Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 21, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 1192 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc., Petitioner and Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. d6-RM-146. Sep-
tember 21, 1964 1 , ,
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to the provisions of a stipulation for certification'upon
consent election executed by the parties on May 1, 1963, and ap-
proved on May 2, 1963, an election by'secret ballot was conducted on
May 24, 1963, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for Region 26, among the employees in the stipulated unit.
At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally
of ballots which showed that of approximately 1,154 eligible voters,
1,060 cast valid ballots, of which 457 were for, and 578 against, the
Union and 25 cast challenged ballots. The challenged ballots were
insufficient in number to affect the election results. Thereafter, the
Union filed timely objections to conduct of the election and to conduct
.affecting the results of the election.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8,
.as amended, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and on
August 2, 1963, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on
objections in which he recommended that objections Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8,
12, and 13 be overruled and that objections Nos. 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11
be sustained. He further recommended that the election be set aside
and that a new election be directed. The Employer and Union filed
timely exceptions to the report.
The Board, after having duly considered the matter, decided that
the issues of fact raised by the Regional Director's report and the
'exceptions relating to objections Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, and 11 could
best be resolved by a hearing, and accordingly, on November 19,
1963, issued and served upon the parties an order directing hearing.'
Pursuant thereto, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer David
L. McComb. All parties appeared and participated at the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all
parties. On March 23, 1964, the Hearing Officer issued and served
upon the parties his report and recommendations on objections in
which he recommended that objections Nos. 2, 3, and 10 be overruled,
that objections Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 11 be sustained, and that the election
be set aside and a new election directed. The Employer and Union
filed timely exceptions to the Hearing Officer's report and recom-
-mendations.
1 The Board deferred ruling on the remaining objections.
148 NLRB No. 135.
HENRY I. SIEGEL CO., INC. 1193
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch
and Members Leedom and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
-the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
2. The Union is a labor organization which claims to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9 (c) (1)
and2(6) and (7) of the Act:
4. The following employees, as stipulated by the parties,'constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Bruceton, Tennessee, plant, which plant is located on College Street,
North Pine Street, and Broad Street, in Bruceton, Tennessee, all
of which three locations constitute a single unit, excluding office cleri-
cal employees, time-study and engineering personnel, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
.5. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer'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 Regional
Director's and Hearing Officer's reports and , the Employer's and the
Union's exceptions thereto and makes the following findings :
Objections Nos. 2l'and 3 concern the activities of businessmen and
townspeople in the Carroll County, Tennessee, area surrounding the
Employer's plant. The Hearing Officer found evidence of 11 towns-
people having expressed to 17 Siegel employees or their spouses the
opinion that 'it. would not be good if the Bruceton plant'became or-
ganizedbecause the plant might reduce its production or close entirely
and move. The townspeople involved included a local bank president,
a county magistrate, the local telephone company, owner, an insur-
ance salesman and undertaker, and a car dealer. No evidence was
introduced showing that the remarks of any townspeople were made
at the instigation or suggestion of the Employer. In at least one in-
stance, however, a group of businessmen was engaged in a concerted
effort, to contact Siegel employees. At the hearing, Dr. J. H. Robert-
son described a "kaffee-klatsch"' at the Dixie Steak House iii neighbor-
ing McKenzie, Tennessee. Robertson testified that shortly before the
election a group of six or eight businessmen, sitting around a table
drinking their usual morning coffee, divided up some names and ad-
dresses of Siegel employees and that each businessman agreed-to con-
1194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tact certain employees to advocate defeat of the Union. The Hearing
Officer refused to infer that townspeople other than those mentioned
made threatening remarks to employees. He concluded that the con-
duct of the townspeople did not interfere with the free choice of em-
ployees, and recommended that objections Nos. 2 and 3be overruled.
Objection No. 10 deals with the distribution of "I Vote No" tags.
The Hearing Officer found that the tags were distributed during work-
ing hours in the plant "to a substantial extent" and that supervisors
had knowledge of this distribution. In particular, the Hearing Officer
found that Carolyn French, a rank-and-file employee, was distributing
"I Vote No" tags from an office she shared with Sewing Superin-
tendent George Heinbach. No evidence was submitted that Heinbach
was aware of the distribution of the tags. The only evidence tending
to directly implicate the Employer in the tag distribution was testi-
mony that Supervisor Robbie Alexander handed each of three em-
ployees in her section a blank piece of square cardboard, and that the
three employees then wrote "I Vote No" on the cardboard squares and
pinned them on their dresses. Finding no direct evidence on the rec-
ord to show that the Employer was the source of the tags, the Hearing
Officer recommended that this objection be,overruled.
Objections Nos. 4, 5, and 6 deal with allegedly coercive statements
by supervisors of the Employer. The Hearing Officer found that
Supervisor W. G. Ozier made an uninvited visit to the home of Siegel
employee Joe Billy Walker on the eve of the election and warned him
that he was on the "wrong track" in supporting the Union and that
they would not like Walker and do things for him as they had done
in the past. Ozier predicted that if the Union came in there would be
a decrease in production and a number of people would be laid off.
Eight days before the election , during a conversation at a local restau-
rant, Ozier asked Walker what he thought would happen if the Union
came into Bruceton and half the employees were laid off . Ozier then
answered his own question by stating that Bruceton would become a
ghost town . In one or two conversations during working hours in the
plant, within about 31/2 weeks of the election, Ozier told three or four
employees that if employees tried to "stab" the Company in the back
now, the Company would get rid of them. When Ozier asked one of
the employees to change his mind about supporting the Union and the
employee refused, Ozier said, "You mean if you knew you were going
to hell, you wouldn't change your mind?" In a conversation with em-
ployee Susie Melton at her work station 1 or 2 weeks before the elec-
tion, Ozier told - Melton to ask Buster Smith , a union organizer; who
was going to pay her for the 60 to 90 days while they negotiated for a
contract.
The Hearing Officer also found that employee Pauline Renfroe
credibly testified that on the day of the election her supervisor, Robbie
SHERATON-HOUSTON CORPORATION 1195
Alexander, told her that "Anybody wearing a [Union] button and
working so hard for the Union, if the Union don't come in, they might
have it rough." On the basis of the foregoing, the Hearing Officer
found that the supervisors' remarks constituted threats of loss of bene-
fits and employment, of reprisal for union adherence, and of the fu-
tility of choosing the Union as bargaining representative. He recom-
mended that the Board sustain objections Nos. 4, 5, and 6.
In its exceptions the Employer contends that the supervisors' state-
ments, if made as reported, were isolated and therefore insufficient to
justify setting aside the election. We disagree. The supervisors' con-
duct must be viewed in the light of all the circumstances of this case,
including conduct that was the subject of objections Nos. 2, 3, and 10.
We note that the theme of layoffs and plant shutdown reiterated by
the townspeople was the same theme expressed by Supervisors Ozier
and Alexander to Siegel employees. Furthermore, substantial dis-
tribution of "I Vote No" tags during working hours, the use of a
supervisor's office for the distribution of some of the tags, and the
apparent encouragement of the wearing of such tags by one super-
visor, contributed to a highly-charged election atmosphere. Far from
being isolated, the statements by Ozier and Alexander, which we find
to be coercive, when viewed in the context of the election campaign as
a whole, had a substantial impact upon the employees' free choice in
the election. We shall therefore sustain objections Nos. 4, 5, and 6.1
Accordingly, we shall order that the election be set aside and direct a
second election.
[The Board set aside the election conducted on May 24, 1963.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
s In view of our finding as to objections Nos. 4, 5, and 6, we find it unnecessary to pass
upon ; the, remaining objections.
Chairman McCulloch places greater weight on the community activity as creating a
background situation for the supervisors ' conduct, and would also sustain objections Nos.
2 and 3 as well as objections Nos. 4 , 5, and 6.
Sheraton-Houston Corporation and Hotel , Motel and Club Em-
ployees Union, Local 251, AFL-CIO
Sheraton-Houston Corporation and Daniel L. Etheridge. Cases
Nos. 23-CA-1721 and 23-CA-1737. September 22, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 16, 1964, Trial Examiner David London issued his De-
cision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
148 NLRB No. 127.