Stonewall Cotton Mills

In the Matter Of STONEWALL COTTON MILLS, EMPLOYER and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 15-R-0180.-Decided January 8, 19.18 Wilson & Sanders, by Mr. Paul H. Sanders , of Atlanta ,. Ga.. and Messrs. J. H. Butler, P. D. Hughes , and N. P. Stribling , of Stonewall, Miss., for the Employer. Mr. R. W. Starnes, of Jackson, Miss., and Mr. K. W. Walker, of Meridian , Miss., for the Petitioner. Messrs. R. P. Seymore and W. R. Herrod, of Meridian , Miss., for the Intervenor. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF RUN-OFF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board, in accordance with its Rules and Regulations-Series 4, conducted on May 16, 1947, a prehearing election among employees of the Employer in a unit alleged to be appropriate, to determine whether they desired to be represented by the Petitioner or by the Intervenor for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. The Tally of Ballots shows the following : Approximate number of eligible voters ----------------------- 708 Void ballots ------------------------------------------------ 9 Votes cast for the Petitioner -------------------------------- 244 Votes cast for the Intervenor ------------------------------- 272 Votes cast against participating labor organizations----------- 96 Valid votes counted ---------------------------------------- 612 Challenged ballots------ ----------------------------------- 45 Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots------------------ 657 Thereafter, a hearing was held on July 14 through July 18, 1947, at Meridian, Mississippi, before George H. O'Brien, hearing officer. At the hearing the Employer moved that the petition be dismissed on the ground that insufficient proof had been adduced to show (1) the existence of a question affecting interstate commerce, and (2) that either the Petitioner or the Intervenor is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. The hearing officer referred this motion to the Board. On August 25, 1947, the Employer moved that the peti- tion be dismissed on the further ground that neither the Petitioner nor 75 N. L R. B., No 91. 762 STONEWALL COTTON MILLS 763 the Intervenor had complied with Section 9 (h) of the Act. In view of the findings set forth in Sections I, II, and III, infra, and because both the Petitioner and the Intervenor are now in compliance with the provisions of Section 9 (h) of the Act, the Employer's motions are denied. The rulings made by the hearing officer at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer's request for oral argument is denied inasmuch as the record and the briefs filed lierein, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Stonewall Cotton Mills, a Mississippi corporation, operates a cotton mill at Stonewall, Mississippi, where it is engaged in "the manufacture of various kinds of cotton yarns and fabrics, in particular, denim cloth. During the first 3 months of 1947, the Employer received from points outside the State of Mississippi, in relatively small almost daily ship- ments, machinery, chemicals, dyes, and other materials and supplies of a total weight in excess of 100,000 pounds. In addition, it received 12 railroad carloads of coal from the State of Alabama, 1 railroad carload of salt and 2 railroad carloads of fiberboard boxes from the State of Louisiana, as well as other railroad carload shipments from points outside the State of Mississippi. During the first 3 months of 1947, the Employer shipped by railroad more than 400,000 pounds of cotton yarns and fabrics to points in Canada and States other than the State of Mississippi; and during the first 6 months of 1947, it shipped by motor carrier to Cincinnati, Ohio, approximately 837,057 pounds of blue denim cloth. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the National Labor Relations Act.' II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. United Textile Workers of America, Local Union No. 46, herein called the Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the Amer- 1 See Stonewall Cotton Mills v N L R B , 36 N L. R B 240, enforced as modified, 129 F. (2d) 629 (C. C A. 5), cert. denied 317 U. S 667; and Matter of Stonewall Cotton Mills, Incorporated. 16 N L R B 483. 764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ican Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer. We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IN. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT The parties agreed at the hearing 2 that production and mainte- nance employees at the Employer's Stonewall cotton mill, excluding office and clerical employees, timekeepers, persons employed in com- pany stores, overseers, second hands, and other supervisors, constitute an appropriate unit. They disagree regarding the unit placement of employees in the village crew, watchmen, guards, firemen, and truck and bus drivers,-all of whom the Petitioner and the Intervenor would include and the Employer would exclude. The Intervenor would also exclude doff checkers from the unit, while the Employer and the Peti- tioner take no position with respect to that category of employees. Village crew. A group of approximately 14 employees, known as the village crew, comprise the workers in the Employer's construction department, and are under the separate supervision of the overseer of that department. The group consists of employees classified as carpenters, painters, laborers, and helpers. Their headquarters is a carpenter shop on the mill enclosure. These employees maintain and construct items of equipment used in the production processes of the mill. In addition, they do maintenance, repair, and utility work on mill buildings and company-owned houses and properties in the com- pany village. The village extends to within several hundred feet of the mill enclosure. The proportion of time spent by these employees on work connected with the mill operations and mill buildings, as distinguished from work in the company village, varies among the individual employees in the group. However, with the exception of S In a brief filed subsequent to the hearing, the Employer urged that the heating be ie- openeil in oiler to present additional evidence regarding, among other matters, the unit placement of certain categories of employees concerning which no issue had been raised at the hearing The Employer contends that employees in the affected categories are either supervisors or professional or confidential employees, and should therefore be excluded from the unit The Employer's hiiet sets forth, with respect to the unit question , no factual maternal in addition to that piesented at the hearing Inasmuch as the Emplo3er was accorded adequate opportunity before and during the hearing to raise all matters pettiuent to the appropriateness of the unit, the request that the hearing be reopened is denied, with- out piejudice to the Employer's piivilege of challenging, in the run-off election herein du ected, the ballots of employees in the categoties which it alleges in its brief should be excluded from the unit STONEWALL COTTON MILLS 765 one employee, no employee within the group spends his time exclu- sively on work connected with either the company village or the mill buildings and factory operations. Employees in the village crew are paid in the same manner and at the same time as other maintenance employees. The record does not show when the instant group of employees originally was constituted as "the village crew." In 1939, in an earlier representation proceeding involving production and maintenance em- ployees at the Employer's mill, the Board did not specifically discuss the village crew or make a unit finding with respect to them. It did, however, include within the unit therein established the mill car- penter, on the ground that "no reason is seen for differentiating him from the other maintenance men, including the village carpenters."' The unit findings of the Board in the 1939 proceeding were affirmed in a 1941 decision.4 The record shows that employees in the village crew were excluded from the scope of a bargaining agreement between the Employer and the Intervenor which was executed on April 13, 1946, and which terminated on April 30, 1947. The record, however, does not otherwise disclose the bargaining history of the village crew subsequent to the 1941 Board decision. We are of the opinion that the bargaining history with respect to the village crew is inconclusive and, therefore, we do not regard it as determinative in this proceeding. Since the work performed by em- ployees in the village crew is directly connected with certain of the Employer's productive processes as well as with the maintenance of the Employer's mill properties, and since there is nothing in the record which indicates that, insofar as such work is concerned, the interests of employees in the village crew are different from those of other maintenance employees, we shall include them in the unit. Watchmen and guards: The Employer employs four or five per- sons classified as watchmen and guards. The watchmen, who are also termed interior guards, are armed. They are on duty during the nighttime and when the plant is closed down. They patrol the Em- ployer's mill properties, on the lookout for fires, vandalism, theft, and other property damage. They have the power to handle disorders among other employees, and if necessary in such cases to call police aid. One of the watchmen is deputized. The guards are stationed at the mill gate. They prevent unauthorized personnel from entering the mill, and stop employees from leaving the mill without a proper pass. Inasmuch as the employees here in question are kuards within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act, we shall exclude them from the unit. Ifattc^ of Stoneioall Cott on Ifills, Incorpo I at ed, 16 N L R B 483, 487. 4 Matter of Stonewall Cotton Mills, 36 N L R B 241, 252. 766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Firemen: There are approximately 6 firemen in the Employer's mill. They are under the supervision of a "master mechanic-chief electri- cian." The latter also supervises approximately 26 other employees, working in the Employer's machine shop and doing maintenance work in the mill. The firemen maintain manually fed steam boilers. The steam generated by the boilers is, used for heating the mill, and for running steam pumps which are linked to fire protective devices for the mill and company village. The steam is also utilized as an essen- tial element in the Employer's dyeing and manufacturing, processes. In accordance with our usual practice, we shall include the firemen in the unit.5 Truck and bug drivers: The truck drivers operate trucks which transport cotton and equipment in and about the Employer's mill en- closure. One of the trucks is used to pick up trash in the company village, and to haul lumber to the village. The bus drivers operate a bus owned by the Employer which runs on schedule between the mill, the company village, and an Adjacent town. It carries employees of the Employer to and from their work at, the mill, and is not available to the general public. We shall include the truck and bus drivers in the unit., Doff checkers: These employees record the output of the doffers in the Employer's spinning room. On the basis of the records coin- piled by the checkers the pay of the doffers is computed. Since the function of the doff checkers appears to be similar to that of time- keepers, and since the parties are agreed that timekeepers should be excluded from the unit, we shall exclude the doff checkers. We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em- ployer's Stonewall Mill, including employees in the village crew, firemen, and truck and bus drivers, but excluding office and clerical employees, timekeepers, doff checkers, watchmen, guards, persons em- ployed in the company stores, overseers, second hands, and all other supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES As noted above a prehearing election in this proceeding was held on May 16, 1947. On May 22, 1947, the Employer filed objections to conduct affecting the results of the election, and requested that the Board set aside the election. The Employer's objections Objection, 1.-The Employer alleges that a Union official entered one of the Employer's departments, where electioneering had been See Matter of Welch. Furniture Company, 65 N. L. R. B. 1197, 1199. ° See Matter of American Yarn and Processing Co., 59 N. L. R. B. 1357. STONEWALL COTTON MILLS 767 prohibited, insisted that employees therein should vote, and marched certain of the employees in a body to the polling place. On the clay of the election, Benjamin Harris, the president of the Intervenor, entered the employer's carpenter shop and urged his fel- low employees in the village crew to go to the polls and vote. There- upon, most of the village crew as a group accompanied Harris to the polls, where their ballots were challenged on eligibility grounds. The record is not clear as to whether the carpenter shop is within the area in which electioneering had been prohibited. The evidence, however, shows that Harris on the occasion in question expressed no opinion on the issues of the election. We find that the Employer's first ob- jection does not raise a substantial and material issue, and the objec- tion is hereby overruled. Objection 2.-The Employer alleges incidents of electioneering by union representatives in prohibited areas while the polls were open. The evidence supporting this allegation merely shows that Flora Jones, whose official union position is a matter of dispute, shouted to a group of employees on their way to vote, "Vote for the A. F. of L." We regard such evidence as inadequate to substantiate an allegation of illegal conduct affecting the results of the election, and, therefore, the Employee's second objection is hereby overruled. Objection 3.-The Employer alleges that union representatives, stationed at the entrance gate to the Employer's plant, turned away employees wishing to enter the plant, and told them that they could not vote or that they could not vote without revealing their identities by signing their names on their ballots. The only evidence adduced in support of this allegation shows that one enmployee, Willie B. Williford, was stopped at the gate by Tal- madge, Robinson, an employee of the Employer and a representative of the Petitioner. Williford was told by Robinson that he need not enter the plant, since he could not vote. Subsequently, Williford entered the plant grounds and voted, but his ballot was challenged and impounded by the Board agent on eligibility grounds. Since the evidence shows that Williford in fact cast a ballot, and since no fur- ther evidence was introduced by the Employer in support of its alle- gation, the Employer's third objection is hereby overruled. Objection 4.-The Employer alleges that prior to the election, a union official threatened an eligible employee with physical violence unless he ceased alleged anti-union expressions. Three days before the election, Clayton Touchstone, according to his own testimony, was threatened with a knife by Clyde Creighton, one of the Intervenors shop stewards. Touchstone was told he would be "run out" of the mill because of his alleged distribution of anti-union papers. In his testimony, Touchstone denied that he had been dis- tributuig anti-union literature. Touchstone testified further that the 768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD acts of Creighton did not cause him to change his mind with respect to the election . In fact, Touchstone voted, but his ballot was chal- lenged by the Petitioner and the Intervenor on the grounds that he was a supervisor. Under all the circumstances we are not convinced that the foregoing constitutes sufficient proof of interference with the em- ployees' freedom of choice as to warrant setting aside an election which was conducted by- secret ballot. ' We find the Employer 's fourth objection without merit, and it is hereby overruled. Objection 5.-The Employer alleges that prior to the election, union officials and representatives coerced and intimidated eligible em- ployees by threatening them with loss of their jobs unless they voted in a designated manner. No evidence was introduced in support of these allegations , and the objection is hereby overruled. Objection 6.-The Employer alleges, in substance, that union officials and representatives circulated untrue reports concerning officials and policies of the Employer , and made scandalous attacks on employees and said officials , all of which resulted in the coercion and intimidation of eligible employees. The evidence shows that an employee named Nichols about a week before the election made a statement over a loudspeaker attributing to the Employer's personnel officer remarks about the Intervenor, which the personnel officer, in fact , had not made . The evidence further shows that loudspeakers were used by both the Petitioner and the In- tervenor in their electioneering , and that attacks, in which derogatory epithets were employed , were made upon several employees. Since the loudspeaker utterances were in the nature of pre-election propa- ganda, and since we are of the opinion that the verbal attacks do not constitute intimidation or coercion of prospective voters, we find that the Employer's sixth objection lacks substance , and it is hereby over- ruled. Objection 7.-The Employer alleges that, on the day of the election, an intoxicated union representative threatened officials of the Em- ployer during polling hours , and thereby coerced and intimidated employees who were present. One employee, W. C. Smith, on the day of the election , came to the entrance to the Employer's general offices and asked for his pay. Smith was staggering and appeared intoxicated according to the Em- ployer's personnel officer, who refused to pay Smith . The scene was witnessed by another employee. On the basis of such evidence we believe the Employer 's seventh objection -is without merit. Accord- ingly, the objection is hereby overruled. See Matter of Dixie Wholesale Company, Inc., 73 N. L. R B 1203. I STONEWALL COTTON MILLS 769 Challenges The results of the May 16 prehearing election, as set forth above, show that no choice upon the ballot received a majority of the valid counted votes which were cast. The election was held among em- ployees in a basic unit of production and maintenance workers at the Employer's Stonewall mill. With the exception of doff checkers, em- ployees in all the categories which we have excluded from the produc- tion and maintenance unit found appropriate in Section IV, supra, either did not vote in the election, or their ballots were challenged and impounded. Employees in the village crew, firemen, and truck and bus drivers, whom we have included in the unit, were permitted to vote in the election, but their ballots were challenged. These ballots are included among the 45 ballots, which, as the Tally shows, were chal- lenged and impounded. Since the ballots of the 2 or 3 doff checkers and the 45 challenged ballots are numerically. insufficient to cause a change in the inconclusive results of the prehearing election, we shall make no further inquiry with respect to such votes." Since the May 16 election was held among employees whose unit placement corresponds to that found appropriate herein, and since the results of that election are inconclusive, we shall direct that a run-off election between the Petitioner and the Intervenor be held in this proceeding. DIRECTION OF RUN-OFF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Stonewall Cotton Mills, Stone- wall, Mississippi, a run-off election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Sec- tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period ending May 4, 1947, including employees who did not work during said pay- roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date' of the election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, or by United Textile Workers of America, Local Union No. 46, A. F. of L., for the purposes of collective bargaining. 8 Twelve of the ballots were challenged on the ground that the employment of the voters had terminated. one ballot was challenged on the ground that the voler was a supervisor. The evidence in the record is not sufficient for us to rule on these challenges