Levi Strauss & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 11, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 343 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

LEVI STRAUSS & CO. 343
Levi Strauss & Co. and Southwest Regional Joint employed on October 7 prepared by the
Board , Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Respondent, submitted into evidence by the General
America, AFL-CIO. Cases 16-CA-2874 and Counsel, and apparently used by the Trial Examiner
16-RC-4459 as a basis for his finding that there were 163
April 11, 1969
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
On June 28, 1968, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding,' finding, inter alia, that
the Respondent had refused to bargain collectively
with the Union in the unit found appropriate by the
Board, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and
ordering it to cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action. Thereafter, while the
Union's and Respondent's petitions for review were
pending in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, the Board moved
the Court for an order permitting redetermination
by the Board of the Union's majority status, and
holding all proceedings before the Court in abeyance
pending such redetermination, because of certain
discoveries concerning the majority status of the
Union. The motion was granted on December 26,
1968. We have reconsidered our determination of
the Union's majority status, and we affirm our
finding that on the critical date the Union
represented a majority of the Respondent's
employees in an appropriate unit, and that the
Respondent refused to bargain with it in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
In the proceeding before the Trial Examiner, the
parties agreed that on October 7, 1966, the date on
which the Respondent refused to bargain, there were
163 employees in the unit found appropriate; the
Trial Examiner so found, and no exceptions were
filed to that finding. The Trial Examiner further
found that 87 unit employees who had signed cards
were employed on the critical date, and no
exceptions were filed to the finding that these
employees were employed on that date. The Board
adopted these findings of the Trial Examiner in the
absence of exceptions thereto; the Board further
found, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that
the 87 cards were valid designations of the Union,
and that it was unnecessary to rule upon the validity
of additional cards which were received in evidence.
We have again reviewed the record, following the
Court's leave. Our subsequent review reveals, and
we find, that the names of Snyder, Thames, G.
Watson, J. Martin, and Gooden, who were
employed on October 7, were, apparently
inadvertently, omitted from the list of employees
'172 NLRB No 57
employees in the unit on that date. It is therefore
clear that there were in fact 168 employees in the
unit on October 7. Furthermore, among the 87 cards
found valid were cards signed by Bobbye Thompson,
Bobby Thompson, Wanda Welch, and Deverne
Sharp. The record shows, however, that these
employees were not employed on October 7.Z
Deducting these 4 from the 87 cards previously
found valid leaves only 83 valid cards in the
appropriate unit of 168 employees. In these
circumstances, it is clearly necessary to determine
the validity of additional and hitherto unresolved
cards of employees employed on October 7,' for the
purpose of ascertaining the Union's majority status.
In reviewing the facts concerning these cards, we
adhere to the principles explicated in our original
decision herein.'
Iristene Adams did not testify as to what was said
to her when she was requested to sign an
authorization card. However, Azlee Taylor, who
solicited Adams to sign a card, testified that she did
not mention an election to Adams but asked her
what she thought about the Union, and Adams
replied she thought it was needed. Taylor further
testified that she then told Adams she could become
a member of the Union by signing "an application
card for the purpose of the Amalgamated Clothing
Workers representing her and matters pertaining to
her working conditions and her benefits"; and that
Adams read and signed the card.
Melva Byrd testified she was given an
authorization card by Dellene Shirley, an employee,
who Byrd "believes" did not say anything about an
election; and she, Byrd, took the card home, read
and signed it. Shirley testified she told Byrd, "if we
got enough people interested in the Union that we
could send the cards into the Government to get an
election."
Alpha Rakistraws testified without contradiction
that she was given an authorization card by Agnes
Smith, an employee, that she read the card before
she signed it; and that she was told the purpose of
the card was "to join the Union."
Thelma McRuiz testified that Lee Metker, a
union representative, gave her an authorization card
and asked if she would "like to sign the card and
come in and see if we could get this election," but
'In discussing Jean Lowery 's card the Trial Examiner apparently
inadvertently interchanged the names Bobbie Saxon and Jean Lowery The
record shows that Bobbie Saxon solicited Jean Lowery to sign a card
which we agree with the Trial Examiner is valid
'Two of the previously unconsidered cards were signed by Jo Ann
Biglow and Linda Phillips However, as these employees were not
employed on October 7 and were not included in the unit count, their cards
have not been counted
'Levi Strauss & Co, 172 NLRB No 57
'The Respondent stipulated that Rakistraw 's card, which is undated, was
signed within the first 7 days of October 1966
175 NLRB No. 57
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assured her the Respondent "would probably
recognize the Union without a lot of trouble." She
stated that she read the card. Metker testified he
told McRuiz he was trying to bring the Union in; he
had an application for membership; and would like
her to "join our Union and help to bring it in."
Hortence Noble testified that on certain occasions
before Noble signed a card at the solicitation of
employee Dellene Shirley, Shirley had mentioned
that a certain percentage of cards was needed to
have an election; and the reason Shirley gave Noble
at the time for wanting Noble to sign a card was
that the Union would help in getting production
quotas and overtime reduced and wages raised.
Although Noble testified she had heard three other
employees state that the card was "not to join any
union," there is no evidence that she "heard" this
before she signed the card. Shirley did not testify as
to this card.
Margarette Barker did not testify with respect to
what was said to her before she signed an
authorization card. However, Azlee Taylor, who
solicited Barker's card, testified that she told Barker
that the Union was organizing and that several
cards had been signed by employees who were
interested in improving their working conditions and
that she explained how the Union would help
Barker.
Agnes Smith testified without contradiction that
she was given a card by Avis Oldham, an employee,
who told her it was for the purpose of joining the
Union and getting better working conditions;
Oldham also mentioned that if there was an
election, employees would have better working
conditions; and Smith read the card before she
`Levi Strauss & CD, supra
signed it.
Although some reference to an election was made
during some of the card solicitations referred to
above, there was no representation, either direct or
indirect, that the cards would be used for an election
other than as a concurrent purpose. We therefore
find no reason to invalidate these unambiguously
worded authorization cards on the theory of
misrepresentation or on any other ground.`
Accordingly, we find that these 7 employees validly
designated the Union as their bargaining agent.
Bertie Thompson testified without contradiction
as follows. She was given an authorization card by
Art Hebner, a union representative, who explained
some union benefits to her and told her the card was
to get an election. Thompson's husband, who was
present, asked Hebner if she would be under an
obligation if she signed the card, and Hebner replied
that she would not, but that the card was "just to
get an election." Thompson read and signed the
card.
It is clear that Hebner's statements to Thompson
are susceptible of an interpretation or inference that
her card would be used only for an election. We
accordingly find her card invalid.
In view of the foregoing, and the record as a
whole, we find that October 7, 1966, the Union
represented 90' employees in the appropriate unit of
168 employees. We accordingly find that the Union
represented a majority of the Respondent's
employees in the appropriate unit on the critical
date, and hereby reaffirm our Decision and Order
heretofore issued in this case.
'In view of our finding of majority herein , we find it unnecessary to rule
upon the cards of Patricia Walker, Doris Buchanan , Sue Ray, Nancy J.
Robinson, and Frances Bowers As stated in the original decision herein,
Member Zagoria does not rely on the cards of Harris or Layne