Pillowtex Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1978

234 N.L.R.B. 560 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pillowtex Corporation and Warehouse, Mail Order,
Office, Technical and Professional Employees
Union, Local No. 743, affiliated with the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petition-
er. Case 13-RC-14298
January 30, 1978
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
Pursuant to authority granted it by the National
Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three-
member panel has considered the objections to an
election held on April 15, 1977,1 and the Hearing
Officer's report 2 recommending disposition of same.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of the
exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the Hearing
Officer's findings3 and recommendations, only to the
extent consistent herewith.
We find merit in Petitioner's exception to the
Hearing Officer's finding that Respondent did not
interfere with the election by offering campaign
buttons to the employees.
Approximately 3 days before the election, Supervi-
sor Alksnis distributed buttons to employees, im-
printed "No Vote No." In one area, where the
employees were sewing and "beating" pillows, Alk-
snis placed a button on each sewing machine and
then passed the box in front of each of the other
employees. The Hearing Officer found that apparent-
ly "every employee who was sewing or beating got a
button," and concluded that "the Employer did not
require the employees to announce their preference
through the acceptance or rejection of the buttons."
On the contrary, we find that is what the employees
were required to do. When employees are ap-
proached by a supervisor and offered buttons such as
the ones in issue, they have only two alternatives:
accept the buttons and thereby acknowledge opposi-
tion to the Union; or reject them, and thereby
indicate their support of the Union. 4 In either case,
the fact that the employees must make an observable
choice is a form of interrogation. Furthermore,
should employees feel compelled to choose a button
containing a message opposite to their views, that is
coercion and it likewise interferes with the election.
I The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election. The revised tally was 35 for, and 45 against, the
Petitioner; there were 7 challenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect
the results.
234 NLRB No. 89
Accordingly, for the reason stated above and the
interrogations conducted by Alksnis, as fully set
forth in the Hearing Officer's report, pertinent
portions of which are attached hereto as an appen-
dix, we hereby set aside the election and direct a
second election.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX
Meetings Conducted by Alksnis
For almost two weeks in April 1977, Alksnis conducted
about five meetings with three or four employees at a time,
in the cafeteria. At the start of these meetings, Alksnis
asked the employees why they wanted or thought they
needed a union. As the employees brought up reasons,
Alksnis presented the Employer's side of those issues.
Thus, there is testimony that an employee asked about
raises and Alksnis said the employees get two or three
raises a year and the Employer couldn't give them now
because of the pending election; that an employee asked
about funeral leave and he answered that the most funeral
leave he's heard of in union or work places was three days;
that an employee asked about employees being fired and
he assured him that employees were rarely fired by the
Company and only for poor work. Dominguez was called
to two meetings and was told by Alksnis, through Ortega,
who translated for him, that the reason she was called
down twice was that he did not think she was convinced
(according to Dominguez) or she was confused (according
to Ortega). Ortega had difficulty in recalling what she, in
turn, said to Dominguez, whereas Dominguez specifically
recalls that she was told that it seemed she was on the
Union side.
Meetings such as these are not to be considered as per se
interference and their factors must be considered overall,
on a case-to-case basis. Some of the factors to be consid-
ered are the size of the groups interviewed, the locus of the
interviews, the position of the interviewer in the Employer's
hierarchy, and the tenor of his remarks. NVF Company,
Hartwell Division, 210 NLRB 663 (1974). In this case, the
location of the interviews was familiar to the employees,
but away from their work stations, and there is no evidence
that similar meetings for other purposes have ever been
held there. Perhaps 15 to 20 employees out of 108 eligible
voters were interviewed by Alksnis. Each group consisted
of only three or four employees, a group small enough to
allow one-on-one discussions where Alksnis and the em-
ployees individually asked and answered questions. The
interviewer was known by the employees as a supervisor of
the Employer. The employees were asked why they wanted
a union, a question which not only required the employees
to reveal their preferences, thus destroying the secrecy of
balloting, but also implied that the interviewer already
knew those preferences, thereby creating a feeling of
2 We amend the report to indicate the correct citation of Allied Electric
Products as 109 NLRB 1270(1954).
s In view of our decision, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the
Hearing Officer's finding regarding Respondent's use of the Board's sample
ballot.
4 Macklanburg-Duncan Cormpany, 179 NLRB 848 (1969).
560
PILLOWTEX CORPORATION
surveillance. This implication of surveillance was repeated
when Dominguez was summoned a second time, particu-
larly with the explanation that she was being interviewed
twice because she did not seem convinced. I would credit
Dominguez' version of what was stated to her as the more
accurate since her testimony, while sometimes choppy or
erratic due to the line of questioning, was quite definite that
she was told it seemed (to Alksnis) that she was on the
union side, while Ortega could not remember much of the
incident. Considering all of these factors, I find these
meetings constituted interference with the election. Peoples
Drug Stores, Inc. and Peoples Service Drug Stores 119
NLRB 634 (1957).
561