Wood & Smith Shoe Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 24, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 1760 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

1760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of such a union as the Brotherhood of Carpenters and the number of years that
the section of the Act with which we are here concerned has been in effect, it can
be assumed that the union officials were well versed in the legal implications of its,
position and it follows as a clear possibility that the letter of the law has been ob-
served by Respondents. Moreover, there is a distinct flavor in the. entire record
that the "thrust of the Union's pressure" upon Harvey "was aimed at persuading the
Company through its management representatives, rather than through its em-
ployees," to live up to its collective-bargaining contract. Such being the case, I
am not satisfied that the record, such as we have here, including hearsay and cryptic,
ambiguous remarks, as a whole contains the substantial degree of proof which the
statute requires to warrant the finding of an unfair labor practice within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (a) (4) (A) of the Act. Cf. Meyer Furnace Co. supra and Firchau
Bros. Logging Company, supra, 115 NLRB 711. Accordingly, I shall recommend
that the complaint be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record herein,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 1016, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO, and United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Booher Lumber Co., Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
3. The allegations of the complaint that Respondents have engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act have not
been sustained.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Wood & Smith Shoe Co. and United Shoe Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1RC-1789. May 24,1957
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
executed and approved on January 31, 1957, an election was con-
ducted on February 21, 1957, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the First Region, among certain employees
of the Employer. Following the election a tally of ballots was fur-
nished the parties. The tally shows that of approximately 325 eligible
voters, 315 cast ballots, of which 188 were for the Petitioner, 126 for
no union, and 1 ballot was void.
Thereafter, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct affect-
ing the results of the election. The Regional Director investigated
the matter and, on March 21, 1957, issued and duly served on the
parties his report on objections in which he found that the objections
did not raise material and substantial issues and recommended that
they be dismissed. On April 1, 1957, the Employer filed exceptions
to the Regional Director's report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
117 NLRB No. 229.
WOOD & SMITH SHOE CO. 1761
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Murdock and Jenkins].
. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
findings :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-.
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Auburn, Maine, plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.'
5. The Regional Director's report on objections :
The Employer excepts to the report, claiming that the Regional
Director erred in : (1) Failing to order an investigation and to hold
a hearing on the Employer's objections; (2) finding that the evidence
submitted by the Employer did not establish a prima facie case; and
(3) finding that the Petitioner's circulars distributed prior to the elec-
tion were permissible campaign propaganda.
The Board has consistently held that a party filing objections to an
election is obligated to furnish evidence in support of such objections
and that, unless such evidence is produced, the Regional Director is
not required to pursue the investigation further 2 In response to the
Regional Director's request for evidence supporting the objections,
which mainly alleged improper electioneering activities on the day of
the election, the Employer furnished 2 affidavits and 3 union circulars.'
The Employer's counsel stated that this material constituted all of
the evidence supporting the objections and it was on this evidence
that the Regional Director determined that the Employer had not
presented a prima facie case.
1 This is the unit agreed upon by the parties in the consent election stipulation
2 N. B. Liebman d Company, Inc, 112 NL1tB 88
3 The Employer ' s supeiintendent , Liberty, avers in his affidavit that, on the day of the
election, the Petitioner ' s representatives accosted employees at the factory gate on their
way to work and engaged in electioneering practices and distributed campaign literature
and circulars The Employer ' s finishing room foreman , Shackford, in his affidavit avers
that an employee believed to be an election observer for the Petitioner , who was not auth-
orized to enter the finishing room, nevertheless , came into that room while the election
was in progress and engaged in election campaigning The three circulars submitted con-
tain statements concerning the Employer 's "love letters" distributed during the cam-
paign , the Petitioner 's policies re dues and assessments and the money being paid to
"union busting lawyers "
423784-57-vol. 117--112
1762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that the Regional Director properly found that the elec-
tioneering activities of the Petitioner's representatives on the day of
the election do not constitute a basis for setting aside the election.
Unions may circulate legitimate propaganda and engage in non-
coercive electioneering at any time prior to the election,4 which the
Petitioner did here. Moreover, the alleged electioneering activity for
the Petitioner by an employee, outside the polling area , during the
time of the election does not constitute a basis for setting aside the
election without an allegation and proof that such activity was
coercive 5
As for the Petitioner's circulars distributed to the employees prior
to the election, the Regional Director properly found that they do not
contain any representations which the employees could not evaluate.
They were permissible campaign propaganda which the Board will not
police or censor.6 Having, therefore, considered the Employer's ob-
jections, the Regional Director's report, the Employer's exceptions,
and the entire record in this case, we hereby adopt the findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations of the Regional Director and find no
basis for holding a hearing on the objections.
As the Petitioner received a majority of the valid votes cast in the
election, we shall certify it as the exclusive bargaining representative
of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified the United Shoe Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the
employees of the Wood & Smith Shoe Co., Auburn, Maine, in the unit
hereinabove found appropriate.]
a Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427, 430.
s Emerson Electric Company, 106 NLRB 149, 153.
Stewart-Warner Corporation, 102 NLRB 1153; Comfort Slipper Corporation, 112
NLRB 183; N. N. Hills Brass Co , 114 NLRB 164.
The Sperry and Hutchinson Company' and Retail Clerks Inter-
national Association, Local 201, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
36-RC-1253. May 24,1957
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 Arthur J. Hedges,
hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
I The Employer 's name appears as corrected at the hearing.
117 NLRB No. 220.