Sydney Blumenthal and Co., Inc.

In the Matter of SYDNEY BLUMENTHAL AND COMPANY, INC., and TEX- T1LE WORKERS OF AMERICA (CIO) Case No. 5-R-1617.-Decided November 18, 1944 DECISION AND ORDER On June 29, 1944, pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election, entered into June 15, 1944, by Sydney Blumenthal and Company, Inc., Caromount Division, Rocky Mount, North Caro- lina, herein called the Company, and Textile Workers of America (CIO), herein called the Union, an election by -secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland). Immediately thereafter, a Tally of Ballots was furnished by the Regional Di-_ rector to the Company and to the representative of the participating union. The Talley indicated that of the approximately 613 eligible voters, 575 cast valid ballots of which 260 were for the Union and 315 were against the Union. One void ballot was cast; 7 ballots were challenged. On July 1, 1944, the Union filed Objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. On September 13, 1944, following an in- vestigation, the Regional Director issued a Report on Objections to the election, in which he found that the Objections raised material and substantial issues. Thereafter, on September 26,-1944, the C'om- _pany sent a letter to the Regional Director which the Board accepts as Exceptions to the said Report. In the letter, the Company (1) agreed to the holding of a new election but demanded that it be held immediately; (2) admitted the issuance of certain speeches and let- ters as recounted by the Regional Director in the Report but claimed privilege to issue such utterances. The Company did not deny the Regional Director's findings concerning certain acts of its supervisors. Upon the entire record in the case, including the Objections, the Report,on Objections, and the Exceptions thereto, the Board makes the following : 59 N. L R. B., No. 75. 349 SYDNEY BLUMENTHAL- AND COMPANY, - INC. -349 FINDINGS -OF FACT The Union began organizing in the Company's plant on or about -May 1, 1944. On May 9, 1944, the Company called its employees to- gether and read them two letters emphasizing the benefits which the Company had afforded the employees in the past,' and suggesting that the managementiwould take it as an affront if the employees chose a - union to represent them. On June 15, 1944, the Company entered into the Stipulation for Consent Election. Thereafter, on the 16th, 23rd, 27th, and 28th of June, the Company sent letters to employees warning that the employees were "walking into a trap from which there was no escape," i. e., "Union Security," the danger being that employees who tired of the Union would lose their jobs. The letters also pointedly implied that benefits presently sponsored by the Company would be discontinued 'if the Union should win the election.2 - Similar letters were isued to the employees of the'Company at Wilson, North Caro- lina. The Company had never issued bulletins or news letters to its employees in this manner before. The Company's contention that these utterances were privileged by reason of the First Amendment to the Constitution is without basis. They clearly go beyond the exercise of the privilege of free speech and they improperly injected the Company into the election campaign as a party interested in the defeat of the Union.3 Coercion was im- plicit in the threats to discontinue benefits 4 Moreover, the acts,of supervisors in the plant make evident- the fact that the letters were part of a deliberate scheme of coercion and intimidation engaged in by the Company in an effort to affect the results of the election. It is undisputed that supervisors approached employees with such state- ments as "Of course the Company don't want the union and I am for the Company" and, in a conversation relative to the probability that a union man would lose his job, "You wouldn't know how we got rid of you." Similar threats were made by another employee who, according to the Regional Director's undisputed finding, has a favored position in the plant and occupies a-position which would lead the employees rea- sonably to believe that he is a representative of management.,, This same individual suggested that employees would lose privileges if the 1 Among the benefits listed was a request made by the Company to the war Labor Board for wage increases. The Regional Director reported that the request was made the day the speech was given. 2 "Is the Union going to lend you money to buy you coal at the price you are now paying? Is the Union going to -pay the difference between the cost of your insurance and what you now pay? . . . The Union is promising you a lot of changes. There will be plenty of changes if they win , but will they be to your advantage?" See Reliance Manufacturing Co. v. N. L. R. B., 143 F. ( 2d) 761 (C. C. A. 7). See N. L. R. B. v. American Tube Bending Co., 134 F. (2d) 993. See International Assn of Machinists v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 72; Matter of Engineering and Research Corp., 55 N. L. It. B. 137. 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union should come into the plant. - One of the employees was asked to use his influence in the plant to get other employees to vote against the Union. We are not satisfied, therefore, that the results of the election repre- sent the free choice of the employees who participated therein, and we shall set it aside. The Company agrees to cooperate in the holding of another election but refuses to comply with the request of the Re- gional Director that it take steps to dissipate the effect of the above- mentioned activities.- Consequently, we shall not, as the Company suggests, hold a new election at this time but we shall do'so when the Regional Director advises us that the time is appropriate. 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 June 29, 1944.