Huntsville Manufacturing Co.

HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 713 Appendix B To ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , A. F. L., AND ITS LOCAL 181 AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF AND APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOY- MENT WITH F. H. MCGRAW AND COMPANY Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that : WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause F. H. McGRAW AND COMPANY to require employees or applicants for employment to obtain clearance or job referrals from us, or either of us, as a condition of employment, except under a nondiscriminatory arrangement permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT perform or give effect to the closed-shop provisions of the undersigned International's written collective bargaining agreement with said company, dated July 29, 1948, and/or the preferential hiring provisions of the undersigned Local's oral agreement or understanding with said com- pany adopting the standard form of collective bargaining agreement of said Local, or enter into, or enforce any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, or any superseding agreements with said company, containing union-security provisions, except as authorized by the proviso to.Seetibn 8 (a) (3). WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause the said company to discriminate in any manner against its employees or applicants for employment in viola- tion of Section 8 (a) (3). WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees of F. H. MCGRAW AND COMPANY in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , A. F. L., Labor Organization. Dated - ------------------ By ---------------------------------------- (Title of Officer)i LOCAL 181 , INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , A. F. L., Labor Organization. Dated --- ----------------- By ---------------------------------------- (Title of Officer), This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERIOA , CIO. Case No. 10-CA-1101. June 13, 1952 Decision and Order On March 24, 1952, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and 99 NLRB No. 113. 714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. In, addition, the Respondent refiled with the Board the brief in support of its exceptions in Case No. 10-RM-77 and the brief submitted to the Trial Examiner in this proceeding. The General Counsel also filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and'Mem- hers Murdock and Peterson]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen- dations of the Trial Examiner. Order Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c), of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Huntsville Manu- facturing Company, Huntsville, Alabama, its officers, agents , succes- sors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to recognize or to bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all production and maintenance employees of Huntsville Manufactur- ing Company, Huntsville, Alabama, including watchmen and firemen, but excluding guards, clerical employees, time and frequency checkers, employees hired for and employed solely in connection with a specific construction or installation job of limited duration and not a part of the Employer's regular production or maintenance operations, execu- tives, supervisors with the rank of second hand or higher, and.all other supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Engaging in any like or related acts or conduct interfering with the efforts of Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, to negotiate for or represent the employees in the aforesaid unit as exclusive bar- gaining agent. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: • (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all the employees i Harbor Chevrolet Company, 93 NLRB 1326; H. G. Hill Stores, Inc., 49 NLRB 184. HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 715 in the above-entitled appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and embody any understanding reached in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its plant at Huntsville, Alabama, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report as Appendix J.2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and main- tained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, inolud rigtia;ll.,places-where-notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable-steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices. are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply herewith. Intermediate Report and Recommended Order STATEMENT OF THE CASE The disputed matters in the above-captioned proceeding concern allegations that Huntsville Manufacturing Company, herein called Respondent, unlawfully refused to bargain with Textile Workers Union of America, 010, herein called the Union, on and after July 16, 1951. A hearing was held before the undersigned on January 30, 1952, in Huntsville, Alabama, at which the General Counsel and Respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by its State director. At the conclusion of the hearing Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety was taken under consideration. This motion is hereby denied After the close of the hearing briefs were received from counsel for Respondent and for the General Counsel which have been considered in the preparation of this Report. Upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following find- ings, conclusions, and recommendations. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, an -Alabama corporation,,has its principal office and place ofbusi- ness at Huntsville, Alabama, where it is engaged in the cotton textile business. During a representative 12-month period, Respondent purchased raw materials and supplies valued in excess of $1,000,000, more than $500,000 of which amount represents the value of purchases shipped to Respondent from points outside the State of Alabama. During the same period Respondent sold finished products valued in excess of $1,000,000, more than $750,000 of which amount represents the value of products sold and shipped to customers located outside the State of Alabama. This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" in the caption thereof, the words "A Decision and Order." If this Order is enforced by a decree of the United States Court of Appeals , the notice shall be further amended by inserting for the words "A Decision and Order," the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order " 716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of Respondent. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS Prior to March 31, 1951, Respondent and the Union were parties to an agree- ment concerning conditions of employment at Respondent's place of business in Huntsville, Alabama. During the pay period prior to March 31, 1951, "more than 1,300 employees in the` bargaining unit were having their dues checked, off by the company." A strike of Respondent's employees occurred on March 31, 1951, and terminated on or about May 10, 1951. At the conclusion of this strike "there were more than 1,000 employees in the unit who were reinstated." At no time between March 31, 1951, and July 10, 1951, did Respondent employ more than 1,500 employees in the unit.' On May 31, 1951, Respondent filed with the National Labor Relations Board, Tenth Region, an RM petition 2 naming the Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, as the organization claiming recognition as bargaining representative and describing the unit involved as : All production and maintenance employees, including watchmen and fire- men and excluding guards, clerical employees, time and frequency checkers, executives; supervisory employees with the rank of second hand orNhigher, any other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec- tively recommend such action. Employees hired for a specific construction or installation job of limited duration, and which is not the employer's regular production or maintenance, shall also be excluded from the pro- visions of this agreement as long as their services are used solely in con- nection with such a job. By letter "dated June 1, 1951, Respondent was advised that the RM case had been assigned for handling to Field Examiner Robert T. Gardner and that Gardner would contact Respondent in the near future. By letter dated June 4, 1951, Respondent advised Gardner that "Mr. Borden Burr and Mr. Mark Taliaferro of Burr, McKanny, Moore & Tate, Birmingham, are the attorneys handling this matter" and that Gardner should contact these gentlemen. On or about June 25, 1951, Respondent, the Union (Textile Workers Union of America, CIO), and Gardner executed a stipulation for certification upon consent election (NLRB Form No. 652 (3-20-48) ). This stipulation provided for an election on "July 10, 1951; 4: 00 a. in. to 6: 00 a. in.; 8: 30 a. in. to 10: 30 a. in.; 3: 00 p. in. to 5: 30 p. in.; Recreation Room" and defined the appropriate bargaining unit as follows : All production and maintenance employees, including watchmen and fire- men, excluding guards, clerical employees, time and frequency checkers, executives, supervisory employees with the rank of second hand or higher, any other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec- tively recommend such action. Employees hired for a specific construction or installation job of limited duration, and which is not the employer's regu- lar production or maintenance, shall also be excluded from the provisions 1 Respondent's motion to strike the stipulation upon which the above findings are based is hereby denied. 2 10-RM-77. HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 7 17 of this agreement as long as their services are used solely in connection with such a job. It was agreed that the payroll period for eligibility to vote in the election was June 2, 1951. 1 The stipulation for certification upon consent election further provided, inter alia: 5. Post Election and Run-off Procedure-All procedure subsequent to the conclusion of counting ballots, including the issuance by the Board of a Decision and Certification of Representatives, if appropriate, shall be in conformity with Section 102.61 and 102.62 of the Board's Rules and Regu- -lations 3 6. Record-The record in this case shall be governed by the appropriate provisions of Section 102.59" and 102.61 of the Board's Rules and Regula- tions and shall include this stipulation. . . . By letter dated June 29, 1951, Respondent supplied Gardner with "an alpha- betical, departmental list of the former employees of the Huntsville Manufac- turing Company who left the employment of the Company and went out on an economic strike on April 1, 1951, and who did not return to work in accordance with the invitation and request given by the Company to its employees and who by reason of not returning to work, have not been since in,the employment of the Company, and whose former jobs have been filled, by the necessary employ- ment and use of others" (sometimes referred to herein as "displaced employees"). This letter further stated, inter alta: Under this consent agreement both parties have consented to the election to be held under the terms of the agreement with only those being eligible to vote whose names appear on the payroll of the Company for the week ending June 2, 1951, it being distinctly and expressly understood that none of these former employees from out of town whose names appear on this list should have the right to vote in the election. Apparently, on July 9, 1951, the Regional Director for the Tenth Region and counsel for Respondent discussed, in a telephone conversation, the method of handling "displaced employees" who might present themselves to vote. In any event, by letter dated July 10, 1951, Respondent advised the Regional Director that if the "displaced employees" presented themselves to vote and were allowed to vote, "the Company, of course, reserves the right to make such protest and take such action in reference to the election as it deems proper." A; secret ballot was conducted on, July -10, 1951, under the direction,and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots, which shows that of approximately 1,397 eligible voters, 844 cast ballots for the Union and 540 against the Union. Two challenged and 2 void ballots were also cast. This tally of ballots was signed by Gardner on behalf of the Regional Director. At the conclusion of the election the authorized observers, including 3 Sections 102.61 and 102.62 of the Board's Rules and Regulations are set forth in Appendix A attached hereto. * "Sec 102.59 Record; what constitutes; transmission to Board.-Upon the close of the hearing the regional director shall forward to the Board in Washington, D. C , the peti- tion, notice of bearing, motions, rulings, orders, and stenographic report of the hearing, stipulations, exhibits, documentary evidence. and depositions, all of which shall consti- tute the record in the proceeding " 718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Gardner and observers for Respondent, signed a certification on conduct of election (NLRB Form 750 (5-1-45)) certifying that the "balloting was fairly conducted, that all eligible voters were given an opportunity to vote their ballots in secret, and that the ballot box was protected in the interest of a fair and secret vote." By letter dated July 12, 1951 (Appendix B), the Union requested that Re- spondent meet "to discuss and attempt in good faith to work out a collective bargaining agreement." By letter dated July 16, 1951 (Appendix C), Respondent advised the Union it (Respondent) was filing "objections to the conduct of the election and to conduct affecting the results of the election and its protest against any certifi- cation thereunder" and further advised the Union "as soon as these objections have been finally disposed of the Company will be glad to answer further your letter of July 12, above referred to" (Appendix B). On or about July 16, 1951, Respondent filed "objections to conduct of the election and to conduct affecting the results of the election and protest against any certification thereunder." In substance, Respondent's objections alleged that: 1. The election was held contrary to the terms of the Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election in that one (1) voter presented himself to vote despite the fact that such voter was not eligible to vote. and that the Board agents by permitting such person to vote, a challenged ballot, materially influenced the election and led employees to believe that the Government was, in fact, cooperating with and backing the Union and that such action did materially influence and affect the voters and the results of the election. 2. The ballot boxes, used during the course of the election by the Board agents,' were removed from the voting places and carried for a period of time away from the presence of any watchers or observers , thereby affording an opportunity to place in, or remove from said ballot boxes, ballots marked in a manner not to reflect the true intention of the voters and that such action, on the part of the Board agents, did give further support to the rapidly spreading feeling that the Board agents were, in fact, cooperating with the Union in a manner and method of conducting the election. 3. The Board agents permitted the Union to designate and utilize, as offi- cial election observers, persons who were officers and/or officials of the Union, despite Respondent's protest, while restricting Respondent's observers to nonsupervisory employees. Respondent also claimed that one of these union observers, during the strike mentioned above, "openly boasted or stated that if the Company undertook to operate its plant there would be bloodshed, and had conducted himself in such manner and used threats during said strike for the purpose of intimidating employees" and that each of the union observers "had been during the strike and since its institution 'and continuously until now active and aggressive leaders of the unionization movement, had called upon employees of the Company at their homes and elsewhere, had made statements derogatory to the Company and its officials, had made promises of benefits and privileges to be given to the employees in the event the Union won in the election, and had made statements and threats as to injuries which would be suffered by them in the event the Union lost, and had made threats against such employees as might vote against the Union concerning their continued employment and conditions of employment Respondent, also objected to the failure to use a ballot box constructed by Respondent. HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 719 in the event the Union won, and had been aggressively active in furthering the Union's cause." Respondent contended that "the very presence" of such union officers and/or officials, as observers, prevented a fair and impartial election and caused same to be conducted in an atmosphere of threats and intimidation. By letter dated July 16, 1951, the Regional Director for the Tenth Region requested Respondent to submit, before the close of business July 23, 1951, "prima facie evidence in affidavit form of persons having first hand knowledge respecting the matters raised by the objections" and suggested "in the event you have any inquiries regarding this matter, kindly communicate with Mr. Gardner." By letter dated July 18, 1951, Respondent's attorney advised the Regional Director, inter alia: We note that this matter "has been assigned to Field Examiner Robert T. Gardner for investigation." An examination of the objections and protest which the Company has filed will disclose that it is largely based on three incidents: (1) the conference held in Birmingham which resulted in the signing of the Agreement for the consent election; (2) the statements and agreements which were made in the conference held in Huntsville on the afternoon before the election ; and (3) incidents relating to the election itself and the handling of the ballots. Mr. Gardner was a participant in all-three of these occurrences,., and while we hope that no discrepancy in the evidence or any disputes may arise in reference to these matters, we realize that in many cases differences of recollection occur. For this reason, and without in any way wishing in this letter to cast any imputations of any kind against Mr. Gardner, we wish on behalf of the Company to respectfully object to and protest against any assignment for investigation or otherwise of this proceeding being made to Mr. Gardner, or to any other representa- tives of the Board who had any active connection with any of the questions under consideration. By letter dated July 20, 1951, the Regional Director for the Tenth Region advised Respondent's attorney : In view of the fact that there was no alleged misconduct on the part of Mr. Gardner, and in view of the fact that your letter [dated July 181 specifically denied any imputations of any kind against Mr. Gardner, we are constrained to let the assignment stand as it is. Our assignments must be made on the basis of availability of personnel, geography and case load of individual staff members. By letter dated July 20, 1951, Respondent's attorney forwarded to the Regional Director an affidavit executed by said attorney in reference to "the names of persons having first hand knowledge respecting the matter raised by the objec- tions upon whom the person entrusted by you with the investigation may call for the purposes of ascertaining such knowledge as they have." Respondent's attorney also stated that a matter had come to his attention on July 19, 1951, "which we are more thoroughly investigating, which gives more support to my suggestion that it would be improper for Mr. Gardner to be in charge of this investigation, and I, therefore, respectfully renew my objection to his so serving." By letter dated August 2, 1951, Gardner advised Respondent's attorney : In reviewing the file pertaining to the above matter [10-RM-77], I note that among the allegations were the following: Paragraphs 2 and 3 of page 3 alleged irregularities regarding the ballot box during and between the voting periods. 720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pages 4 and 5 alleged that the Union's observers had indulged in threats of violence and intimidation during the strike, which occurred prior to the election. You are herewith requested to submit to this office as soon as possible prima facie evidence in affidavit form of persons having first-hand knowledge regarding these matters. In the event you have any inquiries regarding this matter, please- communicate with me. By letter dated August 9, 1951, an associate of Respondent's attorney advised Gardner that Respondent's attorney was on vacation, that the principal officer of Respondent was out of the -State and not expected to return for se,6^iat days and Upon reviewing the file I find that an objection has been filed by the Company subsequent to the one overruled by the Regional Director as to your serving as investigator of objections based in part on matters in which you participated. Until these objections have been acted upon by the Regional Director I do not think that I should take the responsibility of answering your letter further than to state: (1) that Mr. Burr [Respondent's attorney] will take the matter up with you promptly on his return; and (2) that from my knowledge of the objections, the Company bases its alle- gations as to irregularities regarding the ballot box on the facts stated in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Page 3 relating to'the character of the box used and the opportunity given for irregularities while in the charge and custody of yourself as the custodian of the box as the representative of the Board and of the parties in conducting the consent election. As to whether or not irregularities did occur can only be ascertained on the hearing and from an examination of the box and its contents. The Company at this time has no additional affidavits to offer as to those particular allegations. By letter dated August 13, 1951 (Appendix D), Respondent's attorney acknowl- edged receipt of Gardner's letter of August 2, 1951, and confirmed his associate's reply of August 9, 1951. In this letter the attorney restated Respondent's position respecting the assignment of Gardner to investigate Respondent's ob- jections. The letter concluded with a statement that "for this reason [Re- spondent's opposition to Gardner as the investigator of the objections] and other reasons the Company has no further reply to make to your letter of August 2." On August 17, 1951, the Regional Director for the National Labor Relations Board, Tenth Region, issued a report on election, objections to election, and recommendations to the Board, in which he recommended that the objections be overruled and that the Board certify the Union. The Regional Director's reasoning and conclusions are-set forth in-Appendix E. On August 27, 1951, Respondent filed exceptions to the aforesaid report of the Regional Director, in substance alleging that the Regional Director did not conduct a proper investigation of its objections within the meaning of Section 102.61 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, and that Board agents improperly influenced the election by allowing an ineligible voter to cast a challenged ballot and by permitting employees who were union officers to act as observers. By letter dated August 31, 1951 (Appendix F), the Union requested Respondent to meet and "begin negotiations on a collective bargaining contract." By letter dated September 4, 1951, Respondent's attorney advised the Union : Mr. Elliott has referred to me your letter of August 31 requesting a con- ference with the Textile Workers Union of America as the exclusive bargaining agent of the Company's production and maintenance employees. HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 721 The Company prefers to await the final decision on this question before making any engagements or recognizing the Union as the bargaining agent. On or about October 17, 1951, the-National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision and Certification of Representatives,6 rejecting Respondent's conten- tions and certifying that : Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, has been designated and selected by a majority of the production and maintenance employees of Huntsville Manufacturing Company, Huntsville, Alabama, including watchmen and firemen, but excluding guards, clerical employees, time and frequency check- ers, employees hired for and employed solely in connection with a specific construction or installation job of limited duration and not a part of the Employer's regular production and maintenance operations, executives, super- visors with the rank of second hand or higher, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the aforesaid organization is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. By letter dated October 19, 1951 (Appendix G), the Union requested that Respondent "meet with representatives of the Union and a committee of your employees to bargain out a contract governing our relationship." By letter dated October 23, 1951, Respondent advised the Union : This will acknowledge receipt of your request for a conference to negoti- ate a new contract. We are presenting to our principal the request for the conference and I will advise you the position of the Company as soon as we have received advice from our principal. By letter dated October 24, 1951, the Union acknowledged Respondent's letter of October 23, 1951, and requested that Respondent "let us know as quickly as possible just when we can begin negotiations." By letter dated November 1, 1951 (Appendix H), the Union notified Respondent that it (the Union) "was anxious to begin negotiations" and requested an indi- cation by return mail when it would be convenient "for us to meet with you for this purpose." By letter dated November 2, 1951, Respondent advised the Union : After giving this matter careful consideration, the Company respectfully declines under present conditions to grant your request for a conference with you as the chosen bargaining agent of our employees. We are enclos- ing herewith a statement which we are giving our employees? On November 8, 1951, the Union filed the charge herein. Contentions Counsel for the General Counsel contends that the "objections to conduct of the election and to conduct affecting the results of the election and protest against any certification thereunder," filed by Respondent on or about July 16, 1951, "were frivolous and dilatory and were filed to defeat, or at least delay, the Respondent's obligation to bargain with the Union." The undersigned does not ° 96 NLRB 891. The statement enclosed is attached hereto as Appendix I. 722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR" RELATIONS BOARD agree that the objections independently , or when considered with the other evidence in this matter, are "frivolous and dilatory." Furthermore, Respondent in filing its objections and protest followed the agreed -upon and prescribed procedure. In the light of the entire record herein the undersigned believes and finds that the evidence adduced is insufficient to support these contentions of counsel for the General Counsel . Accordingly, the undersigned rejects the further contention of counsel for the General Counsel that Respondent's un- lawful refusal to bargain began on or about July 16, 1951. In substance , Respondent contends that the Board's decision and certification in Case No. 10-RM-77 was erroneous since the Board did not afford Respondent a hearing on its objections and protest against certification . All issues raised by Respondent herein were before the Board and were considered and disposed of by the Board in the representation proceeding. The undersigned deems himself bound by the Board's rulings in the representation proceeding. Conclusions In view of the foregoing and upon the entire record in this case , the under- signed makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. 1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. 2. Textile Workers Union of America , CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. The following employees of Respondent consitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees of Huntsville Manufacturing Com- pany, Huntsville, Alabama, including watchmen and firemen , but excluding guards, clerical employees , time and frequency checkers , employees hired for and employed solely in connection with a specific construction or installation job of limited duration and not a part of the Employer 's regular production or maintenance operations, executives, supervisors with the rank of second hand or higher, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. 4. At all times since on or about October 17 , 1951, the Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, has been the exclusive representative of all employees in the afore-mentioned unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. 5. On or about October 23, 1951, and at all times thereafter , Respondent refused and has continued to refuse to bargain collectively with the Textile Workers Union of America, CIO , as the representative of the employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate. 6. That by the aforesaid refusal to bargain Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5 ) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Since it has been found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac- tices, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act it will be recommended that Respondent take the action hereinafter specified. [Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.] HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 723 Appendix A SEC. 102.61 Election procedure; tally of ballots; objections; certification by regional director; report on challenged ballots; report on objections; exceptions; action of the Board; hearing.-Unless otherwise directed by the Board, all elec- tions shall be conducted under the supervision of the regional director in whose region the proceeding is pending. All elections shall be by secret ballot. When- ever two or more labor organizations are included as choices in an election, either participant may, upon its prompt request to, and approval thereof by, the regional director, whose decision shall be final, have its name removed from the ballot. Any party may be represented by observers of his own selection, subject to such limitations as the regional director may prescribe. Any party and Board agents may challenge, for good cause, the eligibility of any person to participate in the election. The ballqts of such challenged persons shall be impounded. Upon the conclusion of the election, the regional director shall cause to be furnished to the parties a tally of the ballots. Within 5 days after the tally of ballots has been furnished, any party may file with the regional director four copies of objections to the conduct of the election or conduct affecting the results of the election, which shall contain a short statement of the seasons therefor. Such filing must be timely whether or not the challenged ballots are sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. Copies of such objections shall immediately be served upon each of the other parties by the party filing them, and proof of service shall be made. If no objections are filed within the time set forth above, if the challenged ballots are insufficient in number to affect the result of the election, and if no runoff election is to be held pursuant to section 102.62, the regional director shall proceed in the following manner : (a) After an election conducted pursuant to an agreement waiving a hearing and providing for Board determination of the facts ascertained after such election, as contemplated by section 102.54 (b), and after any,election in a case in which a determination of appropriate bargaining unit remains to be made by the Board, the regional director shall forthwith forward to the Board in Washington, D. C., the tally of ballots, which, together with the record previously made, shall constitute the record in the case, and the Board may thereupon decide the matter forthwith upon the record, or may make other disposition of the case. (b) After an election not conducted pursuant to an agreement contemplated by section 102.54 (b), and where no determination of the appropriate bargaining unit remains to be made by the Board, the regional director shall forthwith issue to the parties a certification of the results of the election, including certification of representatives where appropriate, with the same force and effect as if issued by the Board, and the proceeding will thereupon be closed. If objections are filed to the conduct of the election or conduct affecting the results of the election, or if the challenged ballots are sufficient in number to affect the result of the election, the regional director shall investigate such objections, challenges, or both, and shall prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a report on challenged ballots, objections, or both, including his recommendations, which report, together with the tally of the ballots, he shall forward to the Board in Washington, D C. Within 10 days from the date of issuance of the report on challenged ballots, objections, or both, any party may file with the Board in Washington, D. C., seven copies of exceptions to such report. Immediately upon the filing of such exceptions, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties, and shall file a copy with the regional director. Proof of service shall be made to the Board. If no exceptions are filed to . h repoittlie Board, upon the expiration of the period 724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for filing such exceptions, may decide the matter forthwith upon the record, or may make other disposition of the case. The report on challenged ballots may be consolidated with the report on objec- tions-in appropriate cases. If exceptions are filed, either to the report on challenged ballots, objections, or both if it be a consolidated report, and it appears to the Board that such exceptions do not raise substantial and material issues with respect to the conduct or results of the election, the Board may decide the matter forthwith upon the record, or may make other disposition of the case. If it appears to the Board that such exceptions raise substantial and material factual issues, the Board may direct the regional director or other agent of the Board to issue and cause to be served upon the parties, a notice of hearing on said exceptions before a hearing officer. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of section 102.56, 102.57, and 102.58, insofar as applicable. Upon the close of the hearing, the agent conducting the hearing, if directed -by- the Board, shall prepare, and cause to be served upon the parties 'a report resolving questions of credibility, and containing findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board, as to the disposition of the challenges or objections, or both, if it be a consolidated report. The agent conducting the hearing shall forward to the Board in Washington, D. C., the notice of hearing, motions, rulings, orders, stenographic report of the hearing, stipulations, exceptions, documentary evi- dence, all of which, together with the objection to the conduct of the election or conduct affecting the results of the election, the report on such objections, the report on challenged ballots, and exceptions to the report on objections or to the report on challenged ballots, and the record previously made, together with his report, if any, shall constitute the record in the case. In any case in which the Board has directed that a report be prepared and served, any party may within 10 days from the date of issuance of the report on challenged--baHots, objections, or both, file with the Board in Washington, D. C., seven copies of exceptions to such, report. Immediately upon the filing of such exceptions, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties, and shall file a copy with the regional director. Proof of service shall be made to the Board. If no exceptions are filed to such report the Board, upon the expiration of the period for filing such exceptions, may decide the matter forth- with upon the record, or may make other disposition of the case. The Board shall thereupon proceed pursuant to section 102.60. In any such case in which the Board, upon a ruling on challenged ballots, has directed the regional director to open and count such ballots and to issue a revised tally of ballots, and no objection to such revised tally is filed by any party within 3 days after the revised tally of ballots has been furnished, the regional director shall forthwith issue to the parties certification of the results of the election, including certification of representatives where appropriate,,-with the same force and effect as if issued-by the Board. The'proceeding shall there- upon be closed. SEC. 102.62 Runoff election.-(a) The regional director shall conduct a runoff election, without further order of the Board, when an election in which the ballot provided for not less than three choices (i, e., at least two representatives and "neither") results in no choice receiving a majority of the valid ballots cast and no objections are filed as provided in section 102.61. Only one runoff shall be held pursuant to this section. (b) Employees who were eligible to vote in the election and who are employed in an eligible category on the date of the runoff election shall be eligible to vote in the runoff election. HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 725 (c)' The ballot in the runoff election shall, provide for a selection between the two choices receiving the largest and second largest number of votes. (d) In the event the number of votes cast in an inconclusive election in which the ballot provided for a choice among two or more representatives and "neither" or "none" is equally divided among the several choices ; or in the event the number of ballots cast for one choice in such election is equal to the number cast for another of the choices but less than the number cast for the third choice, the regional director shall declare the first election a nullity and shall conduct an- other election, providing for a selection from among the three choices afforded in the'original ballot; and he shall thereafter proceed in accordance with para- graphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section. In the event two or more choices receive the same number of ballots and another choice receives no ballots and there are no challenged ballots that would affect the results of the election, and if all ,eligible voters have cast valid ballots, there shall be no runoff election and the petition shall be dismissed. Only one such further election pursuant to this ,paragraph may be held. (e) Upon the conclusion of the runoff election, the provisions of section 102.61 shall govern, insofar as applicable. Appendix B JULY 12, 1951. HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Huntsville, Alabama. (Attention: Mr. A. D. Elliott, Vice President.) GENTLEMEN : In view of our years of representing the employees in your plant, the vast majority of which remained on strike and participated in the Union's termination thereof, and the result of the recent election, plus the fact that we have an overwhelming majority signed up on current membership cards which were signed since the strike ended, all of which we ask you to accept from us and check in any proper way, there can be no doubt in any person's mind that we represent your employees in a proper unit. We agreed to a speedy and fair election to eliminate any possible or even remote grounds for doubt, and to expedite resumption of collective bargaining. Now, we request that you meet with our representatives at the earliest date you will accept, at any place you name, to discuss and attempt in good faith to work out a collective bargaining agreement, as well as current grievances. You will recall that we had made a contract proposal, that we had arrived at agree- ment on some provisions when you notified you would no longer bargain until an election was held. We suggest that we resume bargaining at that point. We suggest the following dates for a meeting at your office, the hour to be set liy you : Monday, July 16, 1951. Tuesday, July 17, 1951. Wednesday, July 18, 1951. Thursday, July 19, 1951. Friday, July 20, 1951. In the event these dates are not suitable, please name the earliest date which will be suitable, we will accept the hour and place you designate. We urge that there be no delay, and will sincerely appreciate your reply by return mail. 215233-53-47 726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Please address your reply to the writer's office at 323 Frank Nelson Building, Birmingham 3, Alabama. Very truly yours, TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, By Junius R. FRY, State Director. Special Delivery : Return Receipt Requested Registered Mail. Appendix C JULY 16, 1951. TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, 323 Frank Nelson Building, Birmingham 3, Ala. GENTLEMEN : On account of the absence of Mr. Elliott from Huntsville for several days, your letter of July 12 addressed to the Huntsville Manufacturing Company, Attention : Mr. A. D. Elliott, Vice-President, has been referred to me for answer. Previous to the receipt of this letter the Company had decided to question, under the provisions of the law, the facts stated in your letter that the recent election "eliminated any possible or even remote grounds for doubt as to the Union's right to represent its production and maintenance employees as their exclusive bargaining agent" and filed with the Board its objections to the conduct of the election and to conduct affecting the results of the election, and its protest against any certification thereunder. A copy of this paper was mailed to you on Saturday, July 14, and we assume that you have received it. However, thinking that you might desire to have an additional copy, I am enclosing a copy herewith. As soon as these objections have been finally disposed of the Company will be glad to answer further your letter of July 12 above referred to. Yours very truly, (s) Borden Burr, BORDEN BURR, Attorney. Appendix D AuousT 13, 1951. Mr. ROBERT T. GARDNE R, Field Examiner, National Labor Relattons Board, 209 Clark Building, Birmingham, Alabama. Re: Case No. 10-RM-77, Huntsville Manufacturing Company, Objections to Election DEAR MR. GARDNER: Reference is made to your letter of August 2, 1951, and to Mr. Taliaferro's reply of August 9, 1951. I wish to confirm what was said by Mr. Taliaferro in his letter and to give you somewhat more in detail the posi- tion of the Company. The Company in its objections presented three principal matters as bases for its objections, namely • (1) the election was one had by agreement between the parties and you as a representative of the Board, which expressly provided that none of the so-called "displaced employees" should be allowed to vote, and the breach of this agreement, thus, as the Company contends, avoiding the elec- tion; (2) the action of the representatives of the Board in overruling the pro- test and objection of the Company to the service of Union officials as observers for the Union ; and (3) the facts stated as to the character of the ballot box used and the opportunity given for improper use of the ballot box and its contents. HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 727 In all three of these matters you appeared as the chief representative of the Board and while until the present time there has been no dispute on the part of the Union or of representatives of the Board as to the happenings in refer- ence to these matters as set out in the original sworn objections and in the sup- plementary affidavit filed by the writer, the Company remains firm in its position taken from the outset that no participant in the matters upon which the objec- tions are largely based should be allowed to serve as the investigator of the Board concerning them. The position of the Company concerning this is also set out in previous correspondence which is on file with the Regional Director. We do not believe that in justice either to the Company, the Union, the Board, or yourself, the Company should depart in any way from this position. For this and other reasons the Company has no further reply to make to your letter of August 2. Yours very truly, BB:EG cc: National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. Mr. John C. Getreu, Regional Director, National Labor Relations Board, 537 Peachtree-Seventh Building, Atlanta, Ga. BORDEN BURR. Appendix E A review of the above information clearly indicates, in the opinion of the undersigned, that sufficient and substantial efforts were made by the under- signed. and the Board Agent to attempt to have the Employer submit evidence in support of its own Objections to the Election. The request for evidence in support of the Objections were ignored for the reason that the Employer was not pleased with and protested the assignment of the Board Agent who was to conduct the investigation, despite the Employer's failure to submit evidence of, or even an allegation with respect to, any matter in support of the Employer's protest to the assignment, and despite the Employer's specific disclaimer of the casting of any imputation. In view of the Employer's action in this matter, the undersigned attaches no validity to the Objections based upon alleged inter- ference with the election, absent manifest interference, since the objecting party has not taken steps to substantiate its allegations or otherwise assist in the investigation of its Objections. In respect to Item I of the Objections, the Employer's attorney, on July 23, 1951, submitted an affidavit 1t outlining the circumstances leading up to the arrangements for the conduct of this election and the basis upon which the Employer agreed to enter into the Stipulation." (A copy of the affidavit sub- mitted will be found attached hereto, and made a part hereof, designated as Attachment No. 9). The attorney, in his affidavit in substance sets forth that be, along with others, attended a conference on June 25, 1951, and that during 11 The affidavit by reference includes all matters set forth in the Objections upon which the attorney has knowledge. 32 The Union, on April 30, 1951, called a strike and during the strike the Employer commenced operations. The Union, on May 10, 1951, terminated its strike and its memo hers reported for work. The Employer was insistent upon its position that all employees that had been replaced, by newly hired employees, should not be eligible to vote. The Union in the interest of a speedy determination of the question raised by this petition agreed to such demand with the understanding, from the Employer, that such agreement would not in any way prejudice the Union's right to file charges, if necessary, with the Board. 728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD such conference it was agreed that if a consent election could be arrahged that : (1) the new employees hired during the strike would be eligible to vote; and (2) the former employees of the Employer who were not at the time`of the Agreement working for the Employer should not be eligible to vote 13 He points out that, at the time, the Union indicated that it would like to have the dis- placed employees vote under protest and such suggestion was declined by the Employer. Following such declination the Union agreed that only those em- ployees employed as of June 2, 1951 (the eligibility date set forth in the Stipula- tion) would be eligible to vote. In view of such agreement the Employer there- upon agreed to sign and enter into the Stipulation. The attorney states that on the day before the election, at the pre-election conference, he was advised by the Board Agents conducting the election that if any displaced persons appeared at the voting place they would be permitted to vote subject to challenge. The attorney, thereupon, registered a protest and indicated an intention to cancel the election until such time as the Board could determine the eligibility, question as to the displaced persons. After considerable discussion, the attorney received assurances from the Union that no such persons would vote and based upon such assurance, from the Union," lie agreed that the election would be held. However, he then contends that because one such person did appear and was furnished a ballot and permitted to vote's that such :action constituted a violation of the Stipulation and the election therefore should be set aside. The undersigned first became aware of the Employer's and the Union's agree- ment respecting the voting of displaced employees late on the afternoon of June 9, 1951, at which time the'Employer's attorney telephoned the undersigned and outlined the complications raised and of his insistence that the agreement between the Union and the Employer be carried out by the Board. At the time of this conversation the undersigned advised the attorney that the undersigned would conduct the election in conformity, with the terms of the Stipulation and the usual practice and procedures of the Board, i. e., should any displaced em- ployees appear during the course of the election and express a desire to vote that such employee would be given a ballot and be permitted to vote under challenge. The attorney registered considerable objections to this staten.ent on procedure and continued to contend that such action on our part would con- stitute a violation of the Employer's and the Union's agreement. The under- signed pointed out that we would be required to vote persons, appearing at the polls, subject to challenge, until such time as a determination could be made respecting the eligibility of the voter. During the course of the conversation with the attorney, the undersigned advised him that the Employer could withdraw its signature from the Stipula- tion and that the undersigned would then cancel the election pending a hearing before the Board. The undersigned also advised the attorney that if the Employer refused to extend to the Board Agent the voting facilities called for by the terms of the Stipulation that the undersigned would, of necessity, be obliged to withdraw approval of the Stipulation and direct a hearing with respect to 13 There were approximately 160 persons falling within this group and since there ap- peared to be no dispute in relation to their eligibility to vote in the election, prior to the pre-election conference, no special method was utilized by this office to give such employees notice of the election. 14 Emphasis supplied. 'Flt should be noted here that-the ballot of the person was challenged and that such ballot has not been counted as a valid vote cast Further, no ruling respecting the eligi- bility of such person will be made herein for reasons set forth in footnote 3 of this report. However, the person was previously employed by the Employer and had been called back -to work after the eligibility date HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 729 the question concerning representation. In any event the Employer did not with- draw from the election during the course of this conversation or thereafter 16 The election was held as scheduled on July 10, 1951, and in accordance with usual Board practice and procedure. As previously indicated, during its course, the ballot of one displaced employee was accepted and challenged. (See foot- note 15.) Upon review of the above incidents the undersigned is convinced that the Board's usual practices and procedures clearly commanded that the Board Agents would be required to act accordingly, i. e., accepting the ballot of the displaced person under challenge, and by taking such action the Board Agents in no way could have affected the results of the Election. It is clear from the above information that ample opportunity was presented to the Employer to withdraw from the Stipulation prior to the election since the undersigned's position respecting the handling of displaced employees under the Board's challenged ballot procedure was clearly known by the Employer several hours before the election was scheduled to commence. The Employer, however, did not elect to follow such course, but instead chose to continue with the election upon assurance from the Union that no such displaced persons would vote. The undersigned is of the opinion that there exists no duty upon a Board Agent to enforce side agreements of parties to a Consent or Stipulated Election and that our duty is to conduct elections, i. e., Board Ordered, Consent or Stipulated, in conformity with usual Board practice and procedure, which was done and with prior knowl- edge of the parties of the intention of so doing.17 For reasons stated fully herein, the undersigned is of the opinion that the subject matters set forth in the Employer's Objection Item I raises no material or substantial issues with respect to the conduct of this election or conduct affecting the results of the election. In respect to Item II of the Objections. No evidence in support of this Objec- tion was submitted by the Employer other than that which is set forth in the Objections proper. Such statements as contained in the Objections are only speculative in nature and in substance merely allege that there might have been tampering or interference with the ballot box. The undersigned has discussed the subject matter with the Board Agent charged with the conduct of this election. Such discussion revealed that the ballot box used, during the course of the election, was a standard ballot box provided by the Board for use at such occasions. The ballot box was assembled, by the Board Agent, in the presence of the observers of the Employer and the Union. Upon the closing of the polls after the end of the first voting period 18 the box was sealed in the presence of the observers and,the seals thereon were overseribed by both the Employer's and the Union's observers. The ballot box, in conformity with usual Board practice and.procedure, thereupon remained in the full, custody of the Board Agent until time to start the second voting period whereupon it was "The undersigned during the course of this conversation instructed the Board Agent, conducting the election, that unless the Employer agreed to permit the voting to commence as indicated in the Stipulation that the election should not be held. Such Agents were further instructed that no agreement was to be made by them which would , in any way, indicate that challenged ballots would not be accepted from displaced persons during the course of the election 17 Further, there is no evidence which in any way indicates that the Board Agent, in taking the one (1) challenged ballot, gave to other employees the belief that the Board, or the Government, was cooperating with, or backing, the Union and thereby affecting the results of the election is The Stipulation provided for three voting periods on the date of election namely • 1st voting period from 4 : 00 a. m. to 6 : 00 a. m.. 2nd voting period from 7 30 a m. to 10: 30 a. m. 3rd voting period from 3: 00 p. m. to 5: 30 p. m. 730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD examined, before use, by the observers for the Employer and the Union and all agreed that the seals had not been broken nor tampered with. At the close of the election polls at the end of the second voting period, the ballot box was again resealed and overscribed by the Employer's and the Union's observers and such ballot box remained in the custody of the Board Agent until 3: 00 p. in. whereupon it was again examined by observers of the Employer and the Union and all agreed that the seals had not been broken nor tampered with 1° The second ballot box used during the third voting period was also assem- bled before the observers of the Employer and the Union and prepared for use in their presence. Immediately at the closing of the polls at 5:30 p. in. both ballot boxes were opened in the presence of the observers of the Employer and the Union and the ballots counted Y0 The Board Agent advised the undersigned that the Employer offered to him the use of a supposedly tamper proof ballot box. Such offer was declined by the Board Agent since he had available ballot boxes which Board experience has proven both proper and appropriate. A review of the above does not indicate that the ballot box was tampered with in any fashion. Further, the Board Agent's declining to use the ballot box proffered by the Employer does not, in the opinion of the undersigned, indicate that the Board or its representatives were cooperating with the Union in -the manner and method of conducting the election. To the contrary, the Board Agent's action established clearly the intention of the Board to remain neutral by using its own and appropriate facilities to protect the secrecy of the ballots. For reasons stated fully herein, the undersigned is of the opinion that the subject matters set forth in the Employer's objections Item II raises no material or substantial issues with respect to the conduct of this election or conduct affecting the results of the election. - In respect to Item III of the Objections, no evidence in support of this Objection was submitted by the Employer other than that which is set forth in the Objections proper. The undersigned has discussed the subject matter with the Board Agent charged with the conduct of the election. Such discussion revealed that the Employer registered a protest to the use of Union officers or officials as ob- servers and that the Board Agent ruled that the Employer could not designate supervisors as its observers. It is clear that all of the Union's observers were employees of the Employer ; none of them were supervisors ; and all were eligible voters in the election. The undersigned is of the opinion that the Board Agent's ruling in respect to the use of observers was correct and in conformity with usual Board practice and pro- cedure and with the terms of Paragraph 4 of the Stipulation which in part states that "Observers ... selected from among the nonsupervisory employees of the Employer ..." Further, the Board when faced with a similar issue has held that "A fellow employee of the eligible voters does not possess the discipli- nary power of a supervisor, or the ability to intimidate employees, merely be- cause he holds office in the Union that is seeking to be elected as the employees bargaining representative." "The seals on this first ballot box were not broken, at this time, since it was clear that another box would be required in order to complete the third voting period. This sealed box, however, was placed on a table adjacent to the checking table and remained thereon at all times in full view of the observers present in the polling area 20 No objection or irregularity respecting the handling of the ballot box was reported to the Board Agents at any time during or after the election. 21 United States Gypsum Company, 81 NLRB 197. HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 731 • For reasons stated fully herein, the undersigned is of the opinion that the subject matters set forth in the Employer's Objections Item III raises no ma- terial issues with respect to the conduct of this election or conduct affecting the results of the election $ Conclusion and recommendations The undersigned, as indicated hereinabove, is of the opinion that the Objec- tions filed by the Employer raise no substantial or material issues with respect to the conduct of the election or conduct affecting the results of the election and, therefore, recommends to the Board that the said Objections be overruled. Further, the undersigned recommends to the Board that since the Union re- ceived a majority of the valid ballots cast and as the number of challenged ballots are not sufficient to affect the results of the election, that it certify that the Union has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees of the Employer, in the stipulated appropriate unit, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, that the Union is the exclusive rep- resentative of all such employees for purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment z" Signed at Atlanta, Georgia, this 17th day of August, 1951. (s) John C. Getreu, JOHN C. GETREU, Regional Director, Region 10, National Labor Relations Board, 537 Peachhtree-Seventh Building, Atlanta, Georgia. Appendix F AuausT 31, 1951. HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Huntsville, Alabama. (Attention: Mr. A. D. Elliott.) GENTLEMEN : It has been a long time now since an overwhelming majority of your employees elected our Union by secret ballot to represent them for purposes of collective bargaining. Although we know that you have filed certain objections and exceptions to certain alleged conduct affecting the election, we feel that the majority expression by secret ballot leaves no doubt as to the desires of your employees for us to represent them We are therefore again requesting that you meet with us to begin negotiations on a collective bargaining contract. You already- have our proposal and we would like to begin where we left off when you broke off negotiations sometime prior to the last election. We suggest that we meet on either of the following dates, at a time suitable to you, in your offices or some other convenient place in Huntsville, to bargain on the terms of a contract: Wednesday, September 5, 1951. Thursday, September 6, 1951. Friday, September 7. 1951. Monday, September 10, 1951. Tuesday, September 11, 1951. "For reasons fully set forth hereinbefore. the undersigned finds that no evidence of Interference has been submitted by the Employer which in anyway substantiates the bal- anee of the matters contained in Item, III of its Objections. The undersigned , therefore, recommends complete dismissal of such Objections Ry Such recommendation being conditioned upon the Board following the undersigned's recommendations respecting the Employer's Objections. 732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD If none of these dates are satisfactory as a meeting time, please advise as to what dates would meet with your convenience. Very truly yours, JULIUS R. FRY, State Director. Appendix G OCTOBER 19, 1951. Registered Mail Return Receipt Requested. HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Huntsville, Alabama. (Attention : Mr. A. D. Elliott.) GENTLEMEN : Since the National Labor Relations Board has again certified Tex- tile Workers Union of America as exclusive bargaining agent for your employees, we are again requesting that you meet with representatives of the Union and a Committee of your employees to bargain out a contract governing our relationship. You will recall that we were in negotiations and had already agreed upon several clauses of the Union's contract proposal when your Company raised the question of representation. We would like to begin where we left off. Inasmuch as our previous proposals to you were in several different documents, we have prepared one single document including them all in combined form. Two copies of our proposal are enclosed. These proposals include most of the negotiated changes which were agreed upon in our original proposal to the Company. We suggest the following dates for a meeting in your office in Huntsville, the hour to be set by you : Monday, October 22. Tuesday, October 23. Wednesday, October 24. Thursday, October 25. Friday, October 26. In the event these dates are not acceptable, please suggest the earliest date which will be. We will accept the hour you suggest. We urge that there be no delay, and will sincerely appreciate your reply by return mail. Very truly yours, JULIUS R. FRY, State Director. Appendix H NOVEMBER 1, 1951. HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Huntsville, Alabama. (Attention : Mr. A. D. Elliott.) GENTLEMEN : It has been several days since we communicated with you with respect to our several requests for a meeting to begin contract negotiations and we were advised you must take the matter up with the officials of your parent company before indicating your position. Since we are extremely anxious to begin negotiations in order that a collective bargaining contract for your employees may be arrived at as soon as possible, may we again urge that you indicate to us by return mail when it will be con- venient for us to meet with you for this purpose. As previously indicated, we will be glad to meet with you most any time, allowing sufficient time for the writer to travel from Birmingham to Huntsville. HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 733 We will appreciate it if you will advise on this matter by return mail. We would particularly like to begin negotiations within the next day or two, at a time suggested by you. Very truly yours, JULIUS R. FRY, State Director. Appendix I 2 NOVEMBER 1951. HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Huntsville, Alabama. DEAR' FELLOW EMPLOYEE: Management has been informed that statements are being made to some of our employees that due to a recent order of the National Labor Relations Board the Textile Workers Union will be recognized us the exclusive bargaining agent of all of our employees and that the employees will be required or forced to become members of the Union. To keep you fully informed, I would like to tell you : 1. That no employee of the Company has been or will be required to either join or not to join the Union. This is a matter of your own decision and you can join or not join without having any fear that the Company will interfere with or penalize you for your choice. IT IS UP TO YOU AND YOU ALONE AS TO WHETHER YOU BELONG OR DO NOT BELONG TO THE UNION. .2- That the Company, after giving the matter most careful consideration and after having advised with counsel, has decided that it will not, under present conditions, recognize the Union and negotiate with it as the exclusive representative of its employees. In explanation of this decision I want as briefly as I can to state some of the facts which impel us to make this decision. A. For-several years previous to March 15, 1951-we negotiated and operated under a contract made with the Union as your exclusive bargaining agent. While we were engaged in an effort to negotiate a new contract the leaders of the Union broke off negotiations and without any just cause struck our plant and closed it down on April 1, 1951. Being desirous of avoiding any trouble, we made no effort (aside from keeping the gates open for a few days) to operate the plant until large numbers of our employees requested us to do so. Following these requests we gave notice to all of our employees that the mill would be reopened for operation on the 30th day of April, 1951, requested and urged them to return to work, and advised them that their same jobs would he open to them under the same wages (plus an increase in wages of 2% previously offered and refused by the Union), hours and working conditions as had existed before the strike. The mill reopened on the day set with a small force which increased from (lay to day until we had normal operation. In accordance with notice given, all employees who returned to work returned to their old jobs and approximately 250 new employees were employed to take the place of the old employees who did not apply for their jobs but remained on strike. li On or about the 8th day of May, 1951 the Union called off its strike and notified its members to return to work The Union and the employees were again advised that in accordance with its promise the Company would retain in its employment the new employees who were efficient workers and had given satisfaction in their work Since that time until now the Company has carried out all of its promises to all of its employees both old and new, and at the present time of its former employees who struck and did not accept employment when offered them only about eighty remain. C. As soon as the plant went back into operation the Company received and continues to receive written and telephone statements from employees that they 734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD did not wish the Union to continue to represent them or did not wish the Union dues to be checked from their wages. On the 1st (lay of June, 1951, in the hope that this question could be settled the Company filed with the National Labor Relations Board its request for an election. The agreement, among other things provided that eligible voters in the election should be the old and new employees whose names appeared on the Company's payroll of the 2nd day of June, 1951, and that none of the displaced employees should be allowed to vote. The repre- sentative of the Board with whom the agreement was made and who conducted the election allowed a displaced person to vote and in accordance with informa- tion which we received, the election which resulted in favor of the Union was not conducted in accordance with the agreement and did not represent a free and fair expression of the wishes of the employees. Receiving information to this effect from a number of our employees and being convinced that the consent agreement for the election had not been carried out by the Board, the Company filed exceptions to the election Acting on our belief and on information re- ceived from some of you, exceptions were taken to : 1. Permitting, against the Company's objections, Union officials to act as election observers'; ' ' 2. Permitting a displaced person to vote after the Company had been assured that none of these persons would appear at the polls ; 3. Failure to properly protect ballot boxes while the polls were closed. The Board appointed as the person to investigate the exceptions the same representative of the Board who had conducted the election, and the Regional Director, on the 17th day of August, 1951, overruled the exceptions and upheld the election largely on the report made by this same representative. The Com- pany carried its exceptions to the Board in Washington and this Board on the 17th day of October, 1951, overruled the exceptions without making any further investigation and certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees. On the 19th of October, 1951, the Union sent "unfair labor charges" to the National Labor Relations Board against the Company based upon the acts of the Company in not reemploying some of its former employees who did not return to work when given the opportunity to do so and who remained on strike, and. whose jobs had been filled by old or new employees. The Company in answer to these charges except to claim and prove that the promises which it made to our present employees to keep them on their jobs were made legally, justly, and in good faith, and it expects to uphold and maintain these promises and to protect the jobs of our present employees. For these and other reasons the Company acting in the interest of its employees and in its own interest, will not recognize the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent of its employees until and unless it has been legally determined that it has been chosen by a majority of the production and maintenance employees as their exclusive bargaining agency. In the meantime the Company will continue, as long as business justifies it, to operate its plant in full keeping with its promises to its employees, and requests the cooperation of all employees. It assures each employee of continued fair treatment. If any employee or group of employees has any grievances, it invites and urges them to present them in accordance with the machinery which has been previously set up and of which you have been advised. Such grievances as are presented will be handled in accordance with these provisions, including arbitration as provided for. Dated this 2nd day of November, 1951. HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, (s) A. D. ELLIOTT, Vice-President. HART'S FOOD STORES, INC. Appendix J NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES 735 Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT engage in any acts in any manner interfering with the efforts of TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, to negotiate for or represent the employees in the bargaining unit described below. WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with the above-named union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is : All our production and maintenance employees, including watchmen and firemen, but excluding guards, clerical employees, time and fre- quency checkers, employees hired for and employed solely in connection with a specific construction or installation job of limited duration and not a. part of the employer's regular production or maintenance opera- tions, executives, supervisors with the rank of second hand or higher, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. HUNTSVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Employer. By --------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) Dated ----------------- This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. HARTS FOOD STORES , INC. and LOCAL 95, AMALGAMATED MEATCUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 3-RC-925. June 13, 1952 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John Weld, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 99 NLRB No. 109.