Langenberg Hat Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 16, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 198 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board specifically exempted from this rule the circulation of cam-
paign literature within the 24-hour period. Moreover, as the Regional
Director points out, an earlier TWUA leaflet, dated January 18,.1956,
containing statements similar to these in the disputed leaflet, re-
mained unanswered by Local 444 although there was ample time to
reply thereto during the approximately 6 weeks before the election.
Accordingly,, we find that the second objection is without merit and
overrule it.
As we have overruled the objections to the election, and as the tally
of ballots shows that TWUA received a majority of the valid ballots
cast, we shall certify TWUA as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-
CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees of Chicopee Manufacturing Corporation, in the unit hereto-
fore found to be appropriate.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Certification of Representatives.
Langenberg Hat Company 1 and Katherine Kuehn and Adalia
Reinhardt , Petitioners and United Hatters, Cap & Millinery
Workers International Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 14-RD-95.
July 16,1956
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Henry L. Jalette, 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 Petitioners, employees of the Employer, assert that the
Union is no longer the representative, as defined in Section 9 (a) of
the Act, of the employees involved herein. The Union has been certi-
fied by the Board as such representative.
3. The Union contends that the petition should be dismissed on the
grounds that (1) there is an outstanding court decree enforcing a
Board decision ordering the Employer to bargain with the Union;
(2) the Union has filed unfair labor practice charges against the Em-
i The Employer 's name appears as corrected at the hearing.
116 NLRB No. 25.
LANGENBERG HAT COMPANY 199
ployer (Case No. 14-CA-1477 not reported in printed volumes of
Board Decisions and Orders) ; and (3) the "showing of interest" peti-
tion signed by the employees seeking a decertification election in this
case and submitted to the Board was prepared by the Regional Di-
rector herein.
As to (1), the Board's records show that the Regional Director
found on July 6,1955, that the Employer had fully complied with the
court decree by posting appropriate notices and bargaining with the
Union. That decree is therefore no longer an obstacle to the holding
of an election.' As regards (2), the unfair labor practice charges
were dismissed by the Regional Director on April 19, 1956. It is
Board policy to process petitions under such circumstances, even
though, as here, there is an appeal pending before the General
Counsel.3
As to (3), the Union's assertion is based on the testimony of the
Petitioners at the hearing that an employee in the Board's Regional
Office, at the direction of the Regional Director, typed the heading of
the petition later circulated among the employees to establish Peti-
tioners' showing of interest. Because showing of interest is an ad-
ministrative matter, the Board has conducted an administrative inves-
tigation which shows that the Petitioners confused the decertification
petition (NLRB Form 502) with the above-mentioned showing of
interest petition and that only the former was prepared in the
Regional Office in. the manner described above. Such -assistance in
preparing an entirely different form cannot affect the validity of
Petitioners' showing of interest. While the Board's investigation
shows further that the Regional Director suggested the language of
the caption on the showing of interest petition,4 such assistance is not
sufficient ground to invalidate such showing. The Union contends
that the situation is analogous to that in Anderson Air Activities,5
where the Board held that the fact that a party to an election dis-
tributes, during the preelection campaign, a "copy of a Board sample
ballot which is altered in a partisan manner is ground for setting aside
the election. The Board there held that the vice of such conduct was
that it created the impression that the Board had endorsed the claims
of such party. However, the showing-of-interest petition here circu-
lated did not purport on its face to have the approval of the Board,
2 The Union also urges as an obstacle to an election other unfair labor practices of the
Employer found by the Board and the courts , affecting employees in a plant of the Em-
ployer located a few miles from the one here involved . Apart from other considerations,
in view of the fact that , as shown by the Board 's records , the Employer has fully complied
with the court decrees in those cases as well, such unfair labor practices do not prevent
the holding of the instant election.
* R. H. McClure, 100 NLRB 443.
* This caption reads : "We the undersign ( sic) employees of Harris Langenberg Hat Co.
at Mascoutah , 111. Desire to have an election to have the United Hat Cap Millinery (sic)
Union decertified."
5 106 NLRB 543.
200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nor is there any evidence that the employees who signed the petition
were apprised of any such approval.
The Union contends also that the Board should infer, despite the
Petitioners' denials, that the Employer instigated the instant petition.
However, there is insufficient basis in the record for drawing such
inference.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of certain employees of the Employer, within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant
at Mascoutah, Illinois, excluding office clerical and professional em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act."
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
6 The unit conforms to that found appropriate by the Board in Harris Langenberg Hat
Company, 106 NLRB 19 , and neither the Union nor Employer objects to such unit.
Solar Aircraft Company and District Lodge 118 , International
Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No.
18-RC-2845. July 17, 1956
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Richard P. O'Connell, hear-
ing 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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons:
Petitioner seeks to represent the following groups of employees in
one combined unit: a group of laboratory technicians, laboratory as-
sistants and stenographers working in the metallurgical and chemical
laboratories; a group of clerical employees known as cost recorders and
116 NLRB No. 23.