Storkline Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 20, 1962

135 N.L.R.B. 1146 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of the Company affect commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Los Angeles Mailers Union No. 9, I .T.U., is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. Respondent, Los Angeles Mailers Union No. 9, I.T.U., has not engaged in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( b) (4) (ii ) (A) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Business Machine and Office Appliance MIechonwos Conference Board, Local 455, etc.
(Royal Typewriter Co ), 228 F 2d 553 (CA 2), cert. denied 351 U S 962
Storkline Corporation and Local Union 3031 , United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner . Case No. 15-RC-2327. February 20, 1962
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF,
SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Election issued on
May 5, 1961,' an election by secret ballot was conducted in the above-
entitled proceeding on May 12, 1961, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, among the
employees in the appropriate unit. At the conclusion of the balloting,
the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that
of approximately 1,174 eligible voters, 1,106 cast valid ballots, of
which 531 were for the Petitioner, 33 were for the Intervenor, Inter-
national Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, and 542 were against the participating labor
organizations; 35 cast challenged ballots; and 3 cast void ballots.
The challenges were sufficient in number to affect the results. There-
after, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the
election.
The Regional Director conducted an investigation and on Au-
gust 14, 1961, issued his report on challenged ballots and objections, in
which he recommended that the Petitioner's objections Nos. II, III,
and IV(k) and (1) be sustained, and inasmuch as resolution of the
challenges could not result in a victory for either of the participating
labor organizations, that the election be set aside , and a new elec-
tion held. He recommended that the remaining objections be over-
ruled.' The Employer filed timely exceptions to tine report and a
supporting brief.
'Not published in NLRB volumes
21n view of our disposition herein of the objections , we need not , and do not , consider
the Regional Director's findings and further recommendations relating to the challenges.
135 NLRB No. 118.
STORKLINE CORPORATION 1147
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 McCulloch and Members Fanning and
-Brown].
The Board has considered the Regional Director's report, the ex-
ceptions thereto, and brief of the Employer, and upon the entire
record in the case, makes the following findings :
As to objections Nos. II, III, IV (k) and '(1), the Regional Di-
rector made the following uncontroverted findings of fact :
(1) From May 5 to 8, 1961, the Employer ran an advertisement
in two local daily newspapers for job applicants "for openings ex-
pected to occur soon" at its Jackson, Mississippi, plant, involved here-
in. On May 8 this ad was replaced by a larger one (6 inches) sched-
uled to run for 7 days. The larger ad was also placed in a third
local daily newspaper.
(2) From May 5 through approximately May 19, applicants for
employment were given the following notice to read and sign :
We are presently having some threat of union trouble here. We
intend to do some hiring soon . Either before or during this
period of hiring we may have a strike. If you are offered em-
ployment during the strike you will have to cross ^ a picket line
and will probably replace a striking employee. We won't [sic]
you to have all these facts in advance of any offer of a job which
we may make to you.
In connection with my application for employment with
Storkline Corporation, I, ---------------- have read, or had
read to me, the above statement and I understand its meaning.
Dated: ----------------- Signed: ------------------------s
(3) On May 10 the Employer gave a barbecue. All employees and
the local press were invited. The Employer's president, George A.
Huth, delivered a prepared speech at the barbecue, and repeated it
the following morning before a gathering of employees close to the
plant. At one point in the speech, Huth made reference to the Em-
ployer's success in getting new production orders, including trial or-
ders for new product designs it had been able to develop, and he
added:
NOW, PLEASE LISTEN CAREFULLY-The people from
whom we have gotten these trial orders know that 'we are faced
with union troubles. If the unions are not beaten by this election
on Friday, they will know that we face uncertainty and strikes.
"The Employer' s use of this form has been alleged as an unfair labor practice in the
complaint issued in Case No 15-CA-1884 Like the Regional Director, we consider this
conduct in the instant proceeding solely to determine whether it constituted interference
with employee free choice in the election and not whether-it was an unfair labor practice.
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I predict that we will not be able to get repeat orders if there is
this uncertainty, and that the only way we can be sure of a good
chance of getting these new orders and of getting the business to
keep you steadily at work is to be sure that these unions are
beaten and beaten badly this Friday.
Moments later in the speech, Huth stated as follows :
Some of you may have seen the newspaper advertisements we
started running last week for applicants for jobs here. We ad-
vertised for two reasons. First, if we get these new orders we
are trying to get, we will have plenty of work for you and for
many more employees. Second, we are getting ready for the
strike which the Carpenters' union has led us to believe they will
pull here if they are not beaten in the election on Friday.
Well, what has happened since we started running these News-
paper advertisements? I will tell you, and I don't believe it will
surprise you. What has happened is that we have been flooded
by people looking for jobs. There are thousands and thousands
of people in the Jackson area who are out of work. I dare say
[sic] that there are five people looking for the job of each man
and woman in this plant.
And what have we learned from these people who are looking
for jobs? We told them that they ought to know there might be
a strike and if we called them during a strike, they would have
to cross a picket line 'and might have to take your jobs. They
told us that they had been out of work so long that they would
do anything to get a job here. I ask you-are you going to let
these unions force you into a fight to save your jobs? ... .
On May 11, two of the Jackson newspapers contained front page
articles reporting the contents of Huth's speech at the barbecue. The
articles were captioned "If Accept Union Storkline Employees
Warned of Strikes" and "If Union Wins Storkline Officials Warn
Workers of `Uncertainty.' "
(4) On May 10 and 11, the Employer ran full page ads in all three
of the aforementioned Jackson newspapers. The ad stated, in part :
The threat of work stoppages would definitely influence our cus-
tomers, in the Radio and Television business, not to give us as
much business as they have in the past; for unless we can deliver
our radio, television and sewing machine cabinets at the right
place at the right time to meet our customers' schedules for the
assembly of radio and television chassis, we will be looked upon
as an undependable source of cabinets.
Just last week there was an article in the newspapers concern-
ing the closing of King Industries Furniture Dimension plant
in Flora, Mississippi. The article stated that the Flora plant
STORKLINE CORPORATION 1149
was available for sale as it had to close because of the present
recession. We do not want this to happen to the Storkline plant.
We are working very hard, day and night, developing models
for our customers that will enable us to secure business to keep
Storkline employees busy. We feel that we can keep Storkline
employees busy in spite of present day business conditions, when
we can be sure we will have no labor trouble which can close the
plant.
The Regional Director found no evidence to indicate that either
union participating in the election had made any threats or statements,
or gave any indication that there would be a strike if they won the
election." He concluded that the above-described conduct of the Em-
ployer was reasonably calculated to intimidate employees participat-
ing in the election, so as to make the exercise of their free choice
impossible.' In its exceptions, the Employer contends that none of
the conduct complained of, in and of itself, was coercive. It argues
that it had a right to build a pool of future employees to be available
for employment as replacements for striking employees, in the event
a union won the election and called a strike; and that the statements
made in its speeches did not exceed the bounds of permissible cam-
paign propaganda. We find no merit in these contentions.
We agree with the Regional Director that the Employer by its
conduct above described interfered with the election. In our opinion,
this conduct was calculated to, and did, convey to employees the mes-
sage that selection of a bargaining representative would result in loss
of employment opportunity. Thus, by building up a pool of potential
replacements before the election and even before any contract de-
mands were made upon it, and by emphasizing to its employees the
existence of this pool in its campaign speeches, the Employer took
steps which in the circumstances could reasonably be interpreted by
the employees to mean that bargaining would be futile and that a
strike to enforce demands would lead only to their replacement from
the pool. We believe that such appeals to the employees' fear of loss
of job opportunity created an atmosphere rendering the exercise of
free choice impossible.' Also contributing to produce this same ef-
fect upon employee free choice were the Employer's unsupported
statements, both in its speeches to employees and in full-page adver-
tisements in the local newspapers, that in the event of a union victory
4 Although the Employer excepted to this finding it alleged no facts which would
controvert it.
5 The Regional Director included among the predicates for his conclusion the statement
that layoffs were in force at the time when the Employer ran the advertisements in ques-
tion This is excepted to as error However , whether or not these were such layoffs is
not a factor affecting our conclusions herein . We need not , therefore , resolve this factual
question.
6 See Associated Grocers of Port Arthur, Inc., 134 NLRB 468.
1150 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its customers would cut down their orders and its business would
be adversely affected. We have held that such statements generate
fear of economic loss among employees about to vote on the question
of self-representation and constitute a basis for setting aside the
election results.' For these reasons, we adopt the Regional' Director's
recommendations to sustain the above-discussed objections.
Accordingly, we shall order the election set aside and shall direct
that a new one be conducted.
[The Board set aside the election.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
4 P. D Cole Manufacturing Company, 133 NLRB 1455
U.S. Mattress Corporation and Restyme Products Incorporated 1
and Bedding Local 140 , affiliated with United Furniture Work-
ers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 22-IBC-1362.
February 20, 1962
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 Christopher J. Hoey,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.2
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
- 3. On September 18, 1961, the Petitioner filed a petition, naming
U.S. Mattress as the employer, which was served upon Arthur Cohen,
president and treasurer of U.S. Mattress, and vice president of
Restyme, of which his brother Murray is president. The petition re-
-The Employer ' s name appears as corrected at the hearing
2 For the reasons set forth below , we find that U S Mattress Corporation , herein called
U.S. Mattress , and Restyme Products Incorporated , herein called Restyme, constitute a
single employer for the purposes of the Act
3 Teamsters , Production , Maintenance and Allied Workers Local Union No 418 , Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
was permitted to intervene on the basis of a contract interest
135 NLRB No. 112.