Penland Paper Converting Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 19, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 868 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Penland Paper Converting Corporation and
International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and
Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
4-RC-7295
October 19, 1967
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
Pursuant to a stipulation for Certification upon
Consent Election executed on May 4, 1967, an
election by secret ballot was conducted in the
above-entitled matter on June 1, 1967, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for Region 4 among the employees in the stipulated
unit. At the conclusion of the balloting, the parties
were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed
that, of approximately 220 eligible voters, 190 cast
valid ballots, of which 84 were for, and 105 against,
the Petitioner, and I was challenged. The chal-
lenged ballot was insufficient in number to affect
the results of the election.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections
to the election. In accordance with National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, Regional Director conducted an in-
vestigation of the objections, and on July 21, 1967,
issued his report and recommendations on objec-
tions, in which he concluded that the objections did
not raise any material or substantial issues and
recommended that they be dismissed. Thereafter,
the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Re-
gional Director's report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of the employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's plant at 310 Pine Street, Hanover,
Pennsylvania, including truckdrivers, leadmen,
shipping and receiving employees, inspectors,
technicians, and regular part-time employees, but
excluding all office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
5. The Board has considered the Regional
Director's report, the Petitioner's exceptions, and
the entire record herein, and for the reasons set
forth below, finds merit in the Petitioner's excep-
tions.'
During the critical preelection period, the Em-
ployer distributed a number of letters to the em-
ployees. In one of these letters, dated May 16,
1967, the Employer stated, in part:
At one time this was one of the big industries
in this country, but now it is a small one. Why?
Simply because many wallpaper plants have
closed down because they could not continue
to operate under the demands made by the
union ....
The letter of May 16, 1967, contained the state-
ment that:
You know what you have now-you don't
know what may happen if these outsiders get
in here! You know you have steady work all
the time-you don't know how steady you will
work if these strangers get in. We intend to
work steady, but we know what has happened
in other plants where there are unions and
where there have been work stoppages and
strikes.
In its letter of May 25, 1967, after referring to other
plants which had closed down, the Employer stated
that it was ". . . all because they could not operate
under the union contracts forced upon them ....
[H]ere in Hanover over the past five years ...
union activity resulted in the loss of jobs for many
employees .... The big questions are -'Will we be
able to continue doing this with a union in the pic-
ture? Will we be able to provide steady work as in
the past, without lost time or lost wages?"'
Finally, in its letter of May 29, 1967, the Em-
ployer stated that the election "could well deter-
mine not only the employees' future but, ours as
well. It could well determine our very survival as a
company." The letter then posed the question
whether the plant would close should the Petitioner
win, and answered as follows:
Not for this reason alone. However, as you all
know many plants have closed down because
In the absence of exceptions thereto , we adopt pro forma the Regional
Director 's recommendations that certain additional conduct objected to
by the Petitioner did not interfere with the election
167 NLRB No. 126
PEN LAND PAPER CONVERTING CORP. 869
of excessive union demands. I do know that
many times when a union gets into a plant and
starts negotiations, in order to try to force com-
panies to agree with them walkouts occur -
overtime is prohibited - slow downs occur
which affect the earnings of employees on
piece work, and curtails production, and many
times strikes occur. I have worked too hard to
develop this company to the point where I am
able to give work to over 150 people to go
along with such harassment. I feel I would con-
tinue to operate so long as we can make a
profit. However I would not stand for such
harassment - I would not let it ruin my health.
Actually I don't know what I would do - but if
I am faced with what has happened at other
plants I would not hesitate to close down. The
Union may say I can't do it - but the Supreme
Court of the United States in the Darlington
Mills decision says that a company can close
its plant for any reason so long as it is not done
to "chill" unionism in another plant. We have
no other plant - so I am at liberty to do so.
We conclude that the Employer's statements, set
forth above, constituted veiled threats to close the
plant or take other economic sanctions should the
Petitioner be selected as the employees' bargaining
representative, and that the cumulative effect of
these statements was to lead the employees
reasonably to fear that such actions would be taken
by the Employer in the event of a victory for the
Petitioner.2 We therefore find that the Employer
prevented the employees from expressing a free
choice, and thereby interfered with the election.
Accordingly, we shall order that the election be
set aside and direct that a second election be held.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election con-
ducted herein on June 1, 1967, be, and it hereby is,
set aside.
[Direction of Second Election3 omitted from
publication.]
z See A Werman & Sons, Inc , 154 NLRB 1037
An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all
the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional
Director for Region 4 within 7 days after the date of issuance of the
Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director The Regional
Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No ex-
tension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director ex-
cept in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this require-
ment shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper ob-
jections are filed Excel nor Underwear In( , 156 N LRB 1236