Perry County Plywood Corp.

664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD PERRY COUNTY PLYWOOD CORPORATION and UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 15-RC-793. June 19, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent elec- tion, an election by secret ballot was conducted on September 3, 1952, in the above-entitled proceeding, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region of the National Labor Relations Board. Thereafter, a tally of ballots was furnished to the parties which showed that of 115 ballots cast, 56 were for the Petitioner, 58 against the Petitioner, and 1 was challenged. On September 8, 1952, the Petitioner filed objections to the election. After investigation of the aforesaid objections, the Acting Regional Director issued his report on objections on November 14, 1952. In his report, the Acting Regional Director found that certain conduct of a supervisor of the Employer raised substantial and material issues with respect to the conduct of the election, and recommended that the election be set aside. On November 22, 1952, the Employer filed exceptions to the report. Thereafter, on December 15, 1952, the Board issued an order directing a hearing on the issues raised by the Employer's exceptions, and remanded the case to the Regional Director for the purpose of conducting the hearing. The hearing was held on March 20 and 21, 1953, before Victor H. Hess, Jr., hearing officer. All the parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses , and to adduce evi- dence bearing on the issues. On April 23, 1953, the hearing officer issued his report on objections. The Employer filed exceptions to this report. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board' makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. A question affecting commerce exists 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. 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees employed by the Employer at its Beaumont, Mississippi, plant, excluding the woods crew, office and plant clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. IPursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers m connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Murdock, Styles, and Peterson]. 105 NLRB No. 102. PERRY COUNTY PLYWOOD CORPORATION 665 5. The hearing officer found , and we agree , that McNeese was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and that the Employer was responsible for McNeese ' s conduct. The hearing officer further found that a few days before the September 3; 1952, election , McNeese told employee Rayburn that he had seen Rayburn's name signed on a "card" shown to him (McNeese ) by one of the employees , and that he had also seen cards signed by three other employees ( Prentiss , Elder, and Tingle ); and that thereupon Rayburn denied signing the card and attempted without success to get McNeese to tell him who had the card . On these facts , the hearing officer concluded that McNeese was trying to find out if Rayburn and other employees were in favor of the Petitioner or had signed cards for the Petitioner . Although the testimony did not specifically describe the cards as "union cards ," we agree with the hearing officer's conclusion that such inference was warranted by the tenor of the conversation , Rayburn's denial that he had signed and his request that he be confronted with the person who, according to McNeese , had the card , the closeness in point of time of this incident to the election , the fact that the union campaign was then in progress , and the lack of explanation or denial by McNeese as to this incident. The hearing officer also found that on the morning of the election , McNeese initiated a conversation about the Unionwith employees Rayburn , Prentiss , Elder , and Tingle by asking them why they did not form a union among themselves and then go see Plant Owner Toussaint about a raise; ? that McNeese told them that Toussaint would give the employees a raise under these conditions ; that McNeese also told them that if the Union won, Toussaint would or could shut down the plant, and that if the Union came in the men could not work on other jobs in the plant, and , as a consequence, would lose time and money. On the basis of the foregoing undisputed testimony , which the hearing officer credited , we conclude, as did the hearing officer, that the Employer by such conduct, had engaged in interference , restraint , and coercion of its employees in the exercise of their free choice of a bargaining representative, and shall order that the election of September 3, 1952, be set aside. We shall direct the Regional Director to conduct a new election at such time as he deems appropriate. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election of September 3, 1952, be, and it hereby is, set aside. and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded to the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard for the purpose of conducting anew election at such time as he deems the circumstances permit a free choice of a bargaining representative. 2 Unlike the hearing officer, we find it unnecessary to, and do not, decide whether the state- ment suggesting the formation of a labor organization, herein described, violated Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.