Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 245 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter Of STANDARD-COOSA-THATCHER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 1O-R--246
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
ORDER
June 19, 1947
On April 17, 1947, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion 1 issued by the Board herein, an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted under the direction and- supervision of the Regional Director
for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia). Upon the conclusion of
the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties in accordance
with the Rules and Regulations of the Board.
The Tally showed that there were approximately 865 eligible voters
and that 834 ballots were cast, of which 413 were for the Petitioner,
409 were against the Petitioner, 6 were void, and 6 were challenged.
The challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of
the election.
On April 23, 1947, the Employer filed with the Regional Director
objections to conduct affecting the results of the election.
Thereafter, in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations,
the Regional Director conducted an investigation and issued and duly
served upon the parties a Report of Challenges and Objections. In
his report, the Regional Director recommended that the Objections
be overruled and that the challenges to five of the ballots be sustained,
that the challenge to the remaining ballot be overruled, and that,
inasmuch as the counting of the sixth challenged ballot could not
affect the election results, the Petitioner be certified as the collective
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
Subsequently, the Employer filed Exceptions to the Regional Di-
rector's report insofar as it recommended (1) overruling the Objec-
tions, (2) sustaining the challenges to the ballots of employees Alice
Shelton, Carl A. Bailey, and Helen S. Machen and (3) certifying the
Petitioner.
1 73 N. L. R. B 123.
74 NT. L. R. B., No 46.
245
246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We have considered the Objections of the Employer, the Regional
Director 's Report on Challenges and Objections , the Exceptions filed
thereto by the Employer and the entire record in the case. Upon the
basis of the foregoing , we find as follows :
As to the Employer's Objections
The Employer , in its Objections and in.its Exceptions to the Re-
gional Director's Report, alleges in substance that: (1) the Petitioner
publicly predicted the decision and had advance information as to the
date upon which the Board's Decision and Direction of Election would
be issued ; (2) the Employer was not given an opportunity to par-
ticipate in the election arrangements , which , as originally made and
as subsequently amended, were contrary to the terms and conditions
prescribed by the Board, and were a departure from the election pro-
cedure established by the Board in the previous election held at the
plant; ( 3) the Petitioner distributed a circular "in a form identical as
to type and on paper identical to that Qf the supplemental notices . . .
from which it appeared that the Board was urging employees to only
vote `Yes' in said election"; (4) employees were influenced to vote
against the Employer by the fact that the election notice provided
that employees were to vote on their own time, and were required to
"clock out" to vote; ,(5) employees who participated in the election
voluntarily informed the Employer that they voted for the Petitioner
"because they believed that the Government of the United States
through the National Labor Relations Board, was anxious that they
vote `Yes"'; and (6) the circumstances and conditions relating to the
election "served to create an atmosphere of confusion, doubt and mis-
interpretations so as to prevent there actually being a free election
and. free determination by its employees. . . ."
With respect to the first contention, the Employer fails to indicate
the date on which the Petitioner gave advance publicity nor has it
submitted proof that such publicity was actually given. All that
appears is that, on April 3, 1947, the Petitioner distributed a handbill
calling the meeting for April 4, to "hear the N. L. R. B. Decision on
the S. C. T. Case." The Board's Decision herein was issued on April
2, 1947, at which time copies were mailed to all the parties. The Peti-
tioner's representative apparently learned of the issuance of the De-
cision through its office in Nashville, Tennessee, on April 3, 1947, but
had no knowledge of its contents . A copy of the Decision was received
by the Petitioner in its regular mail on the morning of April 4, 1947,
in sufficient time to read therefrom at the meeting that day. There
appears to be nothing in the background of the handbill of April 3,
1947, or in the handbill itself to substantiate the Employer' s position
and we find no merit in the Employer's first contention.
STANDARD-COOSA-THATCHER COMPANY 247
The Employer's second contention rests on the assertion that the
election arrangements were determined by discussions between the
Board and the Petitioner's representatives, without affording the
Employer an opportunity to express its views. The Regional Director
reports that although the Petitioner requested that the polls be located
in the Union Hall, and also requested certain changes in the voting
hours, these requests were rejected by him. As to the date for holding
the election, the Regional Director reports the following : The Board's
Regional Office contacted the Employer's counsel to inform him of the
selection of April 17, as the date of the election. Upon learning that
the Employer's counsel would not be available on that date, the
Regional Director offered to change the date to April 16, 1947, but
stated that, if the election was to be held on the latter date, election
notices would have to be prepared that same day. It was decided that
the election would proceed as scheduled for April 17, 1947, unless
Employer's counsel or his representative advised the Regional Office
to the contrary. However, nothing further was heard by the Regional
Director and the election was fixed for April 17, 1947.
And although the Employer did not prevail as to effecting a change
in the election date, the record discloses that the Employer did pre-
vail with respect to the place for holding the election and did bring
about certain changes in polling hours. Thus, on April 11, 1947, a
representative of the Employer visited the Board's offices in Wash-
ington, D. C., for the purpose of requesting that the election be held
on the Employer's premises and that an adjustment be made in the
voting time to permit employees on the second and third shifts to
vote more readily. Both requests were granted and on April 14,
1947, the Board instructed its Regional Office to proceed with the
election on the basis of the revised arrangements.2 With respect
to the further assertion by the Employer that this election was defec-
tive in that it constituted a departure from the election procedure in
a prior' election at the plant, we perceive no need for comment. It
is clear that each election must be considered on its own merits. Ac-
cordingly, we find no merit in this contention.
As to the Employer's third contention, the facts disclose that on
the day of the election a circular was distributed by the Petitioner
2 The record discloses , in this connection , that on the same day the Chairman of the
Board , by wire, notified the Employer that its request as to voting location and polling
hours had been granted , and that the election "xoill proceed, however, as originally sched-
uled on Wednesday, April 16 , 1947 " ( Emphasis supplied ) It is clear , however , upon the
basis of all the facts that there was no intention to change the date of the election and
that the reference to April 16 , 1947, was inadvertently made . Moreover , the primary
consideration under these circumstances is whether the employees were actually given
adequate notice of the time and place of the election and sufficient opportunity to vote.
The adequacy of this notice is clearly confirmed by the Tally of Ballots which reveals that
approximately 96 percent of the employees in the appropriate unit cast ballots. See
Matter of Gri/]in-Goodner Gioeery Company , 73 N. L . R B 1332.
248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
giving the details of the election and containing a sample ballot with
an "X" in the blank space under the word "Yes." Contrary to the
contention of the Employer, however, we believe this circular was
neither identical nor similar to the official notice of election issued
by the Board. There was no resemblance as to format, lettering,
or type of paper used. In addition, the circular did not have the
usual captions which always appear on election notices. The con-
trast between the election notice and the union circular is clearly
evident and does not indicate such an improper influencing of the
employees as is alleged by the Employer.3 We, therefore., find no
merit in this contention.
In connection with the Employer's fourth contention, there is no
evidence to warrant the conclusion that the employees were influenced
to vote against the Employer by the requirement that they vote on
their own time, a procedure usually adhered to in Board elections.
In any event, the Employer clearly negated the possibility of such
an effect by its preelection letter which it sent to each eligible voter,
accusing the Petitioner of refusing to agree to election arrangements
that would be "convenient for the employees." Moreover, it appears
that the requirement that employees "clock out" was a requirement
imposed by the Employer through its supervisory personnel and not
by the Board. We, therefore, find that this contention is
unmeritorious.
As noted above, the fifth contention is that, employees who par-
ticipated in the election voluntarily informed the Employer that they
voted for the Petitioner "because they believed that the Government
of the United States, through the National Labor Relations Board,
was anxious that they vote 'Yes."' Apart from this mere assertion,
the Employer submitted nothing along with its exceptions which
would warrant a finding that a substantial and material issue has
been raised requiring a further investigation along these lines. Ac-
cordingly, on the basis of the entire record, we conclude that'there is
no merit to this contention.
As to the Employer's final contention, there is no showing that the
election itself was in any way unfair to any employee or group,of
employees. All employees who were eligible to vote were fully ad-
vised of the time and place of the election and had ample opportunity
to cast their ballot in secret. The Tally of Ballots speaks for itself;
approximately 96 percent of the eligible voters cast ballots.
We, therefore, find, in accordance with the recommendations of
the Regional Director, that the Objections of the Employer do not
raise substantial and material issues with respect to the election. Ac-
cordingly, the said Objections will be overruled.
3 Matter of Arteraft Hosiery Company, Meridian Division , 73 N L R. B 808
STANDARD-COOSA-THATCHER COMPANY 249
As to the challenged ballots
In his report, the Regional Director recommended that the chal-
lenged ballots of the following employees be sustained : Margaret H.
Pendergrass, Gladys M. Blansit, Alice Shelton, Carl A. Bailey, and
Helen S. Machen. In addition, be recommended that the challenge as
to James L. Wootten be overruled, but that his ballot not be opened,
inasmuch as it could not affect the results of the election.
The Employer excepts to the findings of fact and to the recommenda-
tions of the Regional Director in his report as to Alice Shelton, Carl
A. Bailey and Helen S. Machen, and to that much of the recommen-
dation relating to James L. Wootten, which recommends that the
ballot of Wootten not be opened. In view of the fact that the excep-
tions raise substantial and material issues with respect to the chal-
lenged ballots of Alice Shelton, Carl A. Bailey, and Helen S. Machen,
further information as to the functions, duties, and the circumstances
affecting the employment status of these three employees is essential
before any final disposition can be made of their challenged ballots.
Under these circumstances, we shall order that a further hearing in
this proceeding be held, and refer it to the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region, for the purpose of conducting such hearing on the issues
raised with respect to the challenged ballots of Alice Shelton, Carl A.
Bailey, and Helen Machen.4
ORDER
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Com-
pany, Chattanooga, Tennessee :
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Employer's Objections be, and they
hereby are, overruled.
AND IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the record in this proceed-
ing be, and it hereby is, reopened, and that a further hearing be held
for the purpose of taking testimony to resolve the issues raised with
respect to the challenged ballots of Alice Shelton, Carl A. Bailey, and
Helen S. Machen.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of the
above Supplemental Decision and Order.
[See, infra, Second Supplemental Decision and Direction, 74 N. L.
R. B. 1401.]
4 We find it unnecessary to pass upon the exception with respect to the ballot of
Wootten until the issues concerning the challenged ballots of Shelton, Bailey , and Dlachen
have been resolved.