they were not going to vote
in the election and that he recalled one employee who had said so ; that he
called the men together on March 13 and told them that they had done nothing
but talk union, voting, and the election for the past 7 or 8 days, and that he
had heard them say they were not going to vote and were not going to have
any part in it ; that they didn't care nothing about it and would rather ha% e
nothing to do with it ; that it was their duty to vote and to go vote. At that
point, he asked for questions and according to him, Stallings asked, "Do you
think if the union comes , if it is voted back in we will go on short time?"
and that he replied that the only way they would ever go on short time was
because of lack of business. Freeman Poteet said that he had been with the
Company a long time and had always got along with them good and that at one
time when the mill did shut down he had gone and made a crop. At this meet-
ing he also told the Negro employees that if they saw any article in the New
York Times or the Atlanta Journal headed over a letter, they could just about
be sure it was right, that it had happened. He said there was no discussion of
any of the ads which had appeared in the Rockmart Journal. He did not
recall any employee who had asked any questions other than Joe Stallings.
While initially indicating that the employees at this meeting had asked a lot
of questions, McGee subsequently stated that there weren 't too many ques-
tions asked at the meeting and that he was just getting them in a good humor
with reference to the election.
McGee further testified that prior to the meetings of March 11 and 13,
he had been instructed by his supervisors to say as little as he could about
the representation election and had been told that no meetings with reference
to the election would be held. He further testified that after the meeting
of March 13 he reported to Assistant Superintendent Link that he had held
several meetings and told Link that he hadn't held any meetings on the elec-
tion . According to his own testimony, he made this report to Assistant Super-
intendent Link after he had, admittedly, called the meeting on March 13 for the
sole purpose of urging the warehouse gang to participate in the election. McGee
further testified that on the day of the election, he personally made a check to
determine whether or not all of the employees in the warehouse gang had been
up to vote and found that they had done so. Foreman McGee admitted that
in neither of the meetings , nor in his talk with Clark, did he advise the U. T. W.,
who was then representing employees of the Company, of his intentions and
invite them to have a representative present. It is the opinion of the under-
signed that the testimony of Foreman McGee contained many obvious self-
contradictions, and was totally unconvincing. In giving his testimony, he did
not impress the undersigned as an honest and forthright witness. To the con-
trary, his hesitancy to give direct and detailed answers because of lapses of
memory convinced the undersigned that he was not a reliable witness. Under
GOODYEAR CLEARWATER MILL NO. 2 1343
these circumstances, the undersigned does not credit the testimony of Foreman
Bob McGee and finds that the testimony of employee Joe Stallings is entitled
to belief. Witness Joe Stallings is a colored employee who apparently has a
limited education. Nevertheless, he impressed the undersigned as an honest
and sincere witness, who answered the questions asked of him in an honest,
truthful, and believable manner . Accordingly, I find that the meetings of
March 11 and 13, 1952, occurred substantially in accord with the testimony of
employee Joe Stallings, and recommend that the Board so find.
Employee Francis Jones testified as to a conversation during which a dis-
cussion of a possible shutdown of the mill arose and Foreman McGee stated,
"Maybe we will get to hunt this fall," and "If the mill goes down maybe we
will go to hunting." And "I will go back to the golf course, and we will get a
chance to hunt." Jones denied that there was any discussion of the forthcoming
election on this occasion, but stated that the conversation occurred prior to
the election.
According to Foreman McGee, he walked into the boilerroom one morning
where Francis Jones and a Mr. Simpson were discussing elections and Mr. Simp-
son spoke up and stated, "Well, just let them shut the mill down," and "I will
just retire" and then he, McGee, told him that was not the way to feel about it,
and there were a lot of people who couldn't retire if they shut down the mill.
Simpson allegedly replied that McGee could go back to the golf course and
McGee countered with the remark that if he did it would knock the man out of his
job, who was then working on the golf course. On the basis of the testimony of
Jones and McGee with reference to this alleged conversation, the undersigned is
not prepared to hold that it constituted a threat of shutdown if employees secured
union representation, as apparently urged by U. T. W.
On the basis of the credited testimony of employee Joe Stallings, the under-
signed finds that in the meetings conducted by Foreman Bob McGee on March
11 and 13, 1952, he sought to persuade employees to vote against union repre-
sentation by threatening them with the possible loss of employment or short-
time period.
The undersigned further finds, as stipulated by the parties, that Foreman
McGee was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and that the Company
was responsible for his acts and statements on these occasions.
Objection No. 12
The company, by and through its officers, agents and supervisory officials,
caused to be printed and distributed literature by which they sought to
frighten the employees that the mill would close if they voted for this Union.
Such literature being distributed by the company through its agents to the
employees as they came and went to work.
In connection with this objection, Cecil James Irwin, who left the employment
of the Company shortly prior to the hearing, testified that he had worked for the
Company somewhat less than a year at the time of the election on March 14, 1952.
He further testified that, while he had not been active in the Union or in any
organization against a union, during the week of the election he worded out
a handbill and went to the printshop of E. C. Sanders and asked Mr. Sanders if
he would print some handbills for Irwin to distribute. He further testified that
there was no discussion of the prices that he would have to pay for the completed
handbills and that he did not tell Mr. Sanders everything that he wanted printed
on the handbills. He saw no proofs of the handbill prior to the time that they
were prepared for distribution. Irwin further testified that during his conversa-
tion with Sanders about printing the handbills, he did not inform Sanders as to
1344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
how many of the handbills he wanted . Irwin also testified that he had never
had any business with Sanders on any other occasion . On Thursday of the elec-
tion week , Irwin went back to Sanders ' plant and obtained from him a number
of handbills similar to U. T. W. Exhibit 1. He then carried them back to the
Company's plant where he distributed them outside the plant to employees enter-
ing the plant or leaving the plant on the first and second shifts . Employees
James McBride and Billy Bramlett assisted him in distributing the leaflets or
handbills . At the time that Irwin secured the handbills from Sanders, he did
not pay for them but did pay for them on a later date, around March 27, 1952
( Board Exhibit III). He was not billed for the handbills but went by Mr.
Sanders' place of business on that date and secured his bill and receipt for pay-
ment. Irwin conceded that he did not report to work on the night that he dis-
tributed the handbills and stated that he sent word through his foreman's wife
that he was sick and did not feel like working. He testified that during the time
that he was distributing the handbills, he was engaged in conversation by Joseph
Jacobs, a representative of U. T. W., during which time he told Mr. Jacobs that
he had secured the handbills from the downtown printshop; that he had paid for
them out of his own pocket ; he told Jacobs that he and Mr. Sanders had fixed
up the handbills but denied that he had identified some of the Goodyear people
as being connected with the handbill ; be further testified that he did not pay
either of the boys who helped him give out the handbills and that no one helped
pay for the handbills. He further denied that he had discussed the handbill with
another employee prior to its preparation for distribution . In addition , lie testi-
fied that he did not talk to any of the foremen , second hands , or supervisors of the
Goodyear Clearwater Mills about the circular prior to its distribution . He denied
that he was paid for the time that he spent handing out the circulars. He further
testified that he had spoken to a Mrs. Spurgeon Morris in an attempt to get her
to assist him in distributing the handbills after they had been printed but had
not discussed them with her prior to the time that they were printed. He further
testified that Mrs. Morris had offered to help him pay for the handbills if it was
a large amount . He stated that he had discussed the article which had appeared
in the Rockmart Journal, and which is in evidence as U. T. W. Exhibit 6, with
Mrs. Morris prior to the preparation of the circular but had not discussed the
circular with her. He denied that he had received pay from the Company for
being off from work on the night that he distributed the handbills.
The handbill which was distributed by Irwin was strikingly similar in context
to an ad which had been run in the local Rockmart newspaper by a group which
referred to itself as the "Rockmart Citizens Committee ." In his testimony, Irwin
conceded that he was not employed by the Company in 1949, although the hand-
bill contained the statement "We remember 1949, when the Rockmart plant was
practically down, while the mills in Cedartown and Cartersville were still run-
ning on good schedules ." It further stated "That if the local mill goes in favor
of either union , then this will be a union mill located between non -union mills
at Cedartown and Cartersville. The chances are that our mill here will suffer
because of that just as it did back in 1949." The circular urged the employees to
vote for neither union and indicated by diagrams the manner in which they could
do so. In the opinion of the undersigned , the circular itself contained an obvious
threat of shutdown if the mill went union.
E. C. Sanders , who is the publisher and sole owner of the Rockmart Journal
and who operates a printshop in Rockmart, Georgia, testified with reference to
the circumstances under which he prepared the handbill for employee Bud Irwin.
According to Sanders , his only connection with the Company arises from the fact
that he publishes the company newspaper for its plant at Rockmart , Georgia, but
GOODYEAR CLEARWATER MILL NO. 2 1345
had only done so since about a month after the election of March 14, 1952.
According to Mr. Sanders, employee Irwin came to his house one morning, several
days before the election, with a rough draft of some copy that he wanted some
handbills printed from. Irwin told Mr. Sanders that he was interested in the
election and that he wanted Mr. Sanders to read the copy over and see what he
thought about it as being a copy for handbills to be distributed just prior to the
election. Sanders agreed to and did edit the handbill. At this time there was
no discussion of the price to be paid by Irwin, nor was he given any estimate.
Irwin came to his home on Wednesday and did tell Sanders that he wanted the
handbills by 4 o'clock Thursday afternoon. Sanders conceded that he wrote
practically all of the handbill that was finally turned over to Irwin, U. T. W.
Exhibit 1, and that he had drawn up a good bit of the information from the ad
which had appeared over the name of the Rockmart Citizens Committee. The
handbill which was distributed by Irwin was not signed and in his conversation
with Irwin, neither Sanders nor Irwin suggested that it be signed. Sanders con-
ceded that he had never done any business with Irwin before and at the time
that he turned the handbills over to Irwin, he did not present him with a bill and
receive any payment. However, several days later Irwin came by and asked for
a bill on the job and a receipt. Irwin told him that he would like to have a paid
bill as proof that it had been paid. Sanders further testified that after Irwin
had contacted him at his, Sanders', home he and Irwin went to Sanders' plant
where they discussed the details of the handbill.
Witness Joseph Jacobs testified that on the day he saw Irwin distributing the
handbills, he confronted him and questioned him about them, during which con-
versation Irwin told him that he had the handbills printed at a printshop in
Rockmart ; then changed to say it was printed in Cedartown ; then admitted it
was printed at the plant where the Rockmart Journal was printed. Jacobs
testified that Irwin told him that "they" had gotten up the handbill and finally
admitted that "they" were the Goodyear people in the office of the Company.
Jacobs was told that Irwin had not paid for the handbills and that the Company
had made arrangements about the bill being paid. Jacobs asked Irwin if he
didn't know that what he was doing was trying to divide the workers up in the
plant and tear out the Union and Irwin allegedly replied that they were trying
to see if they couldn't do without a union at the plant . Jacobs asked Irwin
if he meant that the Company would close the plant down if there was a
union in the plant and Irwin allegedly stated, "When my boss tells me that they
would close it down if there was a union in the plant, I know they will." Irwin
admitted that he had arranged to be off from work and was supposed to be at
work and said he wasn't going to lose anything for being off.
In the opinion of the undersigned , Irwin's version as to the circumstances
under which he secured and distributed the handbills, U. T. W. Exhibit 1,
is most unreasonable and unlikely . From his observation of the witness, the
undersigned is firmly convinced that Irwin did not disclose the true facts con-
cerning his procurement and circulation of the handbill, for not only was his
testimony self-contradictory in many particulars but was contrary to that of
Mr. E. C. Sanders. I do not credit Irwin's testimony with reference to U. T. W.
Exhibit 1. On the other hand, I am convinced, as testified by Mr. E. C. Sanders,
that he , Sanders, did prepare the substance of the handbill which was distributed
by Irwin. I am not convinced that a full disclosure of all facts pertaining to
the handbill was made by witness Sanders.
The testimony of Mr. Jacobs with reference to his conversation with Cecil
Irwin at the time that he was distributing the handbills is both logical and
believable. The witness , Jacobs, gave his testimony in a sincere , forthright,
and convincing manner and is fully credited by the undersigned.
1346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Despite the credibility findings by the undersigned with reference to the hand-
bill incident, hereinabove referred to, on the basis of the available evidence in
the record in this case, the undersigned is unable to find that the Goodyear
Clearwater Mill No. 2 was either responsible for the preparation or distribution
of the handbills by Cecil Irwin and others. There is no direct proof indicating
that any official of the Goodyear Clearwater Mill had anything whatsoever
to do with the preparation and circulation of the handbills. The fact that one
supervisory employee of the Company, Overseer J. C. Camp, displayed one of
the circulars to an employee of the Company, William Langley, as hereinabove
found, did not constitute sufficient ratification of condonation so as to bind the
Company. There is, in the opinion of the undersigned, insufficient evidence to
establish that either Sanders or Irwin or other employees who engaged in cir-
culating the handbills, U. T. W. Exhibit 1, were acting as agents of the Company
in doing so. The fact that Irwin admitted to Representative Jacobs that he
was, in effect, acting as an agent of the Company in distributing handbills that
the Company had arranged for, is not sufficient to establish, as a matter of
law, that he was in fact an agent of the Company in distributing the handbills.
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the undersigned finds that
the Company prepared and distributed to its employees the letter dated March
1, 1952, and the letter dated March 11, 1952, U. T. W. Exhibits 2 and 3, respec-
tively. In addition, and in accordance with a further stipulation of the parties,
the undersigned finds that the Company prepared and sponsored an ad which
appeared in the Rockmart Journal over the name of the Company, a copy of
which was received in evidence as U. T. W. Exhibit 7. While in substance the
letters and the ad urged the employees of the Company to vote against union
representation, in the opinion of the undersigned neither the letters nor the
ad contained any express or implied threat of reprisal against the employees if
they should select a bargaining representative, nor did they contain any express
or implied promise of benefit if they would reject union representation.
U. T. W. bases objections on a number of articles appearing in the Rockmart
Journal, a newspaper of general circulation in Rockmart, Georgia, in the period
of time from February 15 through March 14, 1952. U. T. W. strongly contends
that the various articles were designed, intended, and had the necessary effect
of interfering with the employees of the Company in their selection of a bar-
gaining agent and that the Company, through its connections with the publisher
of the paper, was responsible for the articles which appeared in the paper. In
support of these contentions, U. T. W. presented as Exhibits 4, 5, 6, and 8 various
issues of the Rockmart Journal containing the alleged objectionable articles, and
the testimony of E. C. Sanders and of Representative Joseph Jacobs.
According to the testimony of E. C. Sanders, he is the sole owner and publisher
of the Rockmart Journal and has absolutely no connection with Goodyear Clear-
water Mill, except that which has arisen subsequent to the representation elec-
tion. According to Sanders, a month or so after the election as a result of
previous negotiations, he was awarded a contract to publish the official company
newspaper of the Rockmart plant and that he had been publishing this news-
paper since that time. In this respect, Mr. Sanders' testimony is corroborated
by that of Plant Superintendent J. E. Murphy, and there is no evidence to the
contrary. Mr. Sanders testified that he was solely responsible for the articles
which appeared in the Rockmart Journal on February 15, U. T. W. Exhibit 4;
February 22, U. T. W. Exhibit 5; March 7, U. T. W. Exhibit 6; and March 14,
U. T. W. Exhibit 8. He admitted that he had contacted various officials of the
Company with reference to procuring information relative to the election, but
denied that he had consulted them with reference to his editorial policies.
GOODYEAR CLEARWATER MILL NO. 2 1347
According to Sanders, it was his belief that the town would benefit through
continuous employment at the Company's plant, which appeared to him to be
more likely if the employees voted against union representation than if they
voted for union representation. Mr. Sanders based this opinion on the fact
that the Company operated nonunion mills in Cedartown and Cartersville,
Georgia, and his belief that if curtailment of operations at any of the Company's
plants became necessary, production would be shifted from the Rockmart plant
to one of the nonunion plants. He further testified that he had received no
information to this effect from any official of the Company and that he had
formed this opinion on the basis of his observations of the Company's operations
in the past, particularly in 1949 when the Rockmart plant was nearly closed
down while the plants in Cartersville and Cedartown were operating on good
schedules. He conceded, however, that he was in error in several articles which
indicated that the Cedartown plant was nonunion when in fact, at the time
involved, employees at that plant were represented by the C. I. O. Sanders
emphatically denied that he was acting as an agent of the Company in con-
nection with the various articles which he published in the Rockmart Journal.
In material respects, the testimony of Sanders was corroborated by that of
Superintendent J. E. Murphy. While Murphy admitted the business connections
between the Company and E. C. Sanders with reference to the official company
paper, which began sometime after the election was held in this matter, he
denied that the Company had anything to do with the editorial policies of the
paper or was responsible for any of the articles appearing in the paper with refer-
ence to the possibility of shifting production to the nonunion plants of the Com-
pany if the Rockmart plant should vote for union representation. Murphy
admits, as does Sanders, that Sanders contacted Murphy for information on the
facts pertaining to the termination of the contract between the Company and
U. T. W., the filing of the representation petition by the Company, the number
of U. T. W. members who appeared on the checkoff records of the Company, and
that he supplied Mr. Sanders with copies of correspondence between the Company
and U. T. W. which appeared in the paper, as well as a picture concerning an ex-
pansion of the Cartersville plant of the Company. Murphy, as well as Sanders,
denied that he had anything to do with the editorials which appeared in the paper
or the other articles complained of by U. T. W.
Representative Jacobs testified as to an occasion upon which E. C. Sanders
refused to run in the paper a letter concerning the election, which was addressed
to the paper from the Union and which was subsequently published by Mr.
Sanders.
A careful review of the articles which appeared in the Rockmart Journal in
the period of time from February 15 to March 14, 1952, convinces the under-
signed that Mr. E. C. Sanders, the publisher of the Rockmart Journal, was
strongly opposed to union representation of the employees of the Company and
that he undertook, by his editorials, articles, and the placement of the various
articles in the paper, to discourage employees from selecting a bargaining repre-
sentative and that many of these articles contain express and implied threats
of a shutdown of the plant and resulting loss of employment if the employees
should select a union to represent them in the election of March 14. While a
number of the articles were misleading or contained statements of fact which
were prejudicial to the interest of the unions seeking to represent employees
of the Company, nevertheless, the primary question involved is whether or not
Mr. Sanders was acting as an agent of the Company in connection with the
publication and circulation of these articles by authority of the Company or by
subsequent ratification and/or condonation. On the basis of available evidence,
the undersigned is unable to find that such was the case. While the articles
1348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appearing in the Rockmart Journal might well have had the effect of interfer-
ing, restraining , or coercing employees of the Company in their selection of a
bargaining agent, it does not appear to the undersigned that the Company can
be held responsible for the acts and statements of Mr. E C. Sanders with
reference to the election of March 14. Furthermore , it is my opinion that the
Company was under no obligation to deny or explain any of the articles which
Mr. Sanders ran in his paper with reference to the possibility of a shutdown
of the Rockmart plant, or a possible transfer of the production of that plant to
the nonunion plants of the Company.
On the basis of the findings hereinabove set forth , the undersigned finds that
U. T. W. objection 12 is not supported by the evidence and recommends that
said objection be dismissed.
Objection No. 13
The company , by and through its officers, agents and supervisory officials,
planned and formed a so-called "Rockmart Citizens Committee " for the
express purpose of interfering with and preventing a free election being held
at the Goodyear plant, and that through this Committee , the company carried
on a campaign of intimidation and coercion , in an effort to defeat this Union.
The only evidence pertaining to the "Rockmart Citizens Committee" is con-
tained in the testimony of E. C. Sanders and Guy B. Sloan , the mayor of Rock-
mart, Georgia, both of whom were presented by U. T. W. as adverse witnesses.
Both Mr . Sanders, the publisher of the Rockmart Journal , and Mayor Guy B.
Sloan testified that they were deeply concerned about the possible effects of the
representation election on the town of Rockmart , Georgia, and were sincerely
of the belief that the possibilities of continuous employment at the Rockmart
plant would be greatly enhanced by the rejection of union representation by the
employees . Both Sanders and Sloan testified that their conclusions in this
respect were based on the events which occurred in 1949, during which time the
Rockmart plant was virtually closed down while 2 nonunion plants of the Com-
pany, I at Cartersville and 1 at Cedartown, were operating on good schedules.
Sanders and Sloan emphatically denied that any official of the Company had ever
at any time informed them of the possibility that the Goodyear plant in Rockmart
might suffer a shutdown or a curtailment of production if the employees voted
for union representation. Sanders further testified that on the basis of his own
feelings with reference to the election, he prepared an ad to be sponsored by a
group of local businessmen and to be run in the Rockmart Jornal . Thereafter,
with the assistance of Mayor Sloan, Sanders assembled a group of 10 local
businessmen to discuss the advisability of running the ad which had been pre-
pared by Editor Sanders. Both Sanders and Mayor Sloan testified that no
supervisory or managerial official of the Company was aware of the existence
or plans of Sanders and Sloan or responsible for their actions in connection
with the Rockmart Citizens Committee. Shortly prior to March 7, Editor
Sanders, with the assistance of Mayor Sloan, assembled a group of 10 local busi-
nessmen , and with Mayor Sloan acting as chairman , agreed to run the ad which
appeared in the Rockmart Journal on March 7, 1952, U. T. W. Exhibit 7, over
the name "Rockmart Citizens Committee ." No supervisory or managerial official
of the Goodyear Clearwater Mill, according to the testimony of both Sloan and
Sanders, was aware of the formation of the so-called "Rockmart Citizens Com-
mittee" or of its plan, nor did any official of the Company have anything to do
with the formation of the committee or the ad which was run in the Rockmart
Journal over that name. The cost of the ad was equally distributed among the
GOODYEAR CLEARWATER MILL NO. 2 1349
members of the committee. Without exception, all of the supervisory officials
of Goodyear Clearwater Mill, who testified during the course of the hearing in
this matter, denied any connection with the Rockmart Citizens Committee, or
with the ad which appeared in the Rockmart Journal over the name of this
committee.
According to the testimony of Superintendent J. E. Murphy, he did not know
who the members of the Rockmart Citizens Committee were until Editor Sanders
disclosed their identity in his testimony at the hearing in this matter. He
further testified that while a number of the members of the committee did
business with the Company, they were not and had never been agents of the
Company. The members of the committee who, as identified by Mr. Sanders and
Mayor Sloan, did business with the Company were George Morgan, a local hard-
ware dealer ; Frank Crawford, operator of a local transfer company ; H. P. Fam-
brose, a local banker with whom the Company has its account ; and Mr. Sanders,
whose connections with the Company have been bereinbefore described. In
addition, Mayor Guy Sloan is a garage and service station operator in the city of
Rockmart, Georgia, and is an authorized dealer in Goodyear tires and products ;
however, his only business connection with Goodyear Clearwater Mill No. 2 is
that of repairing, washing, and greasing cars in the operation of his service sta-
tion business. In emergencies the Company might purchase repair items from
Mayor Sloan. In the opinion of the undersigned, the business relationships
between the members of the committee and the Company were insufficient to
make them agents of the Company and the undersigned so finds.
It is true that the ad which appeared in the Rockmart Journal on March 7,
1952, U. T. W. Exhibit 7, contained an implied threat of loss of employment if
employees selected a union to represent them. It is also true that the Company
did not issue any denial or explanation of this ad. However, in the opinion of
the undersigned, the Company was under no obligation to do so.
On the basis of all of the evidence in this case, I am unable to find, as urged
by U. T. W., that the Company was responsible for the formation, plan, or acts
of the Rockmart Citizens Committee, nor was it under any obligation to publicly
disavow any of the acts which this committee, independently of any suggestion
or design of the Company, took with reference to its ad of March 7, 1952. The
evidence clearly indicates that the committee met on only one occasion, as testified
by both Mayor Sloan and Editor Sanders, and that its only act was its ad which
was published on March 7, 1452. In view of the undersigned's finding that the
Company was in no way responsible for the committee or the ad, it is my finding
that objection 13 is not supported by the evidence.
Conclusions and Recommendations
In accordance with the findings of fact as hereinabove set forth, it is concluded
that objections 1, 3, 12, and 13 are without merit and should be dismissed. The
undersigned recommends that the Board so find and hold.
It is further recommended, on the basis of the findings set forth above in
regards to objections 2 and 10, that objections 2 and 10 be sustained to the extent
as hereinabove indicated. Having found that the Company, by the acts described
in connection with objections 2 and 10, have engaged in conduct which had the
effect of interfering, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their
free choice of a bargaining agent, it is recommended that the election of March
14,1952, be set aside.
In accordance with the Board's order directing hearing on objections of June
11, 1952, within 10 days from the date of issuance of this report, any party may
file with the Board, in Washington, D. C., an original and 6 copies of exceptions
250983-vol. 102-53--86
1350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thereto. Immediately upon the filing of such exceptions , the party filing same
shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties, and shall file a copy
with the Regional Director . If no exceptions are filed hereto, the Board will
adopt the recommendation of the hearing officer.
FUCHS BAKING Co. and BAKERY & CONFECTIONERY WORKERS INTER-
NATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, L. U. #249. Case No. 10-CA-14.70.
February 13, 1953
Decision and Order .
On December 5, 1952, Trial Examiner Ralph Winkler issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent 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 copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions 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 [Members Houston, Styles, and
Peterson].
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the brief and exceptions, and the entire record in the case
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner with the following additions, corrections ,z and
modifications.
1. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act by interrogating employees concerning their own
and other employees' union membership and activities. We agree
with these conclusions .3
i The Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record, the
exceptions , and its brief adequately present the facts, issues, and positions of the parties.
2 We note and correct the following inadvertent errors in the Intermediate Report :
(1) Donald Galvin solicited employees at the bakery on March 5 , 1952, not on March 4,
1952, ( 2) Bingham quizzed Leroy Thompson concerning union activity on March 9 or 10,
not on March 10 or 11, (3) the meeting of the entire production staff was on March 29,
1952 , not on March 25, 1952, ( 4) Donald Galvin ' s last absence was on March 10, 1952, not
on March 11 . These errors do not affect the Trial Examiner ' s ultimate conclusions or our
concurrence therein.
8 We find no merit in the Respondent's contention, In effect, that It did not violate the
Act by its inquiry concerning union activity addressed to employees. Apart from other
considerations , it is clear that the interrogation when viewed In a background of 8 (a) (3)
violations, as here, exceeded the protection accorded to the Respondent under Section-
8 (c) of the Act, and violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Cf. Pathfinder Coach Division
of Superior Coach Corporation , 102 NLRB 87.
102 NLRB No. 138.