Standard Feed Milling Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 18, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1275 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

STANDARD FEED MILLING COMPANY 1275
prospective employees of GE their full rights guaranteed by the Act, it will be
recommended that the Respondents, and each of them, cease and desist from
in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing such persons in their
right to self-organization.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire recbrd in the
case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Association of Machinists and United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
and the latter's Local 743 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act. '
2. Respondent General Electric Company. is engaged in activities affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment, and
the terms and conditions of employment, of Reginald N. Crichton, Stephen C.
Chidester, Herman J. Rose, Willis Knight, Jack C. James, and Thomas H.
Chandler, thereby discouraging membership in International Association of
Machinists and encouraging United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and in its Local
743, the Respondent GE has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing the aforesaid six named
individuals in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
Respondent General Electric Company has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. By causing the Respondent General Electric Company to discriminate
against the aforesaid six individuals in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act, Respondent Millwrights has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
6. By restraining and coercing applicants for employment with General
Electric, the Respondent Millwrights has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section'8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
T. B. MARTIN, JR., J. K. MARTIN, ET AL., D/B/A STANDARD FEED MILLING
COMPANY and FOOD, TOBACCO, AGRICULTURAL AND ALLIED WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH DPOWA, PETITIONER . Case
No. 9-RC-914. Jume 18) 1951
Supplemental Decision and Order
On December 21, 1950, pursuant to a Decision, and Direction of
Election issued by the Board 1 herein on November 14, 1950,2 as
1Pursuant 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 Herzog and
Members Murdock and Styles].
2 Unpublished.
94 NLRB No. 191.
1276 DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
amended on December 4, 1950, and again on December 13, 1950, an
election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction grid super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region.."At the con-
elusion of the election, the parties were furnished with 'R tally of
ballots which shows that there were approximately 35 eligible voters
and that 35 ballots were cast of which 5 were for the Petitioner, 29
were against the Petitioner, and 1 was void.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct af-
fecting the results of the election. On April 20, 1951, the Regional
Director issued and served upon the parties his report on objections
to election, in which he recommended that the petition be dismissed
because the Petitioner's compliance with the provisions of Section 9
(f), (g), and (h) of the Act had lapsed. Following the issuance of
the report it was administratively determined that the Petitioner had
in fact been in compliance with the Act when the report was issued.
Thereupon, the Regional Director duly investigated the objections and
on May 2, 1951, issued and served upon the parties his amended re-
port on objections to election in which he found that certain of
the Petitioner's objections raised substantial and material issues with
respect to conduct affecting the results of the election, and recom-
mended that the election be set aside.
In his report the Regional Director found that Foreman Wither-
spoon, one of the Employer's supervisors, admitted the following con-
duct between the time of the Board's Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion and the- holding of the election : (a) Telling employees that
if the Petitioner won the election the trust fund maintained for them
by the Employer would be eliminated, there would be no more bor-
rowing of money from funds maintained by the Employer, benefits
granted by the Employer would be stopped, and that they would not
receive a Christmas. bonus; (b) directing an employee to inform other'
employees that they would receive a Christmas bonus from the Em-
ployer only if the Petitioner were defeated in the election; (c) dis-
charging at least two employees, allegedly for cause, but actually
because of their union membership, sympathy, and activity. In
addition, Witherspoon also interrogated employees in October or
November 1950 concerning their knowledge of union activities. The
Regional Director concluded that the foregoing conduct interfered
with the free choice of the employees in the election .3
By letter dated May 10, 1951, received by the Board on May 14,.
1951, the Employer requested a hearing in this matter, asserting that
the "statements" by Witherspoon were unauthorized, that he was no
8 The Regional Director also found that Wilkins, the Employer 's superintendent, had,
committed acts which interfered with a free and uncoerced election. We find it
unnecessary here to elaborate upon Wilkins ' conduct.
BLATZ BREWING COMPANY 1277
longer employed by the Employer, and that he would be unable to
"prove" the statements made by him. The Employer also asserted
that Superintendent Wilkins denied making the statements attributed
to him.
Though we were to accord this letter the status of formal excep-
tions filed in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations,
we would nevertheless find that they fail to raise substantial and
material issues with respect to that portion of the report based on
Witherspoon's conduct. Even if all this conduct, which goes be-
yond mere statements, was unauthorized, the employees, in the ab-
sence of notification to them by the Employer that it would not inter-
fere with the Petitioner's campaign, would have had reasonable basis
for believing that Witherspoon's conduct reflected the Employer's
views. The Employer, therefore, cannot disclaim responsibility for
Witherspoon's conduct 4 Under the circumstances prevailing at the
time of the election, therefore, the Employer's employees were clearly
deprived of their right to a free and uncoerced election. Accord-
ingly, 'we shall adopt the Regional Director's recommendation and
set aside the election of December 21, 1950, and shall direct that a
new election be held at such time as the Regional Director advises the
Board that an election may appropriately be held.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on December 21, 1950,
among the employees of T. B. Martin, Jr., J. K. Martin, et al.,
d/b/a Standard Feed Milling Company, at its Hopkinsville, Ken-
tucky, place of business be, and it hereby is, set aside.
4 Southshore Packing Corporation , 73 NLRB 1116.
BLATZ BREWING COMPANY; A. GETTELMAN BREWING COMPANY; IN-
DEPENDENT MILWAUKEE BREWERY COMPANY; MILLER BREWING
COMPANY; PABST BREWING COMPANY; AND JOS. SCHLITZ BREWING
COMPANY; COMPRISING THE BREWERY PROPRIETORS OF MILWAUKEE,
WISCONSIN and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN & OILERS,
LOCAL 125, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-1664. June 18,1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Ivan C. McLeod, hearing
94 NLRB No. 182.