The Falmouth Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 3, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 896 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

896 DECISIONS OF- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Falmouth Company and United Garment Workers of Amer-
ica, AFL, Petitioner and Needleworkers Association of Amer-
ica. Case No. 9-RC-2278. November 3,1955
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND
ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
an election by secret ballot was conducted on July 27, 1954, under the
supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region of the
National Labor Relations Board among the employees in the unit
herein found appropriate. Following the election, the parties were
furnished a tally of ballots. The tally shows that, of the approxi-
mately 116 eligible voters, 114 cast ballots, of which 38 were for
the Petitioner, 64 were for the Intervenor, 5 were cast for no union,
and 7 ballots were challenged.
On July 29, 1954, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the Rules
and Regulations of the Board, the Regional Director conducted an
investigation and, on November 9, 1954, issued and served upon the
parties his report on objections to conduct affecting the results of the
election, in which he found that the Petitioner failed to submit suffi-
cient evidence to establish the occurrence of matters alleged or that
such matters raised substantial or material issues with respect to
conduct affecting the results of the election and recommended that
the objections be overruled. On November 19, 1954, the Petitioner
,filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report and requested that
a hearing be held on its objections.
On December 23, 1954, the Board found that substantial and mate-
rial issues had- been, raised and issued an order directing hearing.
On February 23 and 24,1955, a hearing was held before Ralph Wink-
ler, hearing officer. On March 23, 1955, the hearing officer issued and
caused to be served upon the parties his findings and recommendations
on objections to election, a copy of which is attached hereto. The
hearing officer found that certain acts and conduct interfered with the
employees' free choice of a bargaining representative, and, therefore;
recommended that the results of the election be set aside and that
a new election be directed. On April 19, 1955, the Employer and the
Intervenor filed exceptions to the hearing officer's report.' The hear-
'In their exceptions to the hearing officer's report, the Employer and the Intervenor
contend, inter altia, that the Petitioner' s objections and exceptions to the Regional
Director 's report raised no substantial and material issues of fact, and the Board was in
error when - it directed a hearing . The Board considered this matter at the time it issued
its order directing hearing . After ti' careful reexamination of our original action, and
after consideration of the exceptions here submitted by the Employer and the Intervenor,
the Board is still of the opinion that substantial and material issues of fact were raised
which warranted a hearing
114 NLRB No. 138.
- THE FALMOUTH COMPANY 897
ing officer 's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Board makes
the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The, Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c ) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In agreement with the parties, the following employees of the
Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All pro-
duction, shipping, and maintenance employees of the Employer at
its Falmouth, Kentucky, plant, excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defused in the Act.
The Objections
The Employer is engaged in making work clothes under contract
with and under the label of the Crown Overall Company, a Cincinnati,
Ohio, concern herein called Crown 2 The machinery in the Employer's
plant is owned by and leased from Crown which has a right under its
lease to terminate such lease at any time. In addition, the Employer
rents its plant from a Falmouth resident under an agreement provid-
illg that the Employer may terminate the lease at any time and for any
reason.
,It appears, as more fully set forth in the hearing officer's report,
that''oli•the night of July 21, 1954, some 6 days before the scheduled
election, a meeting was held in the office of H. Best, an officer of the
Employer and its counsel. Present that night were Best, the Inter-
venor's attorneys, and three management officials of .Crown. On the
same night, the businessmen of Falmouth held another meeting. It
also appears, that at least one of the Crown officials and the Intervenor's
attorneys went from one meeting to the other.
Sometime after these meetings, and before the election, a local drug-
gist who attended the aforementioned businessmen's meeting spoke to
employee Evelyn Browning. He told employee Browning that the
businessmen had met and had at the meeting a list of those employees
who were "mixed.up in the election," and that the businessmen had
The. Employer 's plant, is located, in Falmouth, Kentucky , which has a population of
about 2;500. Local businessmen organized the company while other businessmen of the
community contributed goods and services to establish the plant.
^^^ >l a .._. ", rza., u) ,a,.'tr;la J :' . :x: •x i3 " fl, r Ain ..;r ; 7t ''L
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
arranged "to talk" with the employees listed. He further stated to
Browning that the Employer might close down the plant and leave
Falmouth if the AFL won the election and that "75 cents an hour [the
Employer's wage rate] was better than nothing"; that he felt the em-
ployees "could get along better" with the Intervenor than with the
AFL; that he and other townsmen had brought in the plant and that
he wouldn't want to see the plant move; and that he didn't want to see
Browning "get into any trouble" as it was he who had recommended
Browning for hire with the company.
In addition, the druggist also told employees Yelton 3 and Wells
that if the AFL won the election, the Employer would move. Another
local merchant also called employee Wells on the telephone a few
days before the election and, among other things, told her that "if the
AFL came in, the company would go out and the merchants would lose
a lot of money."
On July 26, 1954, the day before the election, Mr. Barnes (Barnes
is a Falmouth resident who owns the factory building occupied by
the Employer), entered the factory about 7 a. in., came out at 7: 30
a. in., and thereafter told AFL representatives, who were handbilling
the employees going to work, that "the factory would move out of
town if the AFL won the election." Barnes further stated that he
"could show us [the AFL representatives] a contract which the busi-
nessmen of Falmouth had with the Crown Overall Company, where
the Company could move out any time it wanted to, it could just pull
up and leave and that if the AFL Union won, that they could move
out . . . [and] the Company had had an offer from the city of London,
Kentucky, that they would be more than happy to . . . have them
establish their factory there."
Later that day, and after Best's speech to the employees, Barnes
and his wife approached employees, including employee Wells, at
the plant entrance as they left and entered the plant during the lunch
hour. Barnes showed them a document, purportedly a copy of the
lease, under whose terms, Barnes advised, the Employer could leave
at any time. He also told employee Wells "that if it [the election]
did go AFL, that they [the Employer] would be leaving," and he
would be losing a lot of money.
It also appears, as more fully set forth in the hearing officer's report,
that a so-called "Committee of Businessmen of Falmouth," shortly
before the election, sent campaign material through the mail to em-
ployees, urging them to vote against the Petitioner and support the
Intervenor, and that The Falmouth Outlook, a local weekly news-
paper, also urged-the employees to vote for the Intervenor, "a Falmouth
home folks union."- In addition, the Louisville Courier-Journal, which
is distributed in Falmouth, carried on July 25 a 4-column story with
8 Gladys Yelton was not working at the time, but appears to have been on leave.
THE FALMOUTH COMPANY 899
photographs about the forthcoming election; the dateline was "Fal-
mouth, Ky:, July 24." The article stated, among other things, that:
The election is stirring up a tizzy of excitement because it has
been widely rumored that if the AFL wins, the plant will close,
the machines will be crated up and moved away.
Numerous meetings have been held between company officials
and the business people. Ways of impressing on the workers the
stake they have in the plant, the obligation they should feel for
having a factory close to home in which to work, and how the
future of the plant . . . and their own jobs . . . depends
on their voting Tuesday have been discussed time and time again.
London [Kentucky] will have an interested eye cocked in this
direction too. For the story is circulating here that if the AFL
wins the election, then Crown will load up its machines and move
them to London.
Further, 1 week before the election Grace Scalia, an admitted super-
visor, told employee Velma Johnson, "You better vote for the Needle-
workers Union [the Intervenor] because-if the AFL comes in, that
the company is moving out because they can go to London and get
cheaper rents and cheaper wages."' It also appears that Lee Hamil-
ton and Mildred Bryant, alleged to be supervisors by the Petitioner,
made, similar remarks to several of the employees shortly before the
election . Hamilton also circulated andirequested employees to sign
the Intervenor's membership cards on the floor of the plant during
working hours the week before the election.
On July 26, 1954, slightly more than 24 hours before the scheduled
election, Employer's Officers Goldberg and Best addressed a meeting
of all employees which the Employer convened on factory premises
during working hours 5 Goldberg, president of the Employer, ex-
horted the employees to vote for the Intervenor. Best also urged the
employees to support the Intervenor in the e^ction, and concluded
his speech as follows:
We would be pleased if you would choose "THE NEEDLE-
WORKERS' ASSOCIATION," which is your own local inde-
4In'its brief , the Intervenoi contends that Velma Johnson's testimony in this regard
shguld not be credited because she claimed that this conversation occurred at the plant
the day before the election and the Employer 's payroll records show that Johnson did not
wor'k that day Contrary to the contention of the Intervenor , the record clearly shows
that this conversation occurred 1 week before the election.
5 A few days earlier, Best told a delegation of employees that "all the company was
interested in was living . . . in a spirit of peace and harmony between the employees and
the company ," and the Employer, by letter , also told the employees that whatever the
outcome of the election , " there will be no discrimination by the Company or either union."
387644-56-vol ., 114-58
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pendent union, in order that we could deal directly with home
folks, but if you are thoroughly sold on the promises,which have
been made, it is your privilege to vote according to the dictates
of your own conscience and according to your best judgment. We
are not permitted to make any promises and certainly are not
making any threats, but we wish to here and now set at rest any
loose talk or threats that the Falmouth Company will close if
you vote in favor of the A. F. of L. Union. We assure you that
the Falmouth Company was organized and opened to serve you
people and this community and that it will continue to operate
and serve you regardless of which Union wins tomorrow, or if
neither Union wins.
This is a matter within your discretion and sound judgment,
as you are free American citizens; so let your conscience guide
and direct you in the voting booth tomorrow morning.
The hearing officer found that the Employer and other local busi-
nessmen acted in concert to oppose the Petitioner and support the
Intervenor in the election, circulating threats of shutdown and re-
moval of the plant in the event the AFL won the election. He also
concluded that such threats deprived the employees of an opportunity
to a free uncoerced election, and that the speech made by Employer
Official Best, the day before the election, was not sufficient to "over-
come and disabuse" the employees of the impact of these threats. Iri
view of his findings, he recommended that the results of the election
be set aside and that a new election be directed.
The Employer and the Intervenor, in their exceptions to the hearing
officer's report, contend, inter alia, that: (1) There is no! evidence of
concert of action between local businessmen and the Employer; (2)'
there is no evidence of any improper conduct on the part of the Em-
ployer's supervisory employees; and (3) the Employer, by the
speeches of. its top officials to the employees the day before the' election,
completely absolved itself of any coercive conduct and "cleared away"-
any effect the coercive conduct of others may have created.
The issue before th6.Board is whether the election was conducted
under such circumstances and under such conditions as were conducive
to the sort of free and untrammeled choice of representatives con-
templated by the Act." We find that it was not. Here the election
was held in the face of widespread fear that the Employer would close
up its plant and move should the AFL win the election. Such fear
was the natural result of the threats of plant shutdown confronting
the employees at every turn-in the local stores, in the plant-and
even in their own homes through the media of newspapers and tele-
phones. It is clear that this fear of economic loss so permeated -the
9 New York Shipping Association , et-al, 108 NLRB 135 at 142 ;1 Diamond-Staten Poultry
Co., Inc., 107 NLRB 3; P. D. Gwaltney, Jr. and Company, Inc ., 74 NLRB 371.
THE FALMOUTH COMPANY 901
atmosphere surrounding the election as to render impossible the ra-
tional, uncoerced selection of a bargaining representative as contem-
plated by the Act. Nor do we believe that the speech of Respondent's
official, Best, or its earlier statements, completely overcame and dis-
pelled from the minds of the employees the sustained fear that the
plant would close should the AFL win the election. In a speech sup-
porting the Intervenor against the Petitioner, a single statement by
Best devoted to assuring the employees of the continued operations
of the plant was not sufficient, in our opinion, to overcome such wide-
spread threats. We further note that after Best's speech and on the
day before the election, employees at the plant were again told by
Barnes, the owner of the property, that the plant would move if the
AFL won the election. In these circumstances, we find it unnecessary
to, and do not, determine whether the Employer and the businessmen
acted in concert to defeat the Petitioner, or whether the conduct of
two alleged supervisors, Lee Hamilton and Mildred Bryant, was at-
tributable to the Employer. Such determination is not material.' The
important fact is that conditions existed which prevented a free
election. In accordance with our findings herein, we shall set aside
the election and direct that a new election be held.
[The Board set aside the election held on July 27, 1954.]
ACTING CHAIRMAN RODGERS took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election.
1 Diamond State Poultry Co., Inc., supra.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON OBJECTIONS TO ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The parties to this proceeding are The Falmouth Company, herein called the
Company; United Garment Workers of America, AFL, herein called the AFL; and
Needleworkers Association of America, an independent labor organization herein
called the Association, membership in which is apparently limited to the Company's
employees.
Following a petition filed by the AFL, all parties herein executed a stipulation
for certification upon consent election on July 15, 1954. The Regional Director
for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio) thereupon conducted an election by secret
ballot on July 27, 1954, with the results set forth below.' On July 29, 1954, the
AFL filed objections to conduct affecting the results of the election, and on November
9, 1954, the Regional Director issued a report recommending that the AFL's objec-
tions be overruled and the Association certified. The AFL filed exceptions to the
Regional Director's report, and on December 23, 1954, the Board directed a bearing
before a Trial Examiner on the AFL's objections and exceptions which the Board
found "to raise substantial and material issues of fact involving conduct affecting
the results of the election."
• . Pursuant to notice, 'a hearing was accordingly held in Falmouth, Kentucky, on
February 23 and 24, 1955, before a duly designated Trial Examiner. All parties
were represented by counsel and were given full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and'cross-examine witnesses, to introduce other evidence bearing on the issues, and
to present oral argument and briefs as well. Counsel representing the Board did
1 Of approximately 116 eligible voters, 64 voted for the Association, 38 voted for the
AFL, and 5 voted for neither union ; 7 ballots were challenged.
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not examine witnesses or adduce other evidence , and he did not otherwise take a
position as to any matter in dispute.
Upon the record in the case, and upon observation of the demeanor of witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
This case arises in Falmouth , Kentucky, population about 2,500 (2 , 186 by the
1950 census ), where the Company employs approximately 115 rank -and-file em-
ployees. Local businessmen organized the Company about 15 months ago in order
to promote business and employment opportunities in the community and three
townsmen became the sole stockholders and the officers of the corporation: Max
Goldberg, president , Carl Stith , vice president ; and H . B. Best, secretary-treasurer.
Other businessmen of the community contributed goods and services to establish the
enterprise . The Company is solely engaged in making work clothes under con-
tract with and under the label of the Crown Overall Company , a Cincinnati con-
cern . (Cincinnati is approximately 40 miles from Falmouth.) Crown Overall owns
the machinery in the Company 's plant and leases it to the Company . . It is quite
apparent that the business arrangement between the Company and Crown was
an essential economic ingredient in setting up the Company. The Company rents
its operating premises from Dempsey Barnes, a Falmouth resident . The lease agree-
ment provides that the Company may terminate the lease at any time and for any
reason; and the Crown Company also has a right under its agreement with the
Company to terminate such agreement at any time.
Businessmen of Falmouth held a meeting on the evening of July 21, 1954, the week
before the scheduled election . Another meeting was being held the same evening
in the Falmouth office of H. Best , an officer of the Company and its counsel . In Best's
office that night were Best, the Association 's attorneys ( Kennedy and Moore), and
three management officials of the Crown Company ( Ben Berman , Charles Litwack,
and one Vallin ). Vallin went from one meeting to the other, as did Kennedy and
Moore.
Tom Moreland, a local druggist , attended the aforementioned businessmen 's meet-
ing. Sometime after the meeting, and before the election, Moreland told Evelyn
Browning , an -employee of the Company , that the businessmen had met and had
in their possession at the meeting a list of those employees who were "mixed up
in the election" and that the businessmen had arranged among themselves "to talk"
with the employees listed. Moreland told Browning that the Company either would
or might close down the plant and leave Falmouth if the AFL won the election and
"that 75 cents an hour [the Company 's wage rate ] was better than nothing." More-
land also told Browning that he felt the employees "could get along better" with
the Association than with the AFL, that he and other townsmen had brought in the
plant and that he wouldn't want to see the plant move , and he also mentioned that
be didn't want to see Browning "get into any trouble" as it was he who had recom-
mended Browning for hire with the Company . Moreland also told employee Gladys
Yelton of the merchants ' meeting; he asked her "which way" she "stood " as to the
election and he told her the Company would move if the AFL won. Moreland
requested Yelton to send two other named employees to see him, which Yelton
did; Moreland repeated to employee May Robert Wells what he told Yelton and
Browning , namely, that the Company would move if the AFL "came in."
Another local merchant , Clark Houchens , called employee Wells on the telephone
a few days before the election and inquired how she "felt" about the election. Wells
told Houchens that the employees should be receiving higher wages, whereupon
Houchens replied that , although he had no authority in the matter , the employees
would probably get a wage increase if the AFL lost the election . Houchens further
told Wells that the local merchants would suffer if the AFL were victorious, and
that the employees should appreciate what these businessmen had done for the
employees in establishing the Company.
As employees left and entered the plant during the lunch hour the day before
the election , they were openly approached by Mr . and Mrs. Barnes at the plant
entranceway . Barnes, it is recalled , owns the factory building occupied by the
Company. Barnes exhibited to the employees on this occasion a document, pur-
portedly a copy of the lease , under whose terms, Barnes told the employees, the
Company could and would leave if the AFL came in. Barnes also told AFL Repre-
sentatives Catherine Peters and Florence Smith during this period , according to
Peters' credible testimony , that "the factory would move out of town if the AFL
THE FALMOUTH COMPANY 903
won the election" and that he (Barnes) "could show us a contract which the busi-
nessmen of Falmouth had with the Crown Overall Company, where the Company
could move out at any time it wanted to, it could just pull up and leave and that
if the AFL Union won, that they could move out . . . [and that] the Company
had had an offer from the City of London, Kentucky, that they would be more than
happy to . . . have them establish their factory there."
The plant manager is Mrs. Hill, and Grace Scalia is admitted by the parties to
be a plant supervisor. The AFL contends, and the Company and the Association
deny, that Lee Hamilton and Mildred Bryant also are supervisors on the second
and first floor, respectively, of the 2-story plant of approximately 115 employees.
Hamilton and Bryant make work assignments to the employees and train some of
them ; they do not regularly work on machines as the rank-and-file employees do,
although they perform such work on occasions. Bryant alone is in charge of first
floor operations in Hill's absence (Hill does not report for work until a half hour
after plant operations are begun) and Hamilton alone directs second floor employees
in Scalia's absence. A few days before the election Hamilton told employees Nancy
Ishmael , May Robert Wells, Mabel Oliver, and Velma Ruth Johnson that the Com-
pany would close down and no one would have a job if the AFL won the election,
and Hamilton added to Oliver that the Company would move to London in such
eventuality. Hamilton also circulated and requested employees to sign Association
membership cards on the floor of the plant during working hours during the preelec-
tion week. Bryant, during this period, told AFL Representative Peters and a group
of several employees that "it would be kind of silly to vote for the AFL" because
she understood "that the factory was going to close if the AFL Union won the elec-
tion ." Also during this period Scalia told employee Johnson that Johnson had
"better vote" for the Association because in the event of an AFL victory the Company
will move to London, Kentucky, where it can get "cheaper rates and cheaper wages."
On July 16 and 23, 1954, the two paydays immediately preceding the election, the
Company paid its employees their wages in silver dollars for the purpose, according
to Company President Goldberg, of demonstrating the impact of the Company's
operations on the economic life of the small community.
Rumors pervaded the small community and the Company's plant personnel to the
effect that the Company would leave Falmouth should the AFL win the election, and
the forthcoming election aroused much interest as far away as Louisville, Kentucky.
Thus, the Louisville Courier-Journal, which is distributed in 1 of Falmouth's 2 drug-
stores, carried on July 25, 2 days before the election, a 4-column story with photo-
graphs about the Falmouth election; the dateline was "Falmouth, Ky., July 24." The
article states, among other things, that:
The election is stirring up a tizzy of excitement because it has been widely
rumored that if the AFL wins, the plant will close, the machines will be crated
up and moved away.
With that threat present, Falmouth businessmen are very uneasy over the
outcome. Their stake in the matter is large. They worked for years to bring
in industry to balance out the area's agricultural economy; they even put up
some $4,000 to convert the buildings in which the garment plant is located. The
$3,500 or so weekly payroll of the plant has boosted business greatly.
London [Kentucky] will have an interested eye cocked in this direction, too.
For the story is circulating here that if the AFL wins the election, then Crown
will load up its machines and move them to London. [Emphasis supplied.]
Falmouth has a weekly publication called The Falmouth Outlook, published by a
local citizen. The July 23 issue carried on its front page an article entitled "Citizens
Express Opinion on Union." The point of the article was expressed in its opening
paragraph, "Don't bite the hand that fed you," and went on to explain that the Com-
pany's employees should appreciate what their townsmen had done in establishing
the Company and that many Falmouth people say further that:
if the sewing factory workers want the leading citizens to continue to start fac-
tories and to raise money for new factories and for new employment and to
expand present employment then the garment factory workers will select the
Needleworkers Association, which is a Falmouth home folks union.
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A so-called "Committee of the Businessmen of Falmouth" sent campaign material
through the mail to employees; this literature inveighed against the AFL and sup-
ported the Association; the July 23 distribution to employees contained expressions
almost identical to those in the aforestated excerpts from The Falmouth Outlook, and
it also called specific attention to this article in The Falmouth Outlook, a copy of
which was enclosed. The Company also distributed to their "employees and neigh-
bors" on July 23 a letter which supported the Association as the "home folks union,"
and which stated, among other things, that:
Just because an outside union makes a lot of extravagant claims and fantastic
promises it does not mean that they will be able to compel the Company to give
in to their demands. After all, you must realize that the Company is not the
BOSS. It is the Customer who is the Boss. It is the customer who pays for the
garments. These customers will not'pay any more than they have to. So, if
they don't take the garments, then the Company is not able to make garments;
and when the Company is not able to make garments it does not need anyone to
operate the sewing machines.
The Falmouth Company was started by your neighbors and fellow citizens.
It is your neighbors who operate this sewing factory and who want to control it
to provide work for you, our neighbors in Falmouth. This is a home folks
proposition. It is a home folks partnership, and it takes a home folks union with
home rule to do this.
The letter further states:
Everyone should vote. If you fail to vote you will give support to the side you
do not want. Vote as you think best. Whatever the outcome, there will be no
discrimination by the Company or either Union.
Early Monday morning, slightly more than 24 hours before the scheduled Tues-
day election (see Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427), 2 of the Com-
pany's officers (Goldberg and Best) addressed a meeting of all employees which the
Company convened on factory premises during working hours. Goldberg exhorted
the employees to vote for the Association, his entire remarks on the occasion being
set forth in Appendix A herein. Best also urged the employees to support the
Association in the election, but he concluded his speech as follows:
We would be pleased if you would choose "The Needleworkers' Association,"
which is your own local independent union, in order that we could deal directly
with home folks, but if you are thoroughly sold on the promises which have
been made, it is your privilege to vote according to the dictates of your own
conscience and according to your best judgment. We are not permitted to
make any promises and certainly are not making any threats that the Falmouth
Company will close if you vote in favor of the A. F. of L. Union. We assure you
that the Falmouth Company was organized and opened to serve you people and
this community and that it will continue to operate and serve you regardless of
which Union wins tomorrow, or if neither Union wins.
This is a -matter within your discretion and sound judgment, as you are free
American citizens; so let your conscience guide and direct you in the voting
booth tomorrow morning.
Conclusions
The critical period for purposes of this case is from the date of the consent elec-
tion stipulation on July 15, 1954, until the conclusion of the election on July 27,
1954. See Franchester Corporation, 110 NLRB 1391. All the conduct set forth
above fell within this period. Although the record further shows that Company
Official Best told a group of employees in August 1954 that they should straighten
out their Association affairs and "find out who voted for the AFL and throw them
out," I accordingly do not predicate any conclusions or recommendations upon this
incident.
Mindful of the community nature of the Company's enterprise , the record fully
supports Petitioner 's contention in my opinion that the Company and the other
"local businessmen acted in concert to oppose the AFL and support the Association
in the July 27 election; one of the principal, if not the principal, strategems in
their campaign was the threatened shutdown and removal of the plant in the event
of an AFL victory. Such widely circulated threats as appear in this case constitute
substantial basis for setting aside the election on the ground that the employees were
THE FALMOUTH COMPANY 905
thereby deprived of an opportunity for a free uncoerced election assured to em-
ployees under the Act. I would reach a similar result in the present case, more-
over, even if it be assumed, contrary to my finding, that the local businessmen
did not act concertedly with the Company as to the matters set forth above and
also even if Bryant and Hamilton are not supervisors for whose mentioned conduct
the Company is responsible. Apart from the fact that Scalia's conduct is attributable
to the Company, there being no question as to her supervisory status, the issue is
not limited to whether the Company or any other party to the proceeding inter-
ferrejl with the employees' right to an uncoerced election. This is not an unfair
labor practice proceeding, and the question under consideration is, rather, "whether
the election was conducted under such circumstances and under such conditions
as were conducive to the sort of free and untrammeled choice of representatives
contemplated by the Act"; and it is immaterial in resolving such issue that the co-
ercive or otherwise interfering conduct "cannot be attributed either to the Employer
or to the unions." Diamond State Poultry Co., Inc., 107 NLRB 3; P. D. Gwaltney,
Jr., & Co., 74 NLRB 371, 379-380; New York Shipping Association et al., 108 NLRB
135. The threats of economic loss in the event the AFL won the election could not
have been made much plainer to the employees than it was in the instant case;
and, contrary to the Company's assertion, the portion of Best's speech in which he
told the employees they could vote as they pleased without fear of discrimination
was scarcely sufficient to overcome and disabuse the employees of the impact of the
contemporaneous threats. Cf. Wells Dairies Cooperative, 110 NLRB 875.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I accordingly recommend that the results of the July 27, 1954, election be set
aside and that a new election be directed.
APPENDIX A
Fiuaims:
I want to say a few words to you in just plain old Falmouth talk.
I promised factories and employment to the people of Falmouth if they would
elect me Mayor. They believed me and elected me and we have the factories and
we provided employment for most of the people who wanted it. The City, merchants
and myself took plenty of our time and money to make this possible. There is a
good chance that many more may be employed at THE FALMOUTH COMPANY.
I can say to you honestly and sincerely that the people of Falmouth are extremely
lucky in having The Falmouth Company and employing so many of our fine ladies,
because the unemployment situation in Kentucky and throughout the United States
and in foreign countries is very bad, and there are thousands upon thousands of
men and women who are out of work who are members of the same outside union
which is trying to come in here and organize you, for which I have a different
name-to disorganize you.
This outside Union is not promising to give you anything themselves, but they are
promising to force the other fellow to give you something. Has this outside union
told you good people that it was going to make you pay monthly dues, fines and as-
sessments , which means that all of this money would leave this community and county
and be sent outside of Kentucky and spent by people whom you have never seen nor
ever will see, and do you not know that it would be much better for you to spend
this money among yourselves in your own Union for your own benefit and advance-
ment. You can spend this money in your own way and without being dictated to
by a bunch of outsiders.
I want all of you to know that I was born and raised here and that I am one of
you and have always been and always will be interested in you because you are my
friends, and that I am proud of the part that I had in bringing this factory to Fal-
mouth for you, and I am sure that you feel the same way about it.
Midge Stith was a member of the Council when I was Mayor of Falmouth and
when this factory was brought to Falmouth. He played a very important part in it
and in everything for the betterment and advancement of this town, giving thousands
of hours of his own time and effort from his own business and neglected his own
business in order to help.
Let's all continue working together as a team , without interference from outsiders,
all of us standing in our place , all for one and one for all. You can best do this by
voting for the "NEEDLEWORKERS' ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA ," which is
your own Union.