Maywood Hosiery Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 12, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 146 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the' Matter of MAYWOOD HOSIERY MILLS, INC. and AMERICAN FED-
ERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, C. I. O.
Case No. 10-1?-1363
SUPPLEMENTAL DECI SION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 12, 1945
On January 12, 1945, the National Labor Relations Board issued
,a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding,
wherein it found that all employees of Maywood Hosiery Mills, Inc.,
herein called the Company, engaged in the manufacture of hosiery at
Cordele, Georgia, excluding clerical and supervisory employees, con-
stitute an appropriate unit, and directed that an election be held among
them to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
American Federation of Hosiery Workers, C. I. 0., herein called the
Union, for the purposes of collective bargaining. Pursuant to the
lirection of Election, the Regional Director, on February 2, 1945,
conducted the election. A Tally of Ballots, prepared by a Board agent
and duly served upon the parties, discloses the results of the election
as follows :
Approximate number of eligible voters_______________________ 41
Void ballots----------------------------------------------- 0
Votes cast for American Federation of Hosiery Workers,
C. I. 0-------------------------------------------------- 27
Votes cast against this organization __________________________ 11
Valid votes counted_______________ ____________________ 38
Challenged ballots__________________________________________ 1
On February 6, 1945, the Company filed objections to the conduct
of the election.2 On February 14, 1945, the Acting Regional Director
filed a Report on Objections, in which he found thatthe objections did
not raise substantial or material issues with respect to the conduct of
the election, and he recommended that the objections be overruled and
the Union certified. On March 19, 1945, the Company filed Exceptions'
1 59 N L. R. B. 1529.
2 The objections of the Company relate solely to preelection conduct on the part of the
Union and do not pertain to the manner of balloting or to the Regional Director's conduct
of the election , per se.
64 N. L. R. B., No. 30.
146
MAYWOOD HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 147-
to-the Acting Regional Director 's Report on Objections . On May 2,
1945, the Board, having considered the Company's objections , the Act-
ing Regional Director 's Report on Objections ,- and the Company's.
exceptions thereto, remanded the case to the Regional Director for-
further hearing on the objections.
Pursuant to notice , further hearing , was held on May 17 and 18,
1945, at Cordele , Georgia, before Henry J. Kent, Trial Examiner.
The Board ; the Company , and the Union appeared , participated, and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
The Trial Examiner 's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded oppor-
tunity to file briefs with the -Board.
The Company in its objections alleges in substance ( 1) thaw on
November 1,'1944, it informed its employees that it had filed a peti-
tion with the War Labor Board on November 4, 1944, for increase in
wages , that on January 17 , 1945 , approximately 15 days before the
election, the Union showed'a letter to the'Company 's employees, pur-
porting and believed by them to be an official communication from the
War Labor Board , reciting that on November 16, 1944, there was no
pending petition filed by the Company for increase in wages, that
the sthiteuient in the letter was false , and that the Company's " employ-
ees. believing that the Company had thus- ' broken faith with them,
had voted for union representation ,-which they otherwise would not
have done; (2) that the Union published in its local paper, which it
distributed among the Company's employees on February 1, the tday
before the election, false statements regarding alleged wage increases
promised by the Company to "girls" on November 12, and otherwise
garbled the account-of the bargaining relations between the Com-
,pany and its employees during this period; and ( 3) that the Union
threatened with discharge employees who did not join the Union;
and that, by these acts , the Union thus interfered with the free "choice
of its employees in the'election.
Upon the record made at the further hearing and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT
A. With respect to Objection 1
Due to the' shortage of manpower in 1942, the Company began
changing the pattern of its hosiery from square-heel to round-heel
styles and, on its own petition filed in the fall-of 1943, obtained from-
the War Labor Board, early in 1944, wage adjustments for employees,
assigned to do the new round-heel work. " .
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In August 1944, a group of employees working on square-heel hose
asked the Company's manager for wage increases. The manager dis-
cussed at length the limitation on wage increases imposed by the War
Labor Board, but promised to see what could be done to equalize wages
among all employees. Early in October, the Union began organizing
the Company's employees and, on October 31, the manager called cer-
tain knitters into his office and offered them wage increases . There-
after, between this date and November 16, the date when the petition
herein was filed, the Union and the Company held several conferences
concerning the representation of the Company's employees.
On November 4, the Company filed a voluntary petition with the
War Labor Board, asking for wage increases for knitters and footers
working on square-heel hose. A week later, on November 12, the
ma ger, by request, met with approximately seven knitters (all
men), who asked for a wage adjustment for employees making the
square-heel hose. The manager again discussed the limitations put
upon wage increases, told these employees that he had already filed
a petition for adjustment for them on November 4, and promised that
he would continue to do what he could to equalize wages.
On November 16, the Union filed the instant petition for investi-
gation and certification of representatives. On or about November
17, the union organizer received a letter on official stationery of the
War Labor `Board, Fourth Region, Post Office Box 1332, Atlanta, 1,
Georgia, dated November 16, and signed "Frank McCallister, Execu-
tive Assistant,to C. I. O. Members", stating that the Company had no11 1
open case pending before the War Labor Board at that time. This
statement was incorrect. - The letter specifically referred to the prior
1943 petition for employees working on round-heel hosiery granted
early in 1944, noted above, and assured the union organizer that the
writer would notify him of any petition later filed by the Company.
The union organizer working among the Company's employees 3
showed this letter to several of them shortly after he received it, but
the matter did not come to the Company's attention until early in the
following year.
On November 20, the Company's petition for wage adjustment for
knitters and footers working on square-heel hose, filed on November 4,
was denied by the War Labor Board. On December 2, the Company
appealed the denial, and, on December 18, the appeal was denied.
In the meantime, however, on December 6, the Company had filed two
separate new petitions, one for knitters and one for footers. On Decem-
ber 20, the petition for knitters was granted, with provisions retro-
active to December 4, and the petition for footers was denied. The
Company immediately put into effect the approved increases.
The union organizer concerned with the 'circulation of the McCallister letter among the
Companv' s employees was in the armed services and unavailable as a witness at the time
of the further hearing.
MAYWOOD HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 149
On December 19, the original hearing was held in this proceeding,
and on January 12, 1945, the Board issued the Decision and Direction
of Election. On January 17, about 15 days before the directed elec-
tion was held, the union organizer circulated among the Company's
employees the letter on War Labor Board stationery, dated Novem-
ber 16 and signed by McCallister, discussed above. The Company
learned of the circulation of this letter through two employees who
had attended the November 12 meeting, who then told the -manager
that the Company's employees believed that the Company had deceived
them as to the filing of the November 4 petition and that the employ-
ees had lost faith in the Company by reason of this belief. The man-
ager invited the two employees making this report-into the Company's
'office, promising to show them the papers concerning the petition.
On January 27 and again on January 30, the Company sent letters,
to each eligible employee, in which it urged its employees to vote, and
assured them that their right to work at the Company's mill would
not be affected, whether they supported or opposed the Union or
whether the Union should win or lose the election. In. these letters
the Company made no mention of the objectionable letter signed by
McCall ister, which it presently urges as union interference with the
conduct of the election.
B. With respect to Objection 0
On February 1, the day before the election was to take place, the
Union distributed to employees of the Company an official union paper
containing , inter alia , the following somewhat garbled account of
the Company 's bargaining relations with its employees.
On October 31, some of the knitters were - called ,into the office
and offered wage increases . They did not give the company an
answer about leaving the Union, but was made known that the
girls had also joined , so on Nov. 12 , wage increases were offered
to a number of th e girls and the people told to be "one big family,"
and the company would petition the War Labor Board for per-
mission to put the increases into effect December 8 . [Italics sup-
plied.] .
Some knitters were offered increases by the Company on October
31. No girls were present at the November 12 meeting , noted above,
but men and girls served as knitters for whom the increases were
.sought. On November 12, the Company had already filed its War
Labor Board petition of November 4, and no reference was made at
the November 12 meeting to wage increases to be put into effect "De-
cember 8." The printed account of the Company 's bargaining rela-
tions with its employees is thus short , incomplete , and inaccurate.
150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. With respect to Objection 3
Employees ' of the , Company, organizing for the Union told other
employees that, if the Union won the election, the latter would lose
their employment if they did not join the Union . There is no indi-
cation in the record that the official union organizer made any threats
to the Company 's employees , and the organizing period . is devoid of
violence.
Conclusions
In' all cases where, as here, the validity of a Board election is chal-
lenged on grounds other than direct interference or irregularity in the
voting process itself, there is a strong presumption that the ballots,
cast in secrecy under the safeguards regularly provided by our pro
•cedure, reflect the true desires of the participating employees.' We
will, however, set aside an election if it appears that the employees
eligible to vote therein were precluded from exercising a free choice
by antecedent conduct or episodes which were both (1) coercive in
character, and (2) so related to the election, in time or otherwise,, as
to have had a probable effect upon the employees' action at the polls.
Although we give eligible employees, who desire to participate in
an election all possible protection in expressing their free choice on
the issues presented on the ballot, we cannot censor the information,
misinformation, argument, gossip, and opinion which accompany all
controversies of any importance and- which, perceptively or otherwise,
'condition employees' desires and decisions; nor is-it our function to do
.so. Absent violence, we have never undertaken to police union organi-
zation or union campaigns, to weigh the ,truth or falsehood of official
union utterances, or to curb the enthusiastic efforts of employee ad-
herents to'the union cause in winning others to their conviction. We
believe that the garbled newspaper account concerning the bargaining
relations between the Company and its employees, which is the basis
of objection 2, and the prediction of employee union members that
those who refused to join the Union would suffer unemployment, which
is the basis of objection 3, were patent devices to stir interest in the
election and,advance the cause of union representation. We believe
that these utterances were in the nature of mere campaign -propa-
ganda and hence not coercive in the sense in which we use the term.
Whether or not we approve the tactics used by labor organizations for
campaign purposes, our only immediate concern in representation
proceedings is whether or not such tactics are of the kind to bear
upon' the free,choice • of employees at- the ,polls. We find that the
-Company's•objections 2 and 3, set forth above, do not raise substantial
and material issues with respect, to the conduct of the election, and
they-are hereby overruled.
MAYWOOD HOSIERY MILLS, INC. _ 151
The letter from an agent of the Regional War Labor Board, which
is the basis of objection 1, stands on somewhat different footing,, for it
might conceivably have impressed .the Company's employees as an
official endorsement of the Union's campaign for votes, emanating
from a Federal labor agency. Viewed in this light, the letter might
well be considered coercive in character. We do not decide this issue,
however, because we are satisfied that the circulation of the letter
could not have had any direct effect upon the balloting. This com-
munication from a C. I. 0. representative on the War Labor Board's
'staff, which contained a mere statement of fact as to the status of the
Company's applications for wage increases,' was dated November 16,
and was generally shown to the Company's employees on January 17,
some 2 months later. The latter date was not only about 2 weeks
before the election, but shortly after the Company had voluntarily
filed its second petition for wage increases and had received the War
Labor Board's approval and actually paid the increases to the em-
ployees concerned: In appraising the effect of the circulations of the
War Labor Board letter some 2 weeks before the election at which the
'Company's employees might choose or rejedt'the Union as their bar-
gaining representative, we take into account the Company's signal
success in obtaining an increase from the same War Labor Board in
the face of the Union's claim of majority representation and the peti-
tion duly filed herein, and the effect of this action upon its employees.
We note that the Company, in its letters of January 27 and January
30, sent to all eligible employees, took no occasion even to mention the
War Labor Board letter signed by McCallister, upon which it now
suggests so serious a result should be predicated. `Granting that the
War Labor Board letter is objectionable, we are yet unable, under
the circumstances shown,4 to assume that the letter and its circulation
had any appreciable effect upon the free choice of employees partici-
pating in the election .-5 For `the reasons above stated, we find that
the Company's' objection 1 raises no substantial or material issues
4 Whether the Union circulated the War Labor Board letter in good faith on January 17
-Is not material to our conclusion , since the sole question before us is whether the circula
tion of the letter among . the employees on January 17 precluded their free choice at the
polls on February 2.
The Company urges that the War Labor Board letter, signed by McCallister and dated
November 16, 1944, received some special emphasis in the light of the several reports of
one Fulton Rosser, an employee \who, at the request of his fellow employees , attended a
union meeting at Atlanta on or about October 13, and relayed his impressions gained from
the speeches he had heard to the effect that union organization was a good thing and that
the Union had an inside track with the War Labor Board. Rosser did not testify at the
hearing. The accounts of his alleged impressions retold by company witnesses are meager
and somewhat conflicting. We cannot conclude from the record 'that Government officials
alleged to be at the October meeting furnished any grounds for an assertion that the Union
enjoyed a favored status before the. War Labor Board: that the Company' s employees re-
ceived any such impression , or that the impressions which they received from Rosser's
account of the meeting added anything to the effect of the War Labor Board letter signed
by DicCallister.
152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with respect to the conduct of the election, and the objection is hereby
overruled. We will certify the Union as^the bargaining representative
of the Company's employees.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c)'of the National Labor Relations
Act, _ -
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that American Federation of Hosiery Work-
ers, C. I. O., has been designated and selected by a majority of all
employees of Maywood Hosiery Mills, Inc., Cordele, Georgia, exclud-
ing clerical employees and all supervisory employees with authority
to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, as their
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pur-
suant to Section 9 (c) 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.