Moscow Idaho Seed Co., Inc.

MOSCOW IDAHO SEED COMPANY, INC. 107 by certain conduct, more specifically referred to hereinafter, the Employer had interfered with the employees' free choice of a bargaining representative in the election of May 9, 1953. He therefore recommended that the election be set aside. The Employer has excepted to the hearing officer's credibility findings and recommendations. Based upon the entire record in the case, 1 the Board makes the following findings. The hearing officer found (1) that Plant Engineer Halloway told employee Wagner, on May 1, 1953, that the Chicopee Manufacturing Company could not pay the same wage scales as the Petitioner had obtained at Personal Products Company, also a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson Corporation, and that "if the union won, they would be forced to move the plant;" and (2) that Shift 'Foreman Oliveira, in conversations with employee Baker, stated that the Employer "could move the plant if they so desired." Assuming that these statements were in fact made, we find that they do not warrant setting aside the election. We view these statements, under the cir- cumstances, as nothing more than predictions of the possible impact of wage demands upon the Employer's business. A prophecy that unionization might ultimately lead to loss of employment is not coercive where there is no threat that the Employer will use its economic power to make its prophecy come true.2 In view of the above findings, we hereby overrule the Petitioner's objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. As the Petitioner failed to secure a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify the results of the election. [The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not cast for Textile Workers Union of America (CIO) and that the said labor organization is not the exclusive representative of the employees of the Employer in the unit stipulated to be appropriate.] 1 The Employer's request for oral argument in support of its exceptions to the hearing officer's report on objections is hereby denied, because the record, report, briefs, and exceptions adequately present the positions of the parties. 2See Mylan-Sparta Company, Inc., 78 NLRB 1144; Electric Steel Foundry, 74 NLRB 129. MOSCOW IDAHO SEED COMPANY, INC. and JOE ADRIANSEN, Petitioner and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 551. Case No. 19-RD-66. November 18, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before E. R. Ormsbee, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made 107 NLRB No. 35. 108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Petitioners , employees of the Employer, assert that the Union is no longer the representative , as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act , of the employees designated in the petition. The Union is the currently recognized representative of the Employer's employees in a unit which included the employees designated in the petition. 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 appropriate unit: Petitioner claims that certain employees of the Employer's plant, alone , constitute an appropriate unit . The Union moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the only appropriate unit is a multiemployer unit based on an 8-year history of collective bargaining between the Union and an Association of employers, including this Employer. Following a notice by the Union reopening the latest contract , the employees notified the Employer that they no longer desired to have the Union represent them and instructed the Employer to enter into no contract with the Union . Thereupon , the Employer, at the request of its employees , notified the Association, that in accordance with the wishes of its employees, it no longer considered itself a member of the bargaining unit and desired not to be included in the multiemployer negotiations. The evidence indicates that the Employer has apparently, for purposes other than bargaining , retained its membership in the Association and has withdrawn from multiemployer negotiations solely at the suggestion and to satisfy the desires of its employees. The Employer has, nevertheless , indicated by its affirmative action an intent to abandon group bargaining and to pursue instead an individual course of action with respect to its labor relations. Accordingly , for reasons set forth in the case of Bearing & Rim Supply Co. 107 NLRB No. 101 we find that a single employer unit is appropriate and therefore deny the Union' s motion to dismiss. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All employees of the Employer employed at its warehouse and seed -processing plant at Moscow, Idaho, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees , guards , and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Member Murdock , dissenting: I cannot agree with the majority ' s conclusion in this case that the facts establish an unequivocal intent by the Employer CHALET, INC. 109 to abandon group bargaining. Accordingly, fQr the reasons stated in my dissent in Bearing & Rim Supply Co. 107 NLRB 101, 1 would dismiss the petition. CHALET, INC. and INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL, CUTTERS LOCAL NO. 387. Case No. 16-CA-596. November 19, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On July 21, 1953, Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the intermediate Report attached hereto. There- after, the General Counsel, the Union, and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report; the General Counsel and the Union filed supporting briefs. 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 Intermediate Report, the General Counsel's, the Union's, and the Respondent's exceptions, and the General Counsel's and the Union's supporting briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] Intermediate Report and Recommended Order STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge duly filed by International Ladies` Garment Workers' Union, AFL, Cutters Local No. 387, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of he National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas), issued his complaint on May 15, 1953, against the Respondent, Chalet. Inc., alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the parties. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as enlarged by several amend- ments made during the hearing, alleges in substance that: (1) Although requested to do so, since January 13, 1953, the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate unit, in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act; (2) by reason of such refusal and by other conduct described in the complaint, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act; (3) a strike by employees of Respondent, which was begun on January 14, 1953, was caused by the unfair labor practices of the Respondent; and (4) by refusing to reinstate the striking employees following their offer to return to work made on May 29, 1953, the Respondent has discriminated against these employees, in viola- tion of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. The Respondent denied the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. 107 NLRB No. 42. 337593 0 - 55 - 9