Pittsfield Shoe Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1957

119 N.L.R.B. 1067 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

PITTSFIELD SHOE COMPANY, INC. 1067
14. By agreeing to and maintaining section No. 12 of the 1955 Master Agreement,
and that portion of section No. 3 of the said contract described herein as the union-
security provisions, the Union has not attempted to cause Musser or any other
member of the Western Association to discriminate against employees in violation
of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Pittsfield Shoe Company, Inc. and United Shoe Workers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-5078. December 16,
1957
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
dated September 30, 1957, and approved October 1, 1957, an election
was conducted on October 9, 1957, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the First Region, among employees at
the Employer's Pittsfield, New Hampshire, plant. At the conclusion
of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which
showed that of approximately 133 eligible voters, 127 cast ballots, of
which 63 were for Petitioner and 60 were against. There were two
challenged ballots, a number insufficient to affect the results of the
election. Two ballots were void.
On, October 14,1957, the,Employer filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the Rules
and Regulations of the Board, the Regional Director conducted an
investigation of the objections and, on November 4, 1957, issued and
served on the parties his report on objections, in which he found that
the Employer's objections did not raise substantial or material issues
with respect to conduct affecting the results of the election, and recom-
mended that the objections be'overruled. Thereafter, the Employer
timely filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report and moved
that the election be set aside and a new election ordered.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
The Board has considered the Regional Director's report and the
Employer's exceptions, and upon the entire record in this case finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of, the Act.
119 NLRB No. 127.
JOBS DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. In agreement with the stipulation of the parties, the following
employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act :
All production employees at the Employer's Pittsfield, New Hamp-
shire, plant, excluding maintenance employees, office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, guards, executives, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
5. In its exceptions,' the Employer contends that the election should
be set aside and a new election ordered because of : (1) Illegal con-
duct by one of the employees during the election; and (2) threats to
employees by certain prounion employees.
(1) The Employer alleged that Reginald Curtis, an employee work-
ing in proximity to the line of voters waiting to be checked off, made
strong antiunion remarks to these employees and urged them to vote
"right" or against the Union. Upon the request of the Board agent
conducting the election, he refused to leave the voting area until
ordered to do so by the Employer. The Employer contended that
this action by Curtis created a false impression that he was acting at
the direction of the Employer, thereby causing resentment among the
employees against the Employer. In his report, the Regional Director
concluded that Curtis was a rank-and-file employee without official
status with the Employer or the Petitioner and that the incident there-
fore was inadequate to substantiate an allegation of illegal conduct
affecting the results of the election.
(2) The Employer alleged that Paul and Doris Vien, about 2
weeks before the election, threatened certain other employees with
loss of their jobs if they did not vote for the Petitioner and the Peti-
tioner won the election. The Regional Director found that the in-
cidents occurred prior to the date of the consent election agreement
and were therefore foreclosed.2 He also concluded that, even as-
suming the threats to have been made within the 10-day critical period
preceding the election, both Paul and Doris Vien were rank-and-file
employees without any official status in the Petitioner's organization
and their conduct was neither attributable to one of the participating
parties or so aggravated in character as to create a general atmosphere
of fear precluding a free expression of choice.'
In accord with the Regional Director, and for the reasons detailed
above, we find that the objections do not raise material or substantial
1 The Employer did not take exceptions to the Regional Director' s recommendation that
the Employer's other objections were without merit and that they be overruled. To the
extent that such other recommendations stand without exception , they are hereby adopted
pro forma.
2 F. 1V. Woolworth Co., 109 NLRB 1446.
3 Tampa Crown Distributors, Inc., 118 NLRB 1420.
DARLINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1069
issues respecting the results of the election. Accordingly, we adopt
the Regional Director's recommendations'that the objections be over-
ruled and that the Petitioner be certified. We shall therefore issue
a certification of representatives in favor of the Petitioner.
[The Board certified United Shoe Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees of the Employer in the unit heretofore found appropriate.]
Darlington Manufacturing Company and Textile Workers Union
of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 11-CA-1071. December 16,
1957
ORDER REMANDING PROCEEDING TO REGIONAL
DIRECTOR FOR FURTHER HEARING
On April 30,1957, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, and on the same
date the proceeding was transferred to the Board. Thereafter, the
General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Charging Union filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The
Respondent and the Charging Union also filed reply briefs and
the Respondent requested oral argument. On September 16, 1957, the
Board heard oral argument in which the General Counsel, the
Respondent, and the Charging Union participated.
The Trial Examiner found in his Intermediate Report that the
Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) of the Act.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner rejected the
Union's offer to prove, inter alia, that the Respondent "was but one
in a chain of about 30 mills whose operations and labor relations are
controlled by Deering, Milliken & Co., Inc...." The Board is of
the opinion, without regard to the original purpose of the Union's
offer of proof or any purported waiver referred to in the dissent, that
it is desirable in giving thorough and final consideration to the issues
in this case, to have evidence with respect to the single employer
status of Respondent and related corporations; and that accordingly,
the Charging Union and General Counsel should be given the oppor-
tunity to present evidence in support of the Union's offer of proof or
otherwise relevant to the single employer. status of Respondent.
Accordingly, the Board having duly considered the matter,
IT Is xrxEBY ORDERED that the record in this proceeding be, and it
hereby-is, reopened, and that a further hearing be held before Trial
119 NLRB No. 116.