United Merchants & Manufacturers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 5, 1962

135 N.L.R.B. 859 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

ARAGON MILLS, ETC. 859
within 12 months following the holding of a valid election , is unlawful regardless
of its added informational character . As Respondent 's activity during February
1961, found above, constituted such picketing I find that it has violated Section
8(b) (7) (B), as alleged.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in activities which violate Section
8(b)(7)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
that it take certain affirmative action which I find necessary to remedy and to remove
the effect of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing and upon the entire record in this case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Woodward Motors, Inc., is an employer within the meaning of Sections 2(2)
and 8 (b)^(7) of the Act.
2 Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Sections 2(5) and
8 (b) (7) of the Act.
3. By picketing Woodward Motors, Inc., within a month following the conduct of
a valid election under Section 9(c) of the Act, with the object of forcing or requiring
Woodward Motors, Inc., to recognize and bargain as the collective -bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees of Woodward Motors, Inc., Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in an unfair labor practice proscribed by Section 8(b)(7)(B) of
the Act
4. The foregoing unfair labor practice , having occurred in connection with the
operation of Woodward Motors, Inc.'s business as set forth in section I, above, has
a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the
several States and substantially affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Aragon Mills, a Unit of United Merchants & Manufacturers,
Inc., Petitioner and Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO.
Case No. 10-ROI-308. Februa y 5, 19693
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
entered into by the parties hereto an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted on February 16, 1961, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Tenth Region among the employees in
the stipulated unit. Following the election, the Regional Director
served upon the parties a tally of ballots which showed that of ap-
proxiinately 493 eligible voters, 482 ballots were cast, of which 193
were for, and 262 were against, the Union, 24 ballots were challenged,
and 3 ballots were void. The Petitioner filed timely objections to con-
duct affecting the results of the election.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
Director conducted an investigation, and thereafter issued and duly
served upon the parties reports on objections, in which he recom-
mended that the objection be overruled. However, during the course
of the investigation he uncovered other conduct not included in the
objections which, in his opinion, raised material and substantial issues
135 NLRB No. 117.
S60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with respect to conduct affecting the results of the election. Ac-
cordingly, he recommended that the election be set aside and,a new
election directed. Both the Employer-Petitioner and the Union filed
timely exceptions to the Regional Director's reports.
As to the objections, the Board believed that certain material and
substantial issues of fact had been raised in connection with objections
4 and 5, and that such questions could 'best be resolved by a hearing.
Accordingly, on July 7, 1961, the Board issued an order directing
hearing on the issues in question! Such hearing was held at Rome,
Georgia, on July 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29, 1961, before Frank James
Kruzich, hearing officer. All parties appeared and participated at
the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues
was afforded all parties.
On September 11, 1961, the hearing officer issued and served upon
the parties his report and recommendations, in which he recommended
that objection No. 4 be overruled, objection No. 5 be sustained, and
that the election be set aside. Both the Employer and the Union
filed exceptions to the hearing officer's report and recommendations.
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].
The Board has reviewed the hearing officer's conduct of the hearing
and the rulings made therein and finds no demonstration of bias or
commission of prejudicial error .2 The Board has considered the ob-
jections in question, the hearing officer 's report, the exceptions of the
parties, and the entire record in this case and hereby adopts the rec-
ommendations of the hearing officer to the extent noted below.
We agree with the findings of the hearing officer that the discus-
sions of "company policy" with employees in the Employer's offices
during the critical period were designed to influence the employees
involved to reject the Union. We also adopt the findings of the hear-
ing officer that at least 10 employees were specifically "requested" by
various supervisory personnel to visit the Employer's offices during
I In the absence of specific exceptions thereto, the Board adopted the Regional Director's
recommendation that objections Nos 1 and 3 be overruled. As to the remaining objections
and findings of the Regional Director, the Board reserved its decision until after its deter-
mination of the issues involved in the above objections
I In support of its contentions that it was denied a fair hearing, the Employer asserts
that after the hearing opened, but before certain witnesses for the Union were called to
testify. the hearing officer permitted such witnesses to examine statements previously
given during the course of the investigation which were contained in the Board 's informal
files and that the Employer was denied the opportunity to examine such statements We
find these contentions to be without merit, as it is clear that the Employer's representa-
tives had full opportunity to examine the witnesses in question during the course of the
hearing, and that the hearing officer in his report did not rely upon such statements, but
based his findings upon the record testimony of the witnesses in question.
ARAGON MILLS, ETC. 861
the critical period for the purpose of discussing such policy .3 As for
other employees, it is uncontroverted that a substantial number had
similar individual discussions with supervisors during the same period
in the Employer's offices.' The record shows that such visitations were
primarily the result of the activity of supervisors who pursuant to
explicit company instructions notified the employees that copies of
"company policy" would be made available and would be discussed
with any employee who wished to visit the offices of various super-
visors 5 We find under all the circumstances that such notification was
calculated to induce the employees to come to the various offices for
the purpose of being individually propagandized, and thereby,con-
stituted the type of conduct our General Shoe doctrine (97 NLRB
499, 501) was, intended to proscribe.' Accordingly, we agree with the
hearing officer that the Union's objection No. 5 relating to.such con-
duct be sustained.' I
Moreover, we are of' the opinion, contrary to the hearing officer,
that the following statements and remarks made by various super-
visors to the employees listed below, without regard to the loci of
where they were made, went beyond the "bounds of permissible elec-
tioneering and were coercive:' (1) Herbert Robertson was asked
how he thought the election would come out and was told that the`
reason the Company was "wanting to do away with the union was that
the Yankees up North wouldn't let them fill no orders on account of
it was a Union mill plant and they was afraid, they would strike";
(2) Sarah Lumpkin was told ". . . it could be mighty serious., It
could mean every one of our jobs. Company policy was better than
the union contract"; (3) Elizabeth Goss was asked "what the union
had ever done for her," and her opinion as to which way she thought
the election would go; '(4) Howard Streetman was told that the
Company ought to have a chance to show what they could do without
a union and the "good things" they had- in the "company policy";
(5) Wilma Formby (with (6) Dorothy Fagan) was told that the
Company should have a year's trial; '(7), Bertie Hopper was urged to
3 We find that the Employer's exceptions as to the hearing officer's findings are in-
sufficient to raise material and substantial issues thereto ,
4 See Employer's Exhibit No. E-19, beginning with affidavit of Viola W. Haynie.
s See testimony of General Superintendent Harold Richard Hoke, general overseer of
the spinning department, Thomas Hamrick, and Manager C. T Reed
9 See Jasper Wood Products Co., Inc, 123 NLRB 28,,29-30 We find that the cases cited
by the Employer in its brief that such conduct does not constitute a violation of the
General Shoe doctrine inapposite.
Q In agreeing with the hearing officer we are not, however, relying upon his finding,;
based upon "inferences" that because an "unusual" or "large", number of employees were
observed in various offices of the company during the critical period such employees were
necessarily specifically requested to visit the offices to discuss "company policy " We find
such inferences speculative, and unnecessary in view of our findings herein.
B See United States Rubber Co, 86 NLRB 3, 5; Francheater Corporation, 110 NLRl:
1391, 1392; Lakefeld Manufacturing Co, 105 NLRB 952, 954-955 Cf. Fulton Bag and
Cotton Mills, 89 NLRB 943, 944; The Liberal Market, Inc, 108 NLRB 1481, 1485-1486.
862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
change her mind about voting and that if the Union was voted out the
mill would run better; (8) Nick Dawson was told that "company has
spent a lot of money and made a lot of improvements ... they haven't
made any they couldn't move"; and (9) Hugh Hagen (Board's Ex-
hibit No. 13) was asked how he thought the election was going and to
vote against, the Union. Accordingly, we find that such conduct inter-
fered with the freedom of choice of the employees in the election, and
we shall, therefore, also sustain the Union's objection No. 4.9 As we
have sustained objections Nos. 4 and 5, we-shall, set the election aside
and order a new one.
[The Board set aside the election.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
9As to objections Nos. 2 and 6, we find that the Petitioner 's exceptions ' do not raise
material and substantial issues thereto, and we shall , therefore, adopt the Regional
Director 's recommendation that they be overruled . Contrary to the Regional Director,
we find that the conduct uncovered during the course of the investigation regarding the
posting of a ballot on the plant's bulletin boards was not violative of our Allied Electric
Products rule ( 109 NLRB 1270 ), as we are satisfied that the ballot in question could not
be reasonably construed by the employees as having any official governmental endorse-
ment See, , e.g., Paula Shoe , Co., 121 NLRB 673, 675 ; The Glidden Co., 121 NLRB 752,
755-756; Reflector Hardware Corp., 121 NLRB 1544 , 1548. Cf. Custom Molders of
P.R. & Shaw-Harrison Corporation , 121 NLRB 1007 , 1009 . Accordingly , we shall over-
rule the Regional Director's recommendation and findings based upon the ballot in question
Blaw-Knox Company,' Petitioner and United ' Steelworkers of
America, C10.2 Case No. 6-R-976. Febntary 6, 1962
DECISION AND CLARIFICATION OF UNIT
On October 20,1944, following a Board-directed election,3 the Board
certified United Steelworkers of America, CIO, as the collective-
bargaining representative of, Continental Foundry & Machine Com-
pany's Peninsula plant 4,production and maintenance employees, and,
in„the same proceeding; certified .International, Association of Ma-
chinists, AFL, herein called Machinists, as the collective-bargailing_
representative of'the'machine shop ' Unit 5 at'the'sanie plant. There-
after the Employer entered into collective-bargaining agreements with
the Unions covering their respective units.
' The parties stipulated that the Employer is the successor of Continental Foundry &
Machine Co.
2 International Association of Machinists , AFL, intervened on the basis of an existing
contract with the Employer.
' 58 NLRB 213, as amended on October 3, 1944.
* This plant is presently known as the Wheeling, West Virginia , plant of the Employer.
8 "All Employees in the Machine Shop Department at the Peninsula plant, including
blacksmiths , blacksmith helpers, chairmen , laborers , the gang leader , machine shop in-
spectors , but excluding the machine shop estimator , shop clerks, the welghman , and the
blacksmith foreman , the labor leader, , and the supervisor."
135 NLRB No. 89.