Sonoco Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 18, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 637 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY 637
Sonoco Products Company and Brotherhood of
Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers , Local No. 70,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, and Warehouse , Processing and Allied
Workers Local No. 6, International
Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union, Joint.
Petitioner
Sonoco Products Company and Brotherhood of
Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, and Warehousemen , Processing and
Allied Workers Local No. 6, International
Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union.
Cases 20-RC-6773 and 20-CA-4336
November 18, 1969
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND Z,GORIA
On February 3, 1966, the Unions herein filed a
joint petition in Case 20-RC-6773 seeking to
represent certain of Respondent's employees. An
election was held on March 23, which the Unions
lost. The Unions thereupon filed Objections to
Conduct Affecting the Results of the Election. On
July 13 the Regional Director sustained the
objections, set aside the election, and ordered a new
election. Respondent's Request for Review of the
Regional Director's ruling was denied by the Board
On August 17, 1966, a second election was
conducted, which the Unions won. Respondent then
filed timely objections to the election. On September
30, the Regional Director overruled the objections
and certified the Unions as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the unit found
appropriate in the aforesaid case. On or about
October 5, Respondent filed a Request for Review
of the Regional Director's Decision, which was
denied by the Board
On December 2, 1966, and thereafter, Respondent
refused to bargain with the Unions. The Regional
Director on February 16, 1967, issued a complaint
in Case 20-CA-4336 alleging that Respondent had
engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act. On April 10,
1967, the General Counsel filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment. On June 19, 1967, the Board
granted the motion and issued the usual bargaining
order. Thereafter, Respondent filed a petition for
review with the United States Court of Appeals' for
the Ninth Circuit, and the Board's General Counsel
filed a cross-petition for enforcement. The Court
held' that the first election was properly set aside,
but that Respondent's objections to the second
election raised substantial and material issues of fact
which should have been resolved at a hearing. The
Court remanded the case to the Board for further
proceedings to determine (1) whether threats had
been made to Jack Mendonca, (2) whether threats
or promises had been made to James Scroggins, (3)
whether Ray Gonzales interfered with the election
by conduct around the polling place on the day of
the second election, and (4) whether, in view of all
the circumstances, the election of August 17, 1966,
was free and fair.
In conformity with the Court's order, the Board,
on October 1, 1968, remanded the case to the
Regional Director for Region 20 for the purpose of
conducting a hearing on the specified issues. On
May 5, 1969, following a hearing, the duly
designated Trial Examiner, Irving Rogosin, issued
his Decision finding that (1) no threats were made
to Jack Mendonca on the day of the first election of
such a nature as to affect the results of the second
election on August 17, 1966; (2) no threats were
made to James Scroggins which interfered with or
affected the results of the second election; (3) Ray
Gonzales did not interfere with the second election
by conduct in the vicinity of the polling place; and
(4) in view of all the circumstances, the election held
on August 17, 1966 was free and fair.
Accordingly, the Trial Examiner recommended
that the Employer's objections to the conduct of the
election held on August 17, 1966, be overruled in
their entirety. Thereafter, Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and a
supporting brief, and the Joint Petitioner filed a
brief answering the Employer's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, as supplemented and modified
below.2
'Sonoco Products Company v N L R B, 399 F 2d 835 (1968)
The Court, in its remand, adverted to "telephone calls" made to
Mendonca subsequent to the first election, and directed that they be
considered in combination with the threats made to him on the day of that
election Mendonca testified that about 3 days after the first election he
learned that Nunes, one of the Union representatives who had threatened
him on the day of the election, was trying to reach him on the phone, that
although he was "kind of scared," he called Nunes, but that all Nunes
wanted was to ask him why he was opposed to the Union According to
Mendonca, "a few words were said That was it He didn't refer back to
anything that had happened the first (election) day, or anything like that,
so 1 just hung up and that was it " Mendonca reported this conversation to
Hughes, the Respondent's plant manager and told him that "the matter of
which was between him (Nunes) and me were cleared up " Mendonca did
not testify to any other calls prior to the second election, or to any further
contact with a union representative which might have tended to preserve or
179 NLRBNo. 101
638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, the Board finds that the certification
issued by the Board in Case 20-RC-6773 on
revive any original feeling of intimidation We find that Mendonca's single
telephone talk with Nunes was innocuous in itself, and when considered in
combination with the threat, as the Court directed, adds nothing of
coercive import
The Trial Examiner, in evaluating the import on the second election of
the threats on the day of the first election, noted, inter alia, that "after the
episode Mendonca reported to Hughes that the matter had been cleared up
by a telephone call and, presumably, the effects of the union remarks or
conduct directed against him had been dissipated " In doing so, however,
the Trial Examiner apparently overlooked Mendonca's later testimony that
he was not referring to the threats themselves as having been cleared up,
but only to his concern over -the subsequent telephone call In our own
evaluation of this issue, we have taken the Trial Examiner's overstatement
into account and have discounted it accordingly We are nevertheless
persuaded on the basis of the Trial Examiner's other findings, which we
find are fully supported by the record, that the "totality of circumstances"
in this case does not justify a finding that the threats made to Mendonca
on the day of the first election were such as to interfere with the fair and
free conduct of the second election, held 5 months later
September 30, 1966, was valid, that the Union has
since that date been the' exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit therein described, and that Respondent, by
refusing to bargain collectively with the Union on or
about December 2, 1966, and at all times thereafter,
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
ORDER
'Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board reaffirms in all respects its Order in
Case 20-CA-4336, issued on June 19, 1967, which,
inter alia , directs Respondent to recognize and
bargain with the Union.