Huntsville Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 13, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 713 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 713
Appendix B
To ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , A. F. L.,
AND ITS LOCAL 181 AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF AND APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOY-
MENT WITH F. H. MCGRAW AND COMPANY
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause F. H. McGRAW AND COMPANY to
require employees or applicants for employment to obtain clearance or job
referrals from us, or either of us, as a condition of employment, except under
a nondiscriminatory arrangement permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT perform or give effect to the closed-shop provisions of the
undersigned International's written collective bargaining agreement with
said company, dated July 29, 1948, and/or the preferential hiring provisions
of the undersigned Local's oral agreement or understanding with said com-
pany adopting the standard form of collective bargaining agreement of said
Local, or enter into, or enforce any extension, renewal, modification, or
supplement thereof, or any superseding agreements with said company,
containing union-security provisions, except as authorized by the proviso
to.Seetibn 8 (a) (3).
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause the said company to discriminate
in any manner against its employees or applicants for employment in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (3).
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees
of F. H. MCGRAW AND COMPANY in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to
them by Section 7 of the Act.
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS , A. F. L.,
Labor Organization.
Dated - ------------------ By ----------------------------------------
(Title of Officer)i
LOCAL 181 , INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , A. F. L.,
Labor Organization.
Dated -------------------- By ----------------------------------------
(Title of Officer),
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION
OF AMERIOA , CIO. Case No. 10-CA-1101. June 13, 1952
Decision and Order
On March 24, 1952, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley 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
99 NLRB No. 113.
714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. In,
addition, the Respondent refiled with the Board the brief in support
of its exceptions in Case No. 10-RM-77 and the brief submitted to the
Trial Examiner in this proceeding. The General Counsel also filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this proceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and'Mem-
hers Murdock and Peterson].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c),
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Huntsville Manu-
facturing Company, Huntsville, Alabama, its officers, agents , succes-
sors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to recognize or to bargain collectively with Textile
Workers Union of America, CIO, as the exclusive representative of
all production and maintenance employees of Huntsville Manufactur-
ing Company, Huntsville, Alabama, including watchmen and firemen,
but excluding guards, clerical employees, time and frequency checkers,
employees hired for and employed solely in connection with a specific
construction or installation job of limited duration and not a part of
the Employer's regular production or maintenance operations, execu-
tives, supervisors with the rank of second hand or higher, and.all other
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Engaging in any like or related acts or conduct interfering with
the efforts of Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, to negotiate
for or represent the employees in the aforesaid unit as exclusive bar-
gaining agent.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act: •
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union
of America, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all the employees
i Harbor Chevrolet Company, 93 NLRB 1326; H. G. Hill Stores , Inc., 49 NLRB 184.
HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 715
in the above-entitled appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and
embody any understanding reached in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its plant at Huntsville, Alabama, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report as Appendix J.2 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and main-
tained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, inolud rigtia;ll.,places-where-notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable-steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to insure that said notices. are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The disputed matters in the above-captioned proceeding concern allegations
that Huntsville Manufacturing Company, herein called Respondent, unlawfully
refused to bargain with Textile Workers Union of America, 010, herein called
the Union, on and after July 16, 1951.
A hearing was held before the undersigned on January 30, 1952, in Huntsville,
Alabama, at which the General Counsel and Respondent were represented by
counsel and the Union by its State director. At the conclusion of the hearing
Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety was taken under
consideration. This motion is hereby denied After the close of the hearing
briefs were received from counsel for Respondent and for the General Counsel
which have been considered in the preparation of this Report.
Upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following find-
ings, conclusions, and recommendations.
THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, an -Alabama corporation,,has its principal office and place ofbusi-
ness at Huntsville, Alabama, where it is engaged in the cotton textile business.
During a representative 12-month period, Respondent purchased raw materials
and supplies valued in excess of $1,000,000, more than $500,000 of which amount
represents the value of purchases shipped to Respondent from points outside the
State of Alabama. During the same period Respondent sold finished products
valued in excess of $1,000,000, more than $750,000 of which amount represents
the value of products sold and shipped to customers located outside the State of
Alabama.
This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of
a Trial Examiner" in the caption thereof, the words "A Decision and Order ." If this
Order is enforced by a decree of the United States Court of Appeals , the notice shall be
further amended by inserting for the words "A Decision and Order," the words "A Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order "
716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of Respondent.
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
Prior to March 31, 1951, Respondent and the Union were parties to an agree-
ment concerning conditions of employment at Respondent's place of business
in Huntsville, Alabama. During the pay period prior to March 31, 1951, "more
than 1,300 employees in the` bargaining unit were having their dues checked,
off by the company." A strike of Respondent's employees occurred on March
31, 1951, and terminated on or about May 10, 1951. At the conclusion of this
strike "there were more than 1,000 employees in the unit who were reinstated."
At no time between March 31, 1951, and July 10, 1951, did Respondent employ
more than 1,500 employees in the unit.'
On May 31, 1951, Respondent filed with the National Labor Relations Board,
Tenth Region, an RM petition 2 naming the Textile Workers Union of America,
CIO, as the organization claiming recognition as bargaining representative and
describing the unit involved as :
All production and maintenance employees, including watchmen and fire-
men and excluding guards, clerical employees, time and frequency checkers,
executives; supervisory employees with the rank of second hand orNhigher,
any other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec-
tively recommend such action. Employees hired for a specific construction
or installation job of limited duration, and which is not the employer's
regular production or maintenance, shall also be excluded from the pro-
visions of this agreement as long as their services are used solely in con-
nection with such a job.
By letter "dated June 1, 1951, Respondent was advised that the RM case had
been assigned for handling to Field Examiner Robert T. Gardner and that
Gardner would contact Respondent in the near future. By letter dated June
4, 1951, Respondent advised Gardner that "Mr. Borden Burr and Mr. Mark
Taliaferro of Burr, McKanny, Moore & Tate, Birmingham, are the attorneys
handling this matter" and that Gardner should contact these gentlemen.
On or about June 25, 1951, Respondent, the Union (Textile Workers Union
of America, CIO), and Gardner executed a stipulation for certification upon
consent election (NLRB Form No. 652 (3-20-48) ). This stipulation provided
for an election on "July 10, 1951; 4: 00 a. in. to 6: 00 a. in.; 8: 30 a. in. to 10: 30
a. in.; 3: 00 p. in. to 5: 30 p. in.; Recreation Room" and defined the appropriate
bargaining unit as follows :
All production and maintenance employees, including watchmen and fire-
men, excluding guards, clerical employees, time and frequency checkers,
executives, supervisory employees with the rank of second hand or higher,
any other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec-
tively recommend such action. Employees hired for a specific construction
or installation job of limited duration, and which is not the employer's regu-
lar production or maintenance, shall also be excluded from the provisions
1 Respondent's motion to strike the stipulation upon which the above findings are based
is hereby denied.
2 10-RM-77.
HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 7 1 7
of this agreement as long as their services are used solely in connection
with such a job.
It was agreed that the payroll period for eligibility to vote in the election was
June 2, 1951. 1
The stipulation for certification upon consent election further provided, inter
alia:
5. Post Election and Run-off Procedure-All procedure subsequent to the
conclusion of counting ballots, including the issuance by the Board of a
Decision and Certification of Representatives, if appropriate, shall be in
conformity with Section 102.61 and 102.62 of the Board's Rules and Regu-
-lations 3
6. Record-The record in this case shall be governed by the appropriate
provisions of Section 102.59" and 102.61 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions and shall include this stipulation. . . .
By letter dated June 29, 1951, Respondent supplied Gardner with "an alpha-
betical, departmental list of the former employees of the Huntsville Manufac-
turing Company who left the employment of the Company and went out on an
economic strike on April 1, 1951, and who did not return to work in accordance
with the invitation and request given by the Company to its employees and who
by reason of not returning to work, have not been since in,the employment of
the Company, and whose former jobs have been filled, by the necessary employ-
ment and use of others" (sometimes referred to herein as "displaced employees").
This letter further stated, inter alta:
Under this consent agreement both parties have consented to the election
to be held under the terms of the agreement with only those being eligible
to vote whose names appear on the payroll of the Company for the week
ending June 2, 1951, it being distinctly and expressly understood that
none of these former employees from out of town whose names appear
on this list should have the right to vote in the election.
Apparently, on July 9, 1951, the Regional Director for the Tenth Region
and counsel for Respondent discussed, in a telephone conversation, the method
of handling "displaced employees" who might present themselves to vote. In
any event, by letter dated July 10, 1951, Respondent advised the Regional
Director that if the "displaced employees" presented themselves to vote and
were allowed to vote, "the Company, of course, reserves the right to make
such protest and take such action in reference to the election as it deems
proper."
A; secret ballot was conducted on, July -10, 1951, under the direction,and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region. At the conclusion
of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots, which shows
that of approximately 1,397 eligible voters, 844 cast ballots for the Union
and 540 against the Union. Two challenged and 2 void ballots were also
cast. This tally of ballots was signed by Gardner on behalf of the Regional
Director. At the conclusion of the election the authorized observers, including
3 Sections 102.61 and 102.62 of the Board's Rules and Regulations are set forth in
Appendix A attached hereto.
* "Sec 102.59 Record; what constitutes; transmission to Board.-Upon the close of the
hearing the regional director shall forward to the Board in Washington, D. C , the peti-
tion, notice of bearing, motions, rulings, orders, and stenographic report of the hearing,
stipulations, exhibits, documentary evidence. and depositions, all of which shall consti-
tute the record in the proceeding "
718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Gardner and observers for Respondent, signed a certification on conduct of
election (NLRB Form 750 (5-1-45)) certifying that the "balloting was fairly
conducted, that all eligible voters were given an opportunity to vote their
ballots in secret, and that the ballot box was protected in the interest of a
fair and secret vote."
By letter dated July 12, 1951 (Appendix B), the Union requested that Re-
spondent meet "to discuss and attempt in good faith to work out a collective
bargaining agreement."
By letter dated July 16, 1951 (Appendix C), Respondent advised the Union
it (Respondent) was filing "objections to the conduct of the election and to
conduct affecting the results of the election and its protest against any certifi-
cation thereunder" and further advised the Union "as soon as these objections
have been finally disposed of the Company will be glad to answer further your
letter of July 12, above referred to" (Appendix B).
On or about July 16, 1951, Respondent filed "objections to conduct of the
election and to conduct affecting the results of the election and protest against
any certification thereunder." In substance, Respondent 's objections alleged
that:
1. The election was held contrary to the terms of the Stipulation for
Certification Upon Consent Election in that one (1) voter presented himself
to vote despite the fact that such voter was not eligible to vote. and that
the Board agents by permitting such person to vote, a challenged ballot,
materially influenced the election and led employees to believe that the
Government was, in fact, cooperating with and backing the Union and that
such action did materially influence and affect the voters and the results
of the election.
2. The ballot boxes, used during the course of the election by the Board
agents,' were removed from the voting places and carried for a period of
time away from the presence of any watchers or observers , thereby affording
an opportunity to place in , or remove from said ballot boxes, ballots marked
in a manner not to reflect the true intention of the voters and that such
action, on the part of the Board agents, did give further support to the
rapidly spreading feeling that the Board agents were, in fact, cooperating
with the Union in a manner and method of conducting the election.
3. The Board agents permitted the Union to designate and utilize, as offi-
cial election observers, persons who were officers and/or officials of the
Union, despite Respondent's protest, while restricting Respondent's observers
to nonsupervisory employees. Respondent also claimed that one of these
union observers, during the strike mentioned above, "openly boasted or
stated that if the Company undertook to operate its plant there would be
bloodshed, and had conducted himself in such manner and used threats during
said strike for the purpose of intimidating employees" and that each of the
union observers "had been during the strike and since its institution 'and
continuously until now active and aggressive leaders of the unionization
movement, had called upon employees of the Company at their homes and
elsewhere, had made statements derogatory to the Company and its officials,
had made promises of benefits and privileges to be given to the employees
in the event the Union won in the election, and had made statements and
threats as to injuries which would be suffered by them in the event the Union
lost, and had made threats against such employees as might vote against the
Union concerning their continued employment and conditions of employment
Respondent, also objected to the failure to use a ballot box constructed by Respondent.
HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 719
in the event the Union won, and had been aggressively active in furthering
the Union's cause." Respondent contended that "the very presence" of such
union officers and/or officials, as observers, prevented a fair and impartial
election and caused same to be conducted in an atmosphere of threats and
intimidation.
By letter dated July 16, 1951, the Regional Director for the Tenth Region
requested Respondent to submit, before the close of business July 23, 1951, "prima
facie evidence in affidavit form of persons having first hand knowledge respecting
the matters raised by the objections" and suggested "in the event you have any
inquiries regarding this matter, kindly communicate with Mr. Gardner."
By letter dated July 18, 1951, Respondent's attorney advised the Regional
Director, inter alia:
We note that this matter "has been assigned to Field Examiner Robert
T. Gardner for investigation." An examination of the objections and protest
which the Company has filed will disclose that it is largely based on three
incidents: (1) the conference held in Birmingham which resulted in the
signing of the Agreement for the consent election; (2) the statements and
agreements which were made in the conference held in Huntsville on the
afternoon before the election ; and (3) incidents relating to the election
itself and the handling of the ballots. Mr. Gardner was a participant in
all-three of these occurrences,., and while we hope that no discrepancy in the
evidence or any disputes may arise in reference to these matters, we realize
that in many cases differences of recollection occur. For this reason, and
without in any way wishing in this letter to cast any imputations of any
kind against Mr. Gardner, we wish on behalf of the Company to respectfully
object to and protest against any assignment for investigation or otherwise
of this proceeding being made to Mr. Gardner, or to any other representa-
tives of the Board who had any active connection with any of the questions
under consideration.
By letter dated July 20, 1951, the Regional Director for the Tenth Region
advised Respondent's attorney :
In view of the fact that there was no alleged misconduct on the part of
Mr. Gardner, and in view of the fact that your letter [dated July 181
specifically denied any imputations of any kind against Mr. Gardner, we
are constrained to let the assignment stand as it is. Our assignments must
be made on the basis of availability of personnel, geography and case load of
individual staff members.
By letter dated July 20, 1951, Respondent's attorney forwarded to the Regional
Director an affidavit executed by said attorney in reference to "the names of
persons having first hand knowledge respecting the matter raised by the objec-
tions upon whom the person entrusted by you with the investigation may call
for the purposes of ascertaining such knowledge as they have." Respondent's
attorney also stated that a matter had come to his attention on July 19, 1951,
"which we are more thoroughly investigating, which gives more support to my
suggestion that it would be improper for Mr. Gardner to be in charge of this
investigation, and I, therefore, respectfully renew my objection to his so serving."
By letter dated August 2, 1951, Gardner advised Respondent's attorney :
In reviewing the file pertaining to the above matter [10-RM-77], I note
that among the allegations were the following:
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of page 3 alleged irregularities regarding the
ballot box during and between the voting periods.
720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pages 4 and 5 alleged that the Union's observers had indulged in
threats of violence and intimidation during the strike, which occurred
prior to the election.
You are herewith requested to submit to this office as soon as possible
prima facie evidence in affidavit form of persons having first-hand
knowledge regarding these matters.
In the event you have any inquiries regarding this matter, please-
communicate with me.
By letter dated August 9, 1951, an associate of Respondent's attorney advised
Gardner that Respondent's attorney was on vacation, that the principal officer
of Respondent was out of the -State and not expected to return for se,6^iat
days and
Upon reviewing the file I find that an objection has been filed by the
Company subsequent to the one overruled by the Regional Director as to
your serving as investigator of objections based in part on matters in which
you participated. Until these objections have been acted upon by the
Regional Director I do not think that I should take the responsibility of
answering your letter further than to state: (1) that Mr. Burr [Respondent's
attorney] will take the matter up with you promptly on his return; and
(2) that from my knowledge of the objections, the Company bases its alle-
gations as to irregularities regarding the ballot box on the facts stated
in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Page 3 relating to'the character of the box used
and the opportunity given for irregularities while in the charge and custody
of yourself as the custodian of the box as the representative of the Board
and of the parties in conducting the consent election. As to whether or
not irregularities did occur can only be ascertained on the hearing and from
an examination of the box and its contents. The Company at this time has
no additional affidavits to offer as to those particular allegations.
By letter dated August 13, 1951 (Appendix D), Respondent's attorney acknowl-
edged receipt of Gardner's letter of August 2, 1951, and confirmed his associate's
reply of August 9, 1951. In this letter the attorney restated Respondent's
position respecting the assignment of Gardner to investigate Respondent's ob-
jections. The letter concluded with a statement that "for this reason [Re-
spondent's opposition to Gardner as the investigator of the objections] and other
reasons the Company has no further reply to make to your letter of August 2."
On August 17, 1951, the Regional Director for the National Labor Relations
Board, Tenth Region, issued a report on election, objections to election, and
recommendations to the Board , in which he recommended that the objections
be overruled and that the Board certify the Union. The Regional Director's
reasoning and conclusions are-set forth in-Appendix E.
On August 27, 1951, Respondent filed exceptions to the aforesaid report of
the Regional Director, in substance alleging that the Regional Director did not
conduct a proper investigation of its objections within the meaning of Section
102.61 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, and that Board agents improperly
influenced the election by allowing an ineligible voter to cast a challenged ballot
and by permitting employees who were union officers to act as observers.
By letter dated August 31, 1951 (Appendix F), the Union requested Respondent
to meet and "begin negotiations on a collective bargaining contract."
By letter dated September 4, 1951, Respondent's attorney advised the Union :
Mr. Elliott has referred to me your letter of August 31 requesting a con-
ference with the Textile Workers Union of America as the exclusive
bargaining agent of the Company's production and maintenance employees.
HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 721
The Company prefers to await the final decision on this question before
making any engagements or recognizing the Union as the bargaining agent.
On or about October 17, 1951, the-National Labor Relations Board issued its
Decision and Certification of Representatives,6 rejecting Respondent's conten-
tions and certifying that :
Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, has been designated and selected
by a majority of the production and maintenance employees of Huntsville
Manufacturing Company, Huntsville, Alabama, including watchmen and
firemen, but excluding guards, clerical employees, time and frequency check-
ers, employees hired for and employed solely in connection with a specific
construction or installation job of limited duration and not a part of the
Employer's regular production and maintenance operations, executives, super-
visors with the rank of second hand or higher, and all other supervisors as
defined in the Act, as their representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the aforesaid
organization is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.
By letter dated October 19, 1951 (Appendix G), the Union requested that
Respondent "meet with representatives of the Union and a committee of your
employees to bargain out a contract governing our relationship."
By letter dated October 23, 1951, Respondent advised the Union :
This will acknowledge receipt of your request for a conference to negoti-
ate a new contract.
We are presenting to our principal the request for the conference and I
will advise you the position of the Company as soon as we have received
advice from our principal.
By letter dated October 24, 1951, the Union acknowledged Respondent's letter
of October 23, 1951, and requested that Respondent "let us know as quickly
as possible just when we can begin negotiations."
By letter dated November 1, 1951 (Appendix H), the Union notified Respondent
that it (the Union) "was anxious to begin negotiations" and requested an indi-
cation by return mail when it would be convenient "for us to meet with you for
this purpose."
By letter dated November 2, 1951, Respondent advised the Union :
After giving this matter careful consideration, the Company respectfully
declines under present conditions to grant your request for a conference
with you as the chosen bargaining agent of our employees. We are enclos-
ing herewith a statement which we are giving our employees?
On November 8, 1951, the Union filed the charge herein.
Contentions
Counsel for the General Counsel contends that the "objections to conduct of
the election and to conduct affecting the results of the election and protest against
any certification thereunder," filed by Respondent on or about July 16, 1951,
"were frivolous and dilatory and were filed to defeat, or at least delay, the
Respondent's obligation to bargain with the Union." The undersigned does not
° 96 NLRB 891.
The statement enclosed is attached hereto as Appendix I.
722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR" RELATIONS BOARD
agree that the objections independently , or when considered with the other
evidence in this matter , are "frivolous and dilatory ." Furthermore , Respondent
in filing its objections and protest followed the agreed -upon and prescribed
procedure . In the light of the entire record herein the undersigned believes
and finds that the evidence adduced is insufficient to support these contentions
of counsel for the General Counsel . Accordingly , the undersigned rejects the
further contention of counsel for the General Counsel that Respondent's un-
lawful refusal to bargain began on or about July 16, 1951.
In substance , Respondent contends that the Board's decision and certification
in Case No. 10-RM-77 was erroneous since the Board did not afford Respondent
a hearing on its objections and protest against certification . All issues raised
by Respondent herein were before the Board and were considered and disposed
of by the Board in the representation proceeding . The undersigned deems
himself bound by the Board's rulings in the representation proceeding.
Conclusions
In view of the foregoing and upon the entire record in this case , the under-
signed makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
2. Textile Workers Union of America , CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act.
3. The following employees of Respondent consitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act :
All production and maintenance employees of Huntsville Manufacturing Com-
pany, Huntsville , Alabama, including watchmen and firemen , but excluding
guards, clerical employees , time and frequency checkers , employees hired for
and employed solely in connection with a specific construction or installation
job of limited duration and not a part of the Employer 's regular production or
maintenance operations , executives , supervisors with the rank of second hand
or higher , and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
4. At all times since on or about October 17 , 1951, the Textile Workers Union
of America, CIO, has been the exclusive representative of all employees in
the afore -mentioned unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , and other conditions of employment.
5. On or about October 23, 1951, and at all times thereafter , Respondent
refused and has continued to refuse to bargain collectively with the Textile
Workers Union of America, CIO , as the representative of the employees in the
unit heretofore found appropriate.
6. That by the aforesaid refusal to bargain Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
and (5 ) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act it will be recommended that
Respondent take the action hereinafter specified.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 723
Appendix A
SEC. 102.61 Election procedure; tally of ballots; objections; certification by
regional director; report on challenged ballots; report on objections; exceptions;
action of the Board; hearing.-Unless otherwise directed by the Board, all elec-
tions shall be conducted under the supervision of the regional director in whose
region the proceeding is pending. All elections shall be by secret ballot. When-
ever two or more labor organizations are included as choices in an election, either
participant may, upon its prompt request to, and approval thereof by, the
regional director, whose decision shall be final, have its name removed from the
ballot. Any party may be represented by observers of his own selection, subject
to such limitations as the regional director may prescribe. Any party and
Board agents may challenge, for good cause, the eligibility of any person to
participate in the election. The ballqts of such challenged persons shall be
impounded. Upon the conclusion of the election, the regional director shall
cause to be furnished to the parties a tally of the ballots. Within 5 days after
the tally of ballots has been furnished, any party may file with the regional
director four copies of objections to the conduct of the election or conduct
affecting the results of the election, which shall contain a short statement of the
seasons therefor. Such filing must be timely whether or not the challenged
ballots are sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. Copies of
such objections shall immediately be served upon each of the other parties by
the party filing them, and proof of service shall be made.
If no objections are filed within the time set forth above, if the challenged
ballots are insufficient in number to affect the result of the election, and if no
runoff election is to be held pursuant to section 102.62, the regional director shall
proceed in the following manner :
(a) After an election conducted pursuant to an agreement waiving a hearing
and providing for Board determination of the facts ascertained after such
election, as contemplated by section 102.54 (b), and after any,election in a case
in which a determination of appropriate bargaining unit remains to be made
by the Board, the regional director shall forthwith forward to the Board in
Washington, D. C., the tally of ballots, which, together with the record previously
made, shall constitute the record in the case, and the Board may thereupon decide
the matter forthwith upon the record, or may make other disposition of the case.
(b) After an election not conducted pursuant to an agreement contemplated by
section 102.54 (b), and where no determination of the appropriate bargaining
unit remains to be made by the Board, the regional director shall forthwith issue
to the parties a certification of the results of the election, including certification
of representatives where appropriate, with the same force and effect as if issued
by the Board, and the proceeding will thereupon be closed.
If objections are filed to the conduct of the election or conduct affecting the
results of the election, or if the challenged ballots are sufficient in number to
affect the result of the election, the regional director shall investigate such
objections, challenges, or both, and shall prepare and cause to be served upon
the parties a report on challenged ballots, objections, or both, including his
recommendations, which report, together with the tally of the ballots, he shall
forward to the Board in Washington, D C. Within 10 days from the date of
issuance of the report on challenged ballots, objections, or both, any party may
file with the Board in Washington, D. C., seven copies of exceptions to such
report. Immediately upon the filing of such exceptions, the party filing the same
shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties, and shall file a copy
with the regional director. Proof of service shall be made to the Board. If no
exceptions are filed to . h repoittlie Board, upon the expiration of the period
724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for filing such exceptions, may decide the matter forthwith upon the record, or
may make other disposition of the case.
The report on challenged ballots may be consolidated with the report on objec-
tions-in appropriate cases.
If exceptions are filed, either to the report on challenged ballots, objections,
or both if it be a consolidated report, and it appears to the Board that such
exceptions do not raise substantial and material issues with respect to the
conduct or results of the election, the Board may decide the matter forthwith
upon the record, or may make other disposition of the case. If it appears to
the Board that such exceptions raise substantial and material factual issues,
the Board may direct the regional director or other agent of the Board to issue
and cause to be served upon the parties, a notice of hearing on said exceptions
before a hearing officer. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with
the provisions of section 102.56, 102.57, and 102.58, insofar as applicable. Upon
the close of the hearing, the agent conducting the hearing, if directed -by- the
Board, shall 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 challenges or objections, or both, if it be
a consolidated report. The agent conducting the hearing shall forward to the
Board in Washington, D. C., the notice of hearing, motions, rulings, orders,
stenographic report of the hearing, stipulations, exceptions, documentary evi-
dence, all of which, together with the objection to the conduct of the election
or conduct affecting the results of the election, the report on such objections,
the report on challenged ballots, and exceptions to the report on objections or
to the report on challenged ballots, and the record previously made, together with
his report, if any, shall constitute the record in the case. In any case in which
the Board has directed that a report be prepared and served, any party may
within 10 days from the date of issuance of the report on challenged--baHots,
objections, or both, file with the Board in Washington, D. C., seven copies of
exceptions to such, report. Immediately upon the filing of such exceptions, the
party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties,
and shall file a copy with the regional director. Proof of service shall be made
to the Board. If no exceptions are filed to such report the Board, upon the
expiration of the period for filing such exceptions, may decide the matter forth-
with upon the record, or may make other disposition of the case. The Board
shall thereupon proceed pursuant to section 102.60.
In any such case in which the Board, upon a ruling on challenged ballots, has
directed the regional director to open and count such ballots and to issue a
revised tally of ballots, and no objection to such revised tally is filed by any
party within 3 days after the revised tally of ballots has been furnished, the
regional director shall forthwith issue to the parties certification of the results
of the election, including certification of representatives where appropriate,,-with
the same force and effect as if issued-by the Board. The'proceeding shall there-
upon be closed.
SEC. 102.62 Runoff election.-(a) The regional director shall conduct a runoff
election, without further order of the Board, when an election in which the ballot
provided for not less than three choices (i, e., at least two representatives and
"neither") results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid ballots cast
and no objections are filed as provided in section 102.61. Only one runoff shall be
held pursuant to this section.
(b) Employees who were eligible to vote in the election and who are employed
in an eligible category on the date of the runoff election shall be eligible to vote
in the runoff election.
HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 725
(c)' The ballot in the runoff election shall, provide for a selection between the
two choices receiving the largest and second largest number of votes.
(d) In the event the number of votes cast in an inconclusive election in which
the ballot provided for a choice among two or more representatives and "neither"
or "none" is equally divided among the several choices ; or in the event the number
of ballots cast for one choice in such election is equal to the number cast for
another of the choices but less than the number cast for the third choice, the
regional director shall declare the first election a nullity and shall conduct an-
other election, providing for a selection from among the three choices afforded
in the'original ballot; and he shall thereafter proceed in accordance with para-
graphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section. In the event two or more choices
receive the same number of ballots and another choice receives no ballots and
there are no challenged ballots that would affect the results of the election, and
if all ,eligible voters have cast valid ballots, there shall be no runoff election and
the petition shall be dismissed. Only one such further election pursuant to this
,paragraph may be held.
(e) Upon the conclusion of the runoff election, the provisions of section 102.61
shall govern, insofar as applicable.
Appendix B
JULY 12, 1951.
HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Huntsville, Alabama.
(Attention: Mr. A. D. Elliott, Vice President.)
GENTLEMEN : In view of our years of representing the employees in your plant,
the vast majority of which remained on strike and participated in the Union's
termination thereof, and the result of the recent election, plus the fact that
we have an overwhelming majority signed up on current membership cards which
were signed since the strike ended, all of which we ask you to accept from us
and check in any proper way, there can be no doubt in any person's mind that
we represent your employees in a proper unit.
We agreed to a speedy and fair election to eliminate any possible or even
remote grounds for doubt, and to expedite resumption of collective bargaining.
Now, we request that you meet with our representatives at the earliest date
you will accept, at any place you name, to discuss and attempt in good faith to
work out a collective bargaining agreement, as well as current grievances. You
will recall that we had made a contract proposal, that we had arrived at agree-
ment on some provisions when you notified you would no longer bargain until an
election was held. We suggest that we resume bargaining at that point.
We suggest the following dates for a meeting at your office, the hour to be set
liy you :
Monday, July 16, 1951.
Tuesday, July 17, 1951.
Wednesday, July 18, 1951.
Thursday, July 19, 1951.
Friday, July 20, 1951.
In the event these dates are not suitable, please name the earliest date which
will be suitable, we will accept the hour and place you designate.
We urge that there be no delay, and will sincerely appreciate your reply by
return mail.
215233-53-47
726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Please address your reply to the writer's office at 323 Frank Nelson Building,
Birmingham 3, Alabama.
Very truly yours,
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO,
By Junius R. FRY, State Director.
Special Delivery : Return Receipt Requested Registered Mail.
Appendix C
JULY 16, 1951.
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO,
323 Frank Nelson Building,
Birmingham 3, Ala.
GENTLEMEN : On account of the absence of Mr. Elliott from Huntsville for
several days, your letter of July 12 addressed to the Huntsville Manufacturing
Company, Attention : Mr. A. D. Elliott, Vice-President, has been referred to
me for answer.
Previous to the receipt of this letter the Company had decided to question,
under the provisions of the law, the facts stated in your letter that the recent
election "eliminated any possible or even remote grounds for doubt as to the
Union's right to represent its production and maintenance employees as their
exclusive bargaining agent" and filed with the Board its objections to the conduct
of the election and to conduct affecting the results of the election, and its protest
against any certification thereunder. A copy of this paper was mailed to you
on Saturday, July 14, and we assume that you have received it. However,
thinking that you might desire to have an additional copy, I am enclosing a
copy herewith. As soon as these objections have been finally disposed of the
Company will be glad to answer further your letter of July 12 above referred to.
Yours very truly,
(s) Borden Burr,
BORDEN BURR,
Attorney.
Appendix D
AuousT 13, 1951.
Mr. ROBERT T. GARDNE R,
Field Examiner, National Labor Relattons Board,
209 Clark Building, Birmingham, Alabama.
Re: Case No. 10-RM-77, Huntsville Manufacturing Company, Objections to
Election
DEAR MR. GARDNER: Reference is made to your letter of August 2, 1951, and to
Mr. Taliaferro's reply of August 9, 1951. I wish to confirm what was said by
Mr. Taliaferro in his letter and to give you somewhat more in detail the posi-
tion of the Company.
The Company in its objections presented three principal matters as bases
for its objections, namely • (1) the election was one had by agreement between
the parties and you as a representative of the Board, which expressly provided
that none of the so-called "displaced employees" should be allowed to vote, and
the breach of this agreement, thus, as the Company contends, avoiding the elec-
tion; (2) the action of the representatives of the Board in overruling the pro-
test and objection of the Company to the service of Union officials as observers
for the Union ; and (3) the facts stated as to the character of the ballot box used
and the opportunity given for improper use of the ballot box and its contents.
HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 727
In all three of these matters you appeared as the chief representative of the
Board and while until the present time there has been no dispute on the part
of the Union or of representatives of the Board as to the happenings in refer-
ence to these matters as set out in the original sworn objections and in the sup-
plementary affidavit filed by the writer, the Company remains firm in its position
taken from the outset that no participant in the matters upon which the objec-
tions are largely based should be allowed to serve as the investigator of the
Board concerning them. The position of the Company concerning this is also
set out in previous correspondence which is on file with the Regional Director.
We do not believe that in justice either to the Company, the Union, the Board,
or yourself, the Company should depart in any way from this position. For this
and other reasons the Company has no further reply to make to your letter of
August 2.
Yours very truly,
BB:EG
cc: National Labor Relations Board,
Washington, D. C.
Mr. John C. Getreu, Regional Director,
National Labor Relations Board,
537 Peachtree-Seventh Building,
Atlanta, Ga.
BORDEN BURR.
Appendix E
A review of the above information clearly indicates, in the opinion of the
undersigned, that sufficient and substantial efforts were made by the under-
signed. and the Board Agent to attempt to have the Employer submit evidence
in support of its own Objections to the Election. The request for evidence in
support of the Objections were ignored for the reason that the Employer was
not pleased with and protested the assignment of the Board Agent who was to
conduct the investigation, despite the Employer's failure to submit evidence
of, or even an allegation with respect to, any matter in support of the Employer's
protest to the assignment, and despite the Employer's specific disclaimer of the
casting of any imputation. In view of the Employer's action in this matter,
the undersigned attaches no validity to the Objections based upon alleged inter-
ference with the election, absent manifest interference, since the objecting party
has not taken steps to substantiate its allegations or otherwise assist in the
investigation of its Objections.
In respect to Item I of the Objections, the Employer's attorney, on July 23,
1951, submitted an affidavit 1t outlining the circumstances leading up to the
arrangements for the conduct of this election and the basis upon which the
Employer agreed to enter into the Stipulation." (A copy of the affidavit sub-
mitted will be found attached hereto, and made a part hereof, designated as
Attachment No. 9). The attorney, in his affidavit in substance sets forth that
be, along with others, attended a conference on June 25, 1951, and that during
11 The affidavit by reference includes all matters set forth in the Objections upon which
the attorney has knowledge.
32 The Union, on April 30, 1951, called a strike and during the strike the Employer
commenced operations. The Union, on May 10, 1951, terminated its strike and its memo
hers reported for work. The Employer was insistent upon its position that all employees
that had been replaced, by newly hired employees, should not be eligible to vote. The
Union in the interest of a speedy determination of the question raised by this petition
agreed to such demand with the understanding, from the Employer, that such agreement
would not in any way prejudice the Union's right to file charges, if necessary, with the
Board.
728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
such conference it was agreed that if a consent election could be arrahged that :
(1) the new employees hired during the strike would be eligible to vote; and
(2) the former employees of the Employer who were not at the time`of the
Agreement working for the Employer should not be eligible to vote 13 He points
out that, at the time, the Union indicated that it would like to have the dis-
placed employees vote under protest and such suggestion was declined by the
Employer. Following such declination the Union agreed that only those em-
ployees employed as of June 2, 1951 (the eligibility date set forth in the Stipula-
tion) would be eligible to vote. In view of such agreement the Employer there-
upon agreed to sign and enter into the Stipulation.
The attorney states that on the day before the election, at the pre-election
conference, he was advised by the Board Agents conducting the election that if
any displaced persons appeared at the voting place they would be permitted to
vote subject to challenge. The attorney, thereupon, registered a protest and
indicated an intention to cancel the election until such time as the Board could
determine the eligibility, question as to the displaced persons. After considerable
discussion, the attorney received assurances from the Union that no such persons
would vote and based upon such assurance, from the Union," lie agreed that
the election would be held. However, he then contends that because one such
person did appear and was furnished a ballot and permitted to vote's that such
:action constituted a violation of the Stipulation and the election therefore should
be set aside.
The undersigned first became aware of the Employer's and the Union's agree-
ment respecting the voting of displaced employees late on the afternoon of
June 9, 1951, at which time the'Employer's attorney telephoned the undersigned
and outlined the complications raised and of his insistence that the agreement
between the Union and the Employer be carried out by the Board. At the time
of this conversation the undersigned advised the attorney that the undersigned
would conduct the election in conformity, with the terms of the Stipulation and
the usual practice and procedures of the Board, i. e., should any displaced em-
ployees appear during the course of the election and express a desire to vote
that such employee would be given a ballot and be permitted to vote under
challenge. The attorney registered considerable objections to this staten.ent
on procedure and continued to contend that such action on our part would con-
stitute a violation of the Employer's and the Union's agreement. The under-
signed pointed out that we would be required to vote persons, appearing at the
polls, subject to challenge, until such time as a determination could be made
respecting the eligibility of the voter.
During the course of the conversation with the attorney, the undersigned
advised him that the Employer could withdraw its signature from the Stipula-
tion and that the undersigned would then cancel the election pending a hearing
before the Board. The undersigned also advised the attorney that if the
Employer refused to extend to the Board Agent the voting facilities called for by
the terms of the Stipulation that the undersigned would, of necessity, be obliged
to withdraw approval of the Stipulation and direct a hearing with respect to
13 There were approximately 160 persons falling within this group and since there ap-
peared to be no dispute in relation to their eligibility to vote in the election, prior to
the pre-election conference, no special method was utilized by this office to give such
employees notice of the election.
14 Emphasis supplied.
'Flt should be noted here that-the ballot of the person was challenged and that such
ballot has not been counted as a valid vote cast Further, no ruling respecting the eligi-
bility of such person will be made herein for reasons set forth in footnote 3 of this report.
However, the person was previously employed by the Employer and had been called back
-to work after the eligibility date
HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 729
the question concerning representation. In any event the Employer did not with-
draw from the election during the course of this conversation or thereafter 16
The election was held as scheduled on July 10, 1951, and in accordance with
usual Board practice and procedure. As previously indicated, during its course,
the ballot of one displaced employee was accepted and challenged. (See foot-
note 15.)
Upon review of the above incidents the undersigned is convinced that the
Board's usual practices and procedures clearly commanded that the Board Agents
would be required to act accordingly, i. e., accepting the ballot of the displaced
person under challenge, and by taking such action the Board Agents in no way
could have affected the results of the Election. It is clear from the above
information that ample opportunity was presented to the Employer to withdraw
from the Stipulation prior to the election since the undersigned's position
respecting the handling of displaced employees under the Board's challenged
ballot procedure was clearly known by the Employer several hours before the
election was scheduled to commence. The Employer, however, did not elect to
follow such course, but instead chose to continue with the election upon assurance
from the Union that no such displaced persons would vote. The undersigned is
of the opinion that there exists no duty upon a Board Agent to enforce side
agreements of parties to a Consent or Stipulated Election and that our duty is
to conduct elections, i. e., Board Ordered, Consent or Stipulated, in conformity
with usual Board practice and procedure, which was done and with prior knowl-
edge of the parties of the intention of so doing.17
For reasons stated fully herein, the undersigned is of the opinion that the
subject matters set forth in the Employer's Objection Item I raises no material
or substantial issues with respect to the conduct of this election or conduct
affecting the results of the election.
In respect to Item II of the Objections. No evidence in support of this Objec-
tion was submitted by the Employer other than that which is set forth in the
Objections proper. Such statements as contained in the Objections are only
speculative in nature and in substance merely allege that there might have been
tampering or interference with the ballot box.
The undersigned has discussed the subject matter with the Board Agent charged
with the conduct of this election. Such discussion revealed that the ballot box
used, during the course of the election, was a standard ballot box provided by
the Board for use at such occasions. The ballot box was assembled, by the Board
Agent, in the presence of the observers of the Employer and the Union. Upon
the closing of the polls after the end of the first voting period 18 the box was sealed
in the presence of the observers and,the seals thereon were overseribed by both
the Employer's and the Union's observers. The ballot box, in conformity with
usual Board practice and.procedure, thereupon remained in the full, custody of
the Board Agent until time to start the second voting period whereupon it was
"The undersigned during the course of this conversation instructed the Board Agent,
conducting the election, that unless the Employer agreed to permit the voting to commence
as indicated in the Stipulation that the election should not be held. Such Agents were
further instructed that no agreement was to be made by them which would , in any way,
indicate that challenged ballots would not be accepted from displaced persons during the
course of the election
17 Further, there is no evidence which in any way indicates that the Board Agent, in
taking the one (1) challenged ballot, gave to other employees the belief that the Board, or
the Government , was cooperating with, or backing, the Union and thereby affecting the
results of the election
is The Stipulation provided for three voting periods on the date of election namely •
1st voting period from 4 : 00 a. m. to 6 : 00 a. m..
2nd voting period from 7 30 a m. to 10: 30 a. m.
3rd voting period from 3: 00 p . m. to 5: 30 p. m.
730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
examined, before use, by the observers for the Employer and the Union and all
agreed that the seals had not been broken nor tampered with.
At the close of the election polls at the end of the second voting period,
the ballot box was again resealed and overscribed by the Employer's and the
Union's observers and such ballot box remained in the custody of the Board
Agent until 3: 00 p. in. whereupon it was again examined by observers of
the Employer and the Union and all agreed that the seals had not been broken
nor tampered with 1°
The second ballot box used during the third voting period was also assem-
bled before the observers of the Employer and the Union and prepared for
use in their presence. Immediately at the closing of the polls at 5:30 p. in.
both ballot boxes were opened in the presence of the observers of the Employer
and the Union and the ballots counted Y0
The Board Agent advised the undersigned that the Employer offered to him
the use of a supposedly tamper proof ballot box. Such offer was declined by
the Board Agent since he had available ballot boxes which Board experience
has proven both proper and appropriate.
A review of the above does not indicate that the ballot box was tampered
with in any fashion. Further, the Board Agent's declining to use the ballot
box proffered by the Employer does not, in the opinion of the undersigned,
indicate that the Board or its representatives were cooperating with the Union
in -the manner and method of conducting the election. To the contrary, the
Board Agent's action established clearly the intention of the Board to remain
neutral by using its own and appropriate facilities to protect the secrecy of
the ballots.
For reasons stated fully herein, the undersigned is of the opinion that the
subject matters set forth in the Employer's objections Item II raises no material
or substantial issues with respect to the conduct of this election or conduct
affecting the results of the election. -
In respect to Item III of the Objections, no evidence in support of this
Objection was submitted by the Employer other than that which is set forth
in the Objections proper.
The undersigned has discussed the subject matter with the Board Agent
charged with the conduct of the election. Such discussion revealed that the
Employer registered a protest to the use of Union officers or officials as ob-
servers and that the Board Agent ruled that the Employer could not designate
supervisors as its observers.
It is clear that all of the Union's observers were employees of the Employer ;
none of them were supervisors ; and all were eligible voters in the election. The
undersigned is of the opinion that the Board Agent's ruling in respect to the use
of observers was correct and in conformity with usual Board practice and pro-
cedure and with the terms of Paragraph 4 of the Stipulation which in part
states that "Observers ... selected from among the nonsupervisory employees
of the Employer ..." Further, the Board when faced with a similar issue has
held that "A fellow employee of the eligible voters does not possess the discipli-
nary power of a supervisor, or the ability to intimidate employees, merely be-
cause he holds office in the Union that is seeking to be elected as the employees
bargaining representative."
"The seals on this first ballot box were not broken, at this time, since it was clear that
another box would be required in order to complete the third voting period. This sealed
box, however, was placed on a table adjacent to the checking table and remained thereon
at all times in full view of the observers present in the polling area
20 No objection or irregularity respecting the handling of the ballot box was reported
to the Board Agents at any time during or after the election.
21 United States Gypsum Company , 81 NLRB 197.
HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 731
• For reasons stated fully herein, the undersigned is of the opinion that the
subject matters set forth in the Employer's Objections Item III raises no ma-
terial issues with respect to the conduct of this election or conduct affecting the
results of the election $
Conclusion and recommendations
The undersigned, as indicated hereinabove, is of the opinion that the Objec-
tions filed by the Employer raise no substantial or material issues with respect
to the conduct of the election or conduct affecting the results of the election
and, therefore, recommends to the Board that the said Objections be overruled.
Further, the undersigned recommends to the Board that since the Union re-
ceived a majority of the valid ballots cast and as the number of challenged
ballots are not sufficient to affect the results of the election, that it certify that
the Union has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees of
the Employer, in the stipulated appropriate unit, as their representative for
the purposes of collective bargaining, and pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, that the Union is the exclusive rep-
resentative of all such employees for purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment z"
Signed at Atlanta, Georgia, this 17th day of August, 1951.
(s) John C. Getreu,
JOHN C. GETREU,
Regional Director, Region 10, National Labor Relations Board, 537
Peachhtree-Seventh Building, Atlanta, Georgia.
Appendix F
AuausT 31, 1951.
HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Huntsville, Alabama.
(Attention: Mr. A. D. Elliott.)
GENTLEMEN : It has been a long time now since an overwhelming majority of
your employees elected our Union by secret ballot to represent them for purposes
of collective bargaining. Although we know that you have filed certain objections
and exceptions to certain alleged conduct affecting the election, we feel that the
majority expression by secret ballot leaves no doubt as to the desires of your
employees for us to represent them We are therefore again requesting that you
meet with us to begin negotiations on a collective bargaining contract. You
already- have our proposal and we would like to begin where we left off when
you broke off negotiations sometime prior to the last election. We suggest that
we meet on either of the following dates, at a time suitable to you, in your offices
or some other convenient place in Huntsville, to bargain on the terms of a
contract:
Wednesday, September 5, 1951.
Thursday, September 6, 1951.
Friday, September 7. 1951.
Monday, September 10, 1951.
Tuesday, September 11, 1951.
"For reasons fully set forth hereinbefore. the undersigned finds that no evidence of
Interference has been submitted by the Employer which in anyway substantiates the bal-
anee of the matters contained in Item, III of its Objections. The undersigned , therefore,
recommends complete dismissal of such Objections
Ry Such recommendation being conditioned upon the Board following the undersigned's
recommendations respecting the Employer's Objections.
732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If none of these dates are satisfactory as a meeting time, please advise as to
what dates would meet with your convenience.
Very truly yours,
JULIUS R. FRY,
State Director.
Appendix G
OCTOBER 19, 1951.
Registered Mail Return Receipt Requested.
HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Huntsville, Alabama.
(Attention : Mr. A. D. Elliott.)
GENTLEMEN : Since the National Labor Relations Board has again certified Tex-
tile Workers Union of America as exclusive bargaining agent for your employees,
we are again requesting that you meet with representatives of the Union and a
Committee of your employees to bargain out a contract governing our relationship.
You will recall that we were in negotiations and had already agreed upon
several clauses of the Union's contract proposal when your Company raised the
question of representation. We would like to begin where we left off . Inasmuch
as our previous proposals to you were in several different documents, we have
prepared one single document including them all in combined form. Two copies
of our proposal are enclosed. These proposals include most of the negotiated
changes which were agreed upon in our original proposal to the Company.
We suggest the following dates for a meeting in your office in Huntsville, the
hour to be set by you :
Monday, October 22.
Tuesday, October 23.
Wednesday, October 24.
Thursday, October 25.
Friday, October 26.
In the event these dates are not acceptable, please suggest the earliest date
which will be. We will accept the hour you suggest.
We urge that there be no delay, and will sincerely appreciate your reply by
return mail.
Very truly yours,
JULIUS R. FRY,
State Director.
Appendix H
NOVEMBER 1 , 1951.
HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Huntsville, Alabama.
(Attention : Mr. A. D. Elliott.)
GENTLEMEN : It has been several days since we communicated with you with
respect to our several requests for a meeting to begin contract negotiations
and we were advised you must take the matter up with the officials of your
parent company before indicating your position.
Since we are extremely anxious to begin negotiations in order that a collective
bargaining contract for your employees may be arrived at as soon as possible,
may we again urge that you indicate to us by return mail when it will be con-
venient for us to meet with you for this purpose. As previously indicated, we
will be glad to meet with you most any time, allowing sufficient time for the
writer to travel from Birmingham to Huntsville.
HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 733
We will appreciate it if you will advise on this matter by return mail. We
would particularly like to begin negotiations within the next day or two, at a
time suggested by you.
Very truly yours, JULIUS R. FRY,
State Director.
Appendix I
2 NOVEMBER 1951.
HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Huntsville, Alabama.
DEAR' FELLOW EMPLOYEE: Management has been informed that statements
are being made to some of our employees that due to a recent order of the
National Labor Relations Board the Textile Workers Union will be recognized
us the exclusive bargaining agent of all of our employees and that the employees
will be required or forced to become members of the Union. To keep you fully
informed, I would like to tell you :
1. That no employee of the Company has been or will be required to either
join or not to join the Union. This is a matter of your own decision and you
can join or not join without having any fear that the Company will interfere
with or penalize you for your choice. IT IS UP TO YOU AND YOU ALONE
AS TO WHETHER YOU BELONG OR DO NOT BELONG TO THE UNION.
.2- That the Company, after giving the matter most careful consideration
and after having advised with counsel, has decided that it will not, under
present conditions, recognize the Union and negotiate with it as the exclusive
representative of its employees. In explanation of this decision I want as
briefly as I can to state some of the facts which impel us to make this decision.
A. For-several years previous to March 15, 1951-we negotiated and operated
under a contract made with the Union as your exclusive bargaining agent.
While we were engaged in an effort to negotiate a new contract the leaders of
the Union broke off negotiations and without any just cause struck our plant
and closed it down on April 1, 1951. Being desirous of avoiding any trouble,
we made no effort (aside from keeping the gates open for a few days) to
operate the plant until large numbers of our employees requested us to do so.
Following these requests we gave notice to all of our employees that the mill
would be reopened for operation on the 30th day of April, 1951, requested and
urged them to return to work, and advised them that their same jobs would
he open to them under the same wages (plus an increase in wages of 2%
previously offered and refused by the Union), hours and working conditions as
had existed before the strike.
The mill reopened on the day set with a small force which increased from
(lay to day until we had normal operation. In accordance with notice given,
all employees who returned to work returned to their old jobs and approximately
250 new employees were employed to take the place of the old employees who
did not apply for their jobs but remained on strike.
li On or about the 8th day of May, 1951 the Union called off its strike and
notified its members to return to work The Union and the employees were
again advised that in accordance with its promise the Company would retain
in its employment the new employees who were efficient workers and had given
satisfaction in their work Since that time until now the Company has carried
out all of its promises to all of its employees both old and new, and at the
present time of its former employees who struck and did not accept employment
when offered them only about eighty remain.
C. As soon as the plant went back into operation the Company received and
continues to receive written and telephone statements from employees that they
734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
did not wish the Union to continue to represent them or did not wish the Union
dues to be checked from their wages. On the 1st (lay of June, 1951, in the hope
that this question could be settled the Company filed with the National Labor
Relations Board its request for an election. The agreement, among other things
provided that eligible voters in the election should be the old and new employees
whose names appeared on the Company's payroll of the 2nd day of June, 1951,
and that none of the displaced employees should be allowed to vote. The repre-
sentative of the Board with whom the agreement was made and who conducted
the election allowed a displaced person to vote and in accordance with informa-
tion which we received, the election which resulted in favor of the Union was
not conducted in accordance with the agreement and did not represent a free
and fair expression of the wishes of the employees. Receiving information to this
effect from a number of our employees and being convinced that the consent
agreement for the election had not been carried out by the Board, the Company
filed exceptions to the election Acting on our belief and on information re-
ceived from some of you, exceptions were taken to :
1. Permitting, against the Company's objections, Union officials to act as
election observers'; ' '
2. Permitting a displaced person to vote after the Company had been assured
that none of these persons would appear at the polls ;
3. Failure to properly protect ballot boxes while the polls were closed.
The Board appointed as the person to investigate the exceptions the same
representative of the Board who had conducted the election, and the Regional
Director, on the 17th day of August, 1951, overruled the exceptions and upheld
the election largely on the report made by this same representative. The Com-
pany carried its exceptions to the Board in Washington and this Board on the
17th day of October, 1951, overruled the exceptions without making any further
investigation and certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent of the
employees.
On the 19th of October, 1951, the Union sent "unfair labor charges" to the
National Labor Relations Board against the Company based upon the acts of
the Company in not reemploying some of its former employees who did not return
to work when given the opportunity to do so and who remained on strike, and.
whose jobs had been filled by old or new employees. The Company in answer
to these charges except to claim and prove that the promises which it made to
our present employees to keep them on their jobs were made legally, justly, and
in good faith, and it expects to uphold and maintain these promises and to
protect the jobs of our present employees.
For these and other reasons the Company acting in the interest of its employees
and in its own interest, will not recognize the Union as the exclusive bargaining
agent of its employees until and unless it has been legally determined that it
has been chosen by a majority of the production and maintenance employees as
their exclusive bargaining agency.
In the meantime the Company will continue, as long as business justifies it,
to operate its plant in full keeping with its promises to its employees, and requests
the cooperation of all employees. It assures each employee of continued fair
treatment. If any employee or group of employees has any grievances, it invites
and urges them to present them in accordance with the machinery which has
been previously set up and of which you have been advised. Such grievances
as are presented will be handled in accordance with these provisions, including
arbitration as provided for.
Dated this 2nd day of November, 1951.
HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
(s) A. D. ELLIOTT, Vice-President.
HART'S FOOD STORES, INC.
Appendix J
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
735
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT engage in any acts in any manner interfering with the efforts
of TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, to negotiate for or represent
the employees in the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with the above-named union
as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit
described below with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment and if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All our production and maintenance employees, including watchmen
and firemen, but excluding guards, clerical employees, time and fre-
quency checkers, employees hired for and employed solely in connection
with a specific construction or installation job of limited duration and
not a. part of the employer's regular production or maintenance opera-
tions, executives, supervisors with the rank of second hand or higher,
and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
By ---------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated -----------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
HARTS FOOD STORES , INC. and LOCAL 95, AMALGAMATED MEATCUTTERS
& BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case
No. 3-RC-925. June 13, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John Weld, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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].
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 organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
99 NLRB No. 109.