Joanna Western Mills Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 27, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1789 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

JOANNA WESTERN MILLS CO. 1789
production meetings as well as the supervisory training course. On
this record we find that Mercer responsibly directs the work of the
other two inspectors, hence is a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act.' We shall include in the unit the two inspectors who work under
him. They work in close contact with production and maintenance
employees and are appropriately a part of that units
Watchmen: The Employer employs two men who make regular
rounds at night for fire security. They admit no one to the plant at
night without telephoning for specific authority to do so. They carry
no firearms and are instructed that they are not there to protect from
burglary. As the primary duty of these employees is to check for
fire hazards, we find that they are not guards and shall include them
in the unit.'
We find that the following employees employed at the Employer's
Decatur, Georgia, plant comprise a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act : all production and maintenance employees, including produc-
tion control clerks, inspectors, watchmen, the leadman on the night
shift, janitors, and regular part-time employees, excluding engi-
neering department employees, salesmen, servicemen, leadmen in elec-
trical assembly, salvage and paint, plastics, shipping and receiving,
maintenance, and quality control departments, as well as guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
c See Nebel Knitting Company, 106 NLRB 114, 118, where the head dyer was held
supervisory.
Metal Pv oduets Corporation, 107 NLRB 94, 96
Drexel Furniture Company, 116 NLRB 1434, 1437.
The patties stipulated the inclusion of janitors and regular pact-trine employees
Joanna Western Mills Co. and Paint, Varnish , Lacquer & Allied
Products Union , Local 950, AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-RC-5550.
February 27, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board on July 3, 1957,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on
August 1, 1957, under the supervision of the Regional Director for
the Thirteenth Region among the production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Chicago, Illinois, plant. Upon completion
of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally
shows that of approximately 789 eligible voters, 746 cast ballots, of
i Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
119 NLRB No. 207.
1790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which 220 were for the Petitioner, 505 were against the Petitioner, 19
were challenged, and 2 were void.
On August 8, 1957, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affect-
ing the results of the election. The Regional Director investigated
the objections and on October 23, 1957, issued and duly served upon
the parties his report on objections. In this report, the Regional
Director recommended that all but one of the objections be sustained,
and that the Board set aside the election and direct a new election.
Thereafter, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's
report in which it urges in effect that the Board overrule the Regional
Director and certify the results of the election.
The Petitioner, in its objections, alleged in part that the Employer
interfered with the free choice of a bargaining representative by
announcing, during the critical preelection period, the grant of a
15-cent an hour wage increase, payment of overtime wages after an
8-hour workday, additional vacation benefits, and a new job evaluation
program 2
The Regional Director found that the Employer interfered with
conduct of the election by granting wage increases and vacation bene-
fits on July 3, 1957, the day that the Board issued its Decision and
Direction of Election. He found, with respect to the overtime pay and
job evaluation program, that the Employer's announcement of July 3
only suggested these proposed changes but that the actual grant of
the latter benefits occurred after the Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion issued but before the election. He concluded that the Employer's
conduct on July 3 and thereafter affected the results of the election.
The Employer contends that the decision in F. V. 117ool2vorth Co.,
109 NLRB 1446, precludes Board consideration of any alleged inter-
ference that occurred on the date of the issuance of the Decision
and Direction of Election. It argues that, through a coincidence only,
the grants of some employment benefits were made on July 3, 1957,
the date the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election, that
it was unaware of the Decision until some days later, and that the
Decision did not prompt its preelection conduct.3 The Employer
argues, additionally, that any alleged interference occurring after the
date the Decision and Direction of Election issued was but a con-
tinuation of the same July 3 conduct which is cut off as a basis for
objections.
In our opinion, the incidents which the Regional Director found to
have occurred establish that the Employer interfered with the election
2 The Petitioner also alleged Employer interference by other preelection misconduct.
Because we dispose of this case on the issues discussed hereafter, we find unnecessary the
consideration of other issues.
S The Board issued the Decision and Direction of Election on July 3, 1957 The Em-
ployer received it on July 5 and it reached company officials on July 8
JOANNA WESTERN MILLS CO. 1791
by promises of benefit on July 3 and thereafter which deprived the
employees of their freedom of choice.
In the F. W. Woolworth Company case, supra, relied on by the
Employer, the Board announced that the date of issuance of the Deci-
sion and Direction of Election in contested election cases (and the
date of execution of an agreement for consent election or a stipulation
for certification upon consent election in uncontested cases) marks a
cutoff period for Board consideration of objections: alleged interfer-
ence occurring before them will not be considered on the merits by
the Board, while alleged interference occurring after those dates will
be considered on the merits. The rules permitting a party to urge
preelection conduct as a basis for postelection objections were intended
to insure an expeditious determination of the employees' wishes and
to promote orderly administration of the Act.4 They were not
intended to authorize interference before the cutoff dates.
The applicable cutoff date includes, as the Regional Director found,
the very date that the Decision and Direction of Election issued. We
thus clarify the rule. The Board will consider on the merits any
objectionable conduct which occurs on and after the date of issuance
of the decision and direction of election in a Board-ordered election.
Election objections based upon interference which occurs prior to the
date of issuance of the decision and direction of election will not be
considered by the Board.'
Because the Employer interfered with the election by granting the
employees a wage increase and additional vacation benefits on the
date that the Decision and Direction of Election issued, such conduct
is a basis for setting aside the election.
Moreover, we find that the Employer's grant of overtime wages on
a daily basis and the adoption of a job evaluation program, after the
Decision and Direction of Election issued and before the election,
constitutes an additional basis for setting aside the election s
Accordingly, we shall set aside the election of August 1, 1957.
[The Board set aside the August 1, 1957, election and remanded
this proceeding to the Regional Director for the purpose of conducting
a new election.] 7
AF. W. Woolworth Co., 109 NLRB 1446, 1448; Breman Steel Company, etc., 115 NLRB
1581, at 1583, footnote 6.
6 Similarly, in cases where an amended decision and direction of election issues, the
Board will consider the merits of any objectionable conduct which occurs on and after the
date of issuance of the amended decision and direction of election
Objectionable conduct occurring on and after the execution of a consent-election agree-
ment or a stipulation for certification upon consent election will constitute a ba.is for
setting aside an election when urged in a timely manner after the election
6 Knickerbocker Manufacturing Company, Inc., 107 NLRB 507.
7 The new election shall be conducted among the employees, in the unit found appropriate
in the Decision and Direction of Election in this case issued July 3, 1957, who are em-
ployed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of issuance of notice of
election.