Myrna Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 4, 1961

133 N.L.R.B. 767 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

MYRNA MILLS, INCORPORATED 767
Myrna Mills, Incorporated and Amalgamated Clothing Work-
ers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-39251.
October 4, 1961
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND
DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued on January
11, 1961,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on January 26,
1961, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Fifth Region in the unit found appropriate by the Board.
Upon the conclusion of the balloting, the parties were furnished with
a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 184 eligible
voters, 61 cast valid ballots for, and 120 against, the Petitioner, and
5 cast challenged ballots. The number of challenged ballots was
insufficient to affect the election results. Thereafter, the Petitioner
filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election.
After an investigation, the Regional Director on March 17, 1961,
issued his report on objections in which he recommended that objec-
tions 1, 6, 7, and 8 be sustained and objections 2, 3, 4, and 5 be
overruled, the election be set aside and a second election be directed.
The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's
report.
The Board has considered the Regional Director's report and the
exceptions thereto and upon the entire record in this case, adopts the
Regional Director's findings and recommendations .2 As to objections
1, 6, 7, and 8, on the basis of the uncontradicted findings of fact set
forth in the Regional Director's report attached hereto, we are in
accord with the Regional Director, that the Employer's preelection
statements reasonably conveyed to its employees the threat of plant
closure and removal in the event the Petitioner won the election 3 and
that such statements, together with the activity of the community
described in the report, created an atmosphere of fear of reprisal
rendering the exercise of free choice impossible in the election.
Accordingly, we shall set aside the election and direct that a second
election be held.
1 Not published in NLRB volumes.
2 As no exceptions were filed with respect to the Regional Director 's recommendations
that objections 2, 3, 4, and 5 be overruled , such recommendations are adopted pro forma.
The Employer 's request for a hearing is hereby denied as there is no dispute with respect
to the material facts upon which we base our decision herein.
9 The Employer 's speech herein was found by a Trial Examiner to be a violation of
Section 8(a) (1) in Case No. 5-CA.-1841. No exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner's
report.
133 NLRB No. 86.
768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[The Board set aside the election held on January 26, 1961, among
the employees of Myrna Mills, Incorporated, in the unit heretofore
found appropriate.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election.
[See page 1740 for Hearing Officer's Report.]
Benjamin & Johnes, Inc. and Local 166, International Ladies
Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
22-RC-800. October 4, 1961
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
OF ELECTION
On July 1, 1960, the Board issued its Decision and Order' in the
above-entitled proceeding wherein it found that a unit of cutters and
spreaders, requested by Petitioner, was not an appropriate unit for
collective-bargaining purposes, and dismissed the petition therein.
On July 13, 1960, the Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the
Board's decision, alleging that the Board's finding that the cutters
and spreaders did not exercise the skill of "marking" or "preparation
of markers" was contrary to fact, and that the Board's application of
craft standards to this case was in error since these standards were
applicable only to severance cases and there is no question of severance
in this proceeding. On November 27, 1960, the Board granted recon-
sideration upon the Petitioner's motion and remanded the case to the
Regional Director for further hearing on the question of appropriate
unit. Hearing on remand was held from December 14 through 29,
1960, before Christopher J. Hoey, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this proceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and
Members Fanning and Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
As indicated in our earlier decision the Petitioner seeks a craft unit
of cutters and spreaders,-2 or, alternatively, a unit of cutting depart-
1 Not published in NLRB volumes.
2 Although spreaders constitute a separate classification of employees and are normally
considered as cutter trainees , all of the cutters here employed do spreading , and the
parties refer to them as "cutters and spreaders."
133 NLRB No. 87.