Pepperell Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 13, 1966

159 N.L.R.B. 291 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

PEPPERELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 291
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 746
Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38103,
Telephone 534-3161.
Pepperell Manufacturing Company and Textile Workers Union
of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, Petitioner. Case 10-RC-69214.
June 13, 1966
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation- for certification upon consent election
approved February 16, 1965, an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted March 5, 1965, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for Region 10 among the employees in the agreed
unit. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished a
tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 2,257 eligible
voters, 2,192 cast ballots, of which 959 were for, and 1,155 were
against, the Petitioner, 69 were challenged, and 9 were void. The
challenged ballots were not sufficient in number to affect the results
of the election. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections
to conduct affecting the results of the election.
In accordance with National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director, conducted an
investigation and, on May 14, 1965, issued and duly served upon the
parties his report on objections in which he found that objection 1
raised credibility issues which could be best resolved by record testi-
mony at a hearing; and that objections 2, 3, 4, and 5 be overruled. On
June 7, 1965, the Employer and the Petitioner filed exceptions to the
Regional Director's report on objections. The Employer urged that all
of the objections be overruled and that a certification of results be
issued. The Petitioner did not except to the recommendation for a
hearing, but urged that the Board should sustain the remaining
objections and direct a new election. The Board, by Order dated
July 14, 1965, adopted the Regional Director's recommendation that
a hearing be held with respect to objection 1; and deferred disposi-
tion of objection 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Pursuant to the Board's Order, a hearing was held September 1,
1965, before Hearing Officer Scott P. Watson. All parties partici-
pated and were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine
witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. On Octo-
ber 6, 1965, the Hearing Officer issued and duly served upon the
159 NLRB No. 9.
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
parties his report in which he recommended that objection 1 be sus-
tained; that the election held March 5, 1965, be set aside; and that
a new election be directed. The Employer filed timely exceptions
'to the report and a brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fan-
ning, Brown, and Jenkins].
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 juris-
diction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that all production and
maintenance employees of the Employer at its Lindale, Georgia,
plant, including all plant clerical employees, but excluding all office
clerical employees, professional employees, technical employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
5. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Hearing Offi-
cer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors was commit-
ted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Hearing Officer's report, the Employer's' exceptions thereto, the
Regional Director's report on objections and the exceptions thereto,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Hearing
Officer's findings and, his conclusion that objection 1 be sustained.
The Petitioner's objection 1 relates to alleged threats by super-
visors to employees that the Employer would move out the plant
machinery; that it would not bargain with the Union; and, that it
would close down the plant before it would sign a contract. We
adopt the Hearing Officer's recommendation that objection 1 be sus-
tained. In addition to the reasons stated by the Hearing Officer for
rejecting Employer's argument that these threats were isolated, we
also rely on the overall impact of such conduct when viewed in the
light of the Employer's antiunion campaign, discussed infra, empha-
sizing the inevitability of a strike and the certainty of economic loss
to the employees if they chose Petitioner as their collective-
bargaining representative.
LEECE-NEVILLE COMPANY 293
The Petitioner's objections 2, 3, 4, and 5 relate to statements by
supervisors and literature distributed by the Employer during the
election campaign . The Regional Director , in overruling these objec-
tions, was of the opinion that with respect to objection 2 the Peti-
tioner had adequately presented its policy with respect to strike bene-
fits, in answer to alleged statements of supervisors , sufficiently for
the employees to evaluate them. We agree. With respect to objec-
tions 3, 4, and 5, the Regional Director was of the opinion that the
literature could clearly be evaluated by the employees as partisan
electioneering. We do not agree.
Our careful review of the literature persuades us that its central
theme was the inevitability of a strike if the Union won the election
and collective bargaining were to ensue which would result in certain
economic loss to the employees. We are of the opinion that the
aforementioned threats coupled with the literature we have described
impaired the freedom of the employees to make, an unfettered
choice. Accordingly, we shall sustain the Hearing Officer's finding
and conclusion with respect to objection 1, and, further, we shall
sustain Petitioner's objections 3, 4, and 5.
In the circumstances, the Employer has engaged in conduct which
in our view interfered with the employees' free choice in the elec-
tion; therefore, we shall set aside the election and direct that a second
election be conducted.
[The Board set aside the election.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
Leece-Neville Company and Communications Workers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO. Cases 10-CA1-633 and 6?46. June 14, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 8, 1966, Trial Examiner Joseph I. Nachman issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices , and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged
in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended dis-
missal of these allegations of the complaint. Thereafter, the Respond-
ent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and the General
Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
159 NLRB No. 29.