Hudson Hosiery Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 6, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 7 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

HUDSON HOSIERY COMPANY 7
apparently not more than $260,000 represents goods purchased locally
but originating out of State. During this same period the Employer
made sales totaling about $820,000, all to purchasers within the State
of Georgia. Approximately 95 percent of these sales were to retail
stores, the remaining 5 percent being to local jobbers who sell only to
independent retail establishments within a 25-mile radius of Atlanta,
Georgia. Over $400,000 worth of sales were made to retail outlets in
Georgia of the A & P Tea Company, Colonial Stores, the Kroger
Company, and other multistate chains. However, the record does not
demonstrate that any of these retail stores sell goods out of the State
of Georgia in the amount of $25,000 annually.
On the basis of the above facts and on the record as a whole, we
find that the operations of the Employer do not meet any of the
applicable standards set up by the Board to determine the assertion of
jurisdiction.' Accordingly, we find that it will not effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case, and we will
dismiss the petition herein.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
1 Cf. Stanialaus Implement and Hardware Company , Ltd., 91 NLRB 618; Hollow Tree
Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635, Federal Dairy Co, Inc, 91 NLRB 638; Dorn's House of
Miracles, Inc ., 91 NLRB 632 ; and The Rutledge Paper Products Co , 91 NLRB 625.
HUDSON HOSIERY COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY
WORKERS, A. F. OF L. Case No. 34-RC-289. February 6, 1952
Supplemental Decision and Order
On August 14, 1951, pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of
Election 1 an election was held 'under the direction of the Regional
Director for the Fifth Region among certain employees of Hudson
Hosiery Company, herein called the Employer, at its Monroe Street
plant in Charlotte, North Carolina. Thereafter, a tally of ballots was
furnished the parties which showed that of approximately 900 eligible
voters, 839 cast valid ballots, of which 267 were for and 572 against
the Petitioner, and 18 ballots were challenged.2
On August 20, 1951, the Petitioner filed objections to the election
with the Regional Director. On January 7, 1952, the Regional Direc-
tor, after investigating the Petitioner's objections, issued his report
195 NLRB 250.
2 As the challenges were insufficient to affect the results of the election , the Regional
Director made no investigation or report thereon.
98 NLRB No. 7.
8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on objections, recommending that the objections be overruled and that
the petition be dismissed.
On January 10, 1952, the Petitioner filed exceptions to the report
on objections, alleging that the Employer had interfered with the
election by promising a pension plan for all employees and a wage
increase for preboarding employees in a letter sent to its employees
on August 10, 1951. The pertinent sections of that letter read as
follows :
Another rumor has it that we are going to buy a new type of
machine which cuts out pre-boarding. That is absolutely untrue.
There is such a machine but we do not like it at all, and have no
intention whatever of discontinuing pre-boarding. We would
like to be able to state what our plans are with respect to wages
and rates in pre-boarding but we understand that it is not proper
for us to do so in view of the pending election.
I understand that the Union is also putting out the claim that
the pension plan which we have been working on is not nearly as
good as the pension plan in some of the Union plants. On the
other hand, we are convinced that the pension system which we
have been trying to work out is just as good and better than any
of the others we know about. And bear in mind that the UNION
WILL NEVER PAY FOR ANY PENSION PLAN OF ANY
SORT ANYHOW !
The Petitioner did not deny the truth of the allegations in this letter
as to rumors circulated by the Petitioner about the Employer's in-
tentions concerning preboarding operations and a tentative pension
plan. The Employer had the right to answer claims made to its em-
ployees by the Petitioner, and to state its own position in these matters.
Furthermore, the August 10 letter did not promise the employees a
wage increase or a pension plan. We 3 therefore find that this letter,
read by itself, does not contain any promise of benefit designed to in-
terfere with the employee's free choice of a bargaining representative.
Nor can such a promise be inferred, as the Petitioner contends, by read-
ing the August 10 letter in conjunction with a letter of August 4, ad-
dressed by the Employer to its employees, which does not mention a
pension plan and discusses wages in general terms only. We therefore
find that the Employer's letters contain only campaign literature of
the type sanctioned by Section 8 (c) of the Act.
Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner's objections do not raise
material issues with respect to the conduct of the election, and hereby
overrule the objections. As a majority of the votes were cast against
the Petitioner, we shall dismiss the petition.
3 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 [Members Houston , Murdock,
and Styles].
AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY 9
Order
A majority of the valid ballots counted having been cast against the
Petitioner, it is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY, CALCO CHEMICAL DIVISION and
UNITED GAS, COKE AND CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,
PETITIONER. Case No. 9-RC-1328. February 7, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Richard C. Curry, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.,
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.2
3. On February 6, 1948, following a stipulation for certification
upon consent election, the Intervenor was certified as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the production and maintenance em-
ployees of the Employer.3 . On March 17, 1948, the Intervenor was
authorized to enter into a union-security agreement with the Employer
for its production and maintenance employees .4 Commencing in
1948, the Employer and the Intervenor have had continuous con-
tractual relations culminating in the current contract, which was exe-
cuted on May 11, 1950. On November 20, 1950, this contract was
amended, and, as amended, is effective until May 17, 1952.
On August 22, 1951, the Petitioner asked the Employer for recog-
nition as the bargaining representative of the Employer's produc-
tion and maintenance employees. The Employer made no reply,
and on August 23, 1951, the Petitioner filed the instant petition for
certification.
'The Intervenor , in its brief, renewed its motion made at the hearing, which the
hearing officer overruled, that the testimony of Donald Sandford as to the average attend-
ance at meetings of the Intervenor be stricken from the record on the ground that it was
hearsay. As we have not relied upon this testimony in reaching our decision herein, we
do not consider it necessary to pass upon the motion.
2 International Chemical Workers Union , Local 275, AFL, was permitted to intervene
on the basis of its current contract with the Employer.
3 9-RM-11.
* 9-UA-154.
98 NLRB No. 5.