Sharnay Hosiery Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 1, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 750 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR,RELATIONS BOARD
(11) of the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. At all times material herein the Union has been, and now is, the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By withholding the payment of the Easter bonus on March 30, 1956, from
the employees of the aforedescribed appropriate unit and by failing and refusing
to bargain collectively with Lodge 129 of District 64, International Association of
Machinists, AFL-CIO, in regard to said payment of the Easter bonus , the Re-
spondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (3 ), and (5) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Sharnay Hosiery Mills, Inc. and Textile Workers Union of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 11-RC1000. May 1, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board on October 16, 1957,1 an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted on November 8, 1957, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region of the National Labor
Relations Board among the employees in the unit found appropriate
by the Board. The parties were furnished a tally of ballots which
shows that there were approximately 48 eligible voters and that 40
cast ballots against the Petitioner and 8 cast ballots for the Petitioner.
Thereafter the Petitioner filed an objection to conduct affecting the
results of the election. In accordance with the Rules and Regulations
of the Board, the Regional Director caused an investigation of the
objection to be made and on January 21, 1958, issued and served on
the parties his report on objections, in which he found the objection
without merit and recommended that it be overruled and the results
of the election certified. Thereafter the Petitioner filed a timely ex-
ception to the Regional Director's report.
On October 25, 1957, some 2 weeks before the election in this case,
the Employer mailed to its employees an 8-page letter, which among
other matters, discussed the Petitioner's position on the issue of racial
integration. The substance of the letter, in this respect, is that the
Petitioner is strongly prointegration, has submitted a prointegra-
tion brief in the Supreme Court, is striving to eliminate segregation
from every phase of American life, and is a member of AFL-CIO,
which at its last convention contributed $75,000 to NAACP.
1 Not published.
120 NLRB No. 102.
SHARNAY HOSIERY MILLS , INC. 751
In its objection the Petitioner urged that the election be set aside
because the injection of the racial issue created an atmosphere of hate
and bias against it. The Regional Director found that the letter con-
tained no threats of reprisal or promises of benefit and did not exceed
the permissible bounds of preelection propaganda. He therefore rec-
ommended that the objection be overruled.
In its exception to the Regional Director's report the Petitioner
states that it does not claim that the Employer's conduct constituted
either threat of reprisal or promise of benefit but only that the injec-
tion of this issue was solely to prejudice the employees against the
Petitioner. The Petitioner did not at any time suggest that there is
any misrepresentation in the Employer's letter.
The issue before us is a narrow one. The Petitioner concedes that
there were no threats or promises, and it is not suggested that the
Employer misrepresented the Petitioner's position. We are asked,
rather, to hold that the mere mention of the racial issue, in an election
campaign , is per se improper and grounds for setting aside any and
all elections where such might occur.
We have not, in the past, attempted so to limit campaigning, but
have relied on the good sense of the voters to evaluate the statements of
the parties . We are satisfied that this is the better course, and adhere
to it in this case.
Therefore, we would apply here the principles we have developed
in the past. We note that there is no misrepresentation, fraud, vio-
lence , or coercion and that the statements here were temperate and
factually correct. They therefore afford no basis for setting aside the
results of the election.
In accord with the Regional Director's recommendation we overrule
the Petitioner's objection and exception. As the Petitioner has failed
to secure a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify the
results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not
cast for Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, and that said
Petitioner is not the exclusive representative of the employees at the
Employer's plant in Madison, North Carolina, in the unit heretofore
found appropriate.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM and MEMBER BEAN, concurring :
While under the special circumstances of this case we concur in the
result reached by our colleagues, we again express our concern over
the injection of the racial issue in any election. In this regard we
call attention to our respective positions in Westinghouse Electric
Corporation (Meter Plant), 119 NLRB 117.