The Murray Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 27, 1943

49 N.L.R.B. 1225 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of THE MURRAY COMPANY a)t(I INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA--
TION OF MACHINISTS , LOCAL 1015
Case No. R-1664
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
ORDER
May 7,,-1943 -
On January 14, 1943, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the,
above-entitled proceeding. Pursuant to the Direction of Election, an
election by secret ballot was conducted 'on February 4, 1913, by the
Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas).
On February 5, 1943, the Regional Director, acting pursuant to Article
III, Section 10, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and'Regula-
tions-Series 2, as amended, issued and duly served upon the parties an
Election Report. - ,
As to the balloting and its iesults, the Regional Director reported as
follows:
Approximate number of eligible voters------------------- 100%
Total ballots cast--------------------------------------- 86 5%
Total ballots ehallenged --------------------------------- 8 3%
Total void ballots-------------------------------------- 0
Total valid votes counted -------------------------------- 100%
Votes cast for International Association of Machinists Local
10155------------------------------------------------- 59 7%
Votes cast for United Steelworkers of America------------ 38 4%
Votes cast for neither---------------------------------- 1.9%
On February 6. 1943, United Steelworkers of America, Local 209T
(CIO), herein called the C: I. 0., filed objections to the conduct of the
election and to the Election Report. These objections alleged inter
aria that the Company (1) engaged in discriminatory practices against
the C. I. O. by making discriminatory lay-offs of a large number of
employees on .February 2, the-majority of whom were.Inembers of the.
C. I. 0.; and (2) interfered with the free choice of the employees.
1 46 N L R B 1097
49 N. L. R. B., No. 182.
1225
1226 IDECISiION'S - OF' NATIONAL I ABOR . RELATZONia BOARD
voting in the election by acts and statements of coercion and intimida-
tion of employees thus denying rights of the employees freely to vote
for a labor'organization of their own choosing.
On March 13, 1943, the Regional Director, having investigated the
matter, issued and- duly served upon the parties his report on objec-
tions, in which he stated in substance that the objections of the C. I. O.
raised substantial and material issues with respect to interference with
the election, and recommended that the Board direct a hearing on said
objections.
Pursuant to an order of the' Board and pursuant to notice, a hear-
ing was held on April 22, 1943, at Dallas, Texas, before Charles E.
Persons, Trial Examiner. The Board, the C. I. 0., The Murray
Company, herein called the Company, and International Association
of Machinists, Local 1015 (AFL), herein called the A. F. L., ap-
peared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made° at: the,
hearing are free-from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the record so made, the Election Report, the objections of
d I- 1 1 +1, B r 1 n21eQ theoa che C. I. O. an te Ieeol -prey Ions y mac e,t
following : .
FINDINGS OF FACT
In January 1943, the Company was notified of a 30 percent reduc-,
tion in the quota of shell production. Efforts were made to secure
new contracts which would permit the retention of the full working
force. These efforts failed and on, February 2, 1943, 78 employees
were laid off. The Company conferred with the Regional Director
concerning the bearing this mass lay-off would have on the election
which had been announced for February 4. The Regional Director
agreed 'that the lay-offs were justified but warned that care should
be exercised to avoid discriminatory treatment. Employees' laid off
were eligible to vote in the election. It appears in the record that
the C. I. O. charged that 52 employees so laid off -had 'been°discrim-
inatorily selected. The Company and the Regional Office entered
into an agreement in settlement of theses charges by the terms of.
which the Company rehired 6 employees with back pay. At the
hearing, no evidence was presented to show that the mass lay-off was
intended to, or in fact did, affect the employees' freedom in their choice
of representatives, or to discourage membership in the C. I. O. Nor
was any effort made to show that the Company by the settlement,
admitted responsibility for any action which affected the election ad-_
versely. We therefore find no merit in' this first objection of the
C.I.O.
1
THE MURRAY COMPANY . 1227
Since November 13, 1942, a, notice issued by the Company's presi-
dent has been posted,on the Company's bulletin board: This notice
states in part that :
This Company's policy as to labor organization has been and
shall continue to be one of strict, neutrality and such policy shall
prevail in the hiring of employees 'as well as in the managing
of employees after they are retained by-the Company.
The full managerial staff of the 'Murray Company-knows
that the above is the Company's policy'and that it will be strictly
enforced by the,Company.
As to the unions that may be engaged in further organizatiorad
activities, we' must remind 'them that such activities cannot be
carried on upon the property of this Company. •
The record shows that contrary to its avowed declaration .of neu-
trality, several supervisory employees of the Company did not main-
tain d neutral attitude toward the election. The evidence with respect
to the following, incidents is either unrefuted,or admitted
,Joe Taylor, supervisor of shop blasting operations, was active in,
soliciting A. F. -L. membership. He distributed A. 'F. L. pins and
application` cards. Taylor was among those excluded from the-unit
asea supervisory,employee. • - -
Albert J. Reddy, the head inspector of the night shift, admitted
that,, prior to February, -2, 1943, he had questioned the girls under
,his supervision about their union affiliations. When:asked what his
purpose in doing, so was, he replied, "I know, that I didn't have any
-business 'asking,,them, but I just, had, a curiosity to know."
A few days before the election, Joe Roberts, night foreman,' told
,an employee who,had expressed a hope that the A. F. L. %-,-ouldiwin,
"All you have to do is to talk against the C. I. 0." . ,
During the election campaign both labor organizations distributed
union buttons urging the employees to vote for their respective,or-.
ganizations. Although the Company.-admitted that no prohibition
1 A t_ wearing union buttons existed, and indeed,-Foreman- B. N.
Wadley, had assured employees including•both C. I. Q. and A. F. L.
adherents who, 'asked him, that "they had • a perfect right" to, wear
such buttons in the, plant, Clarence E. -Surratt, foreman of common
labor, on-repeated occasions ordered workmen to remove their C. I. O.
buttons. The testimony of W. T., ,Scott , indicates that, several days
before„the election, he was. told by, Surratt to remove his C. I:- O.
button. Surratt was quoted as saying, on' this occasion, "I don't. give
`a• damn who you vote, for, you aren't supposed to advertise, you aren't
supposed to wear a button." This conversation took place in front
of two other employees.. Surratt.'s orders to remove the buttons were
frequent and he persisted in his campaign to the morning of the
I
I
1\
warned her that if she- did not desist, "somebody is going to be fired."
On January 21 or 22, Jack Turpin, head inspector of the Company,,
told Mrs. Hyde that "you are just talking too much about the C. I. O."
and threatened her with discharge unless such talking was stopped.
This Hyde refused to do, stating in substance that she would not
allow her C. I. O. advocacy to interfere with production but she would
continue to defend and advocate the C. I. O. when others approached
her on'the subject. In view of the fact that supervisors such as Tay-
lor and McNamara participated in A. F. L. electioneering on company
time and premises without reprimand, we are of the opinion that the
Company's rule against organizational activity was not enforced, or
only so enforced as to interfere discriminatorily with the freedom of
expression of C. I. O. supporters.
Testimony was introduced into the record which purported to show
that Edna Stringfellow was denied a transfer =from"tlie="night".shift'
to. the day shift because of her C. I. O. allegiance. Inasmuch as the
-testimony of Turpin shows that there were reasonable and -plausible
explanations for the refusal of her request, we are of the opinion that
-the Company's' action was not induced by Stringfellow's union activi-
ties. We likewise attach no significance to the activities of Dave Mc-
Namara, a supervisor excluded from the unit. McNamara has been
a member' of the A. F. L. since 1908 and his loyalty to that organiza- .
tion was well known to the employees of the Company. The record
shows interchange of comments and banter between McNamara and
C. -I. O. partisans but no activity on his part which would tend 'to
interfere with his subordinates' freedom of choice.
1228 D'ECISTONNS OF, N-AT'IONAL -LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD
•eleciioii day. No similar action was taken to suppress A. F. L.
buttons. -
Shortly before the election, S'urratt figured in another episode
-together with H. M. Gonzales, assistant personnel director. About 27
Negro employees, most of whom were C. I. O. members and displayed
C. I. O. buttons, were instructed to report to a warehouse where they
were addressed by both supervisors. The ostensible purpose of the
.meeting was to combat absenteeism but the speeches also warned these
employees to, abstain from union talk on the company premises.
They were told that they did not have to join any union and that
they would get just as much wages as they were entitled to regard-
less of whether or not they joined a union. Gonzales was quoted as
saying "The union would cause nothing but trouble and strikes and
by strikes (you) would lose maybe 20 or $30 and would take months
to catch up."
Two, or-three' weeks prior to the election, Lochia R. Hyde ad-
mittedly-engaged in union discussions as a C. I. 'O. partisan during .
working hours. Her 'immediate supervisor; A. J. Reddy, instructed
her "You are going to have to quit talking about the Union" and
I
' THE MLRRA1_ COMP9_A'I, , . 1229
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the whole record, we conclude and find that through
the anti-union statements and activities of the supervisors above
mentioned during the weeks preceding the election , the Company in-
terfered with the freedom of its employees to vote without restraint
in the election and that the election did not constitute a fair test of
the C. I. O.'s right to represent the employees in the appropriate, unit
as their statutory representative . For that reason we sustain the
C. I. O.'s objections to the conduct of the election ' and shall set aside
the election held on February 4, 1943. When the Regional Director
advises us that the time is appropriate , we shall direct that a new
election be held among the Company 's employees.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings-of fact, the National=Labor
Relations Board hereby vacates and sets aside the election held in this
proceeding on February 4, 1943, and the result thereof.
11
4