Gastonia Combed Yarn Corp.

GASTONIA COMBED YARN CORPORATION 585 GASTONIA COMBED YARN CORPORATION AND THREAD AND PROCESSING DEPARTMENTS OF JEWEL COTTON MILLS, INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 11-RC-590. July 09,1954 Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board on March 11, 1954,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on April 7, 1954, under the supervision of the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, among the employees in the unit found appro- priate by the Board. Following the election a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows that of approximately 743 eligible voters, 700 cast ballots, of which 394 were for the Petitioner, 59 were for the Intervenor, 238 were against both participating labor organizations, 6 were challenged, and 3 were void. On April 14, 1954, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investi- gation. On May 25, 1954, he issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections, finding the objections to be without merit and recommending that they be overruled. The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's Report. The Board has reviewed the Employer's objections to the conduct of the election, the Regional Director's report, the exceptions thereto, and the entire record in this proceeding. For reasons hereinafter stated, we find the Employer's objections and exceptions to be without merit. In substance, the Employer's objections allege the following : (1) The Petitioner's agents violated the "no electioneering" limits estab- lished by the Board's agent, and (2) prior to the election, agents of the Petitioner made threatening statements to the Employer's employees. Objection 1: The Regional Director reported that at a preelection conference the Board agent in charge of the election set "no election- eering" limits, the prime purpose of which was to prevent electioneer- ing by any of the parties among the employees when they walked from their place of employment to the polling place.2 The Regional Director's investigation revealed that prior to the election, the Petitioner announced at one of its meetings that any voter in need of transportation on the day of the election could obtain 1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders 2 The polling place was the office of another company located across the street from the Employer ' s personnel office. As the eligible voters worked in three different plants, ar- rangements were made to notify and release the voters by a team of observers. 109 NLRB No. 87. 586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a ride by telephoning the Petitioner's office. In connection with this offer, the Petitioner provided transportation to two employees, God- frey and Bridgman.' They were driven to a street corner near the polling place by Lynch, one of the Petitioner's organizers. Also in the car was Bell, a former employee of the Employer. Godfrey, Bridgman, and Bell got out of the car and walked to the polling place, but only Godfrey and Bridgman entered the polling place. There was no conversation from the time they left the car until they entered the polling place. The Regional Director's investigation did not sup- port the Employer's contention that Bell is an agent of the Peti- tioner, whose presence in the prohibited area violated the "no elec- tioneering" rule. The investigation revealed that while working for the Employer, Bell had been an active adherent of the Petitioner. Since that time he moved to a town about 10 miles from Gastonia, and when in Gastonia visits at the Petitioner's office. The Regional Director found that Bell was not an agent of the Petitioner. The Employer's exceptions take issue with the Regional Director's factual findings. The Employer contends that contrary to the Re- gional Director's findings, the Petitioner's agents violated the "no electioneering" limits by driving voters up to the door of the voting place in full view of the voters, observers, and Board agents. The Employer further contends that it notified the Board agents of these violations, but the practice continued. The Employer's exceptions specifically deny the correctness of the Regional Director's finding that in no instance did any of the Petitioner's representatives enter the "no electioneering" area during the time the polls were open. The Employer also specifically excepts to the Regional Director's find- ing that Bell was not an agent of the Petitioner. It contends that the Petitioner permitted Bell to be its spokesman, and that no limitation was ever communicated to the Employer with respect to Bell's appar- ent authority to speak and act for the Petitioner. The Employer's ex- ceptions, however, do not advert to any specific evidence which con- troverts the Regional Director's conclusions as to Bell's agency rela- tionship with the Petitioner. The Employer submitted evidence to show that during the after- noon voting period, its attorney and personnel director observed a Riviera type Buick automobile drive up to the polling place on sev- eral occasions, and each time discharged passengers who went into the polling place. The Regional Director states that the driver of this car was not identified. The Regional Director's investigation showed that shortly after the polls opened for the afternoon voting, the Em- 3 The Petitioner also provided transportation to another employee who is not identified in the report. GASTONIA COMBED YARN CORPORATION 587 ployer's attorney telephoned the Board agent in charge at the polling place and informed him that the Petitioner's representatives were driving voters right up to the door of the polling place, and that he considered this action a violation of the "no electioneering" rule. The Board agent immediately , and at frequent intervals thereafter, checked the "no electioneering" area, but saw nothing to confirm the information he had received. In its exceptions, the Employer contends that these activities were conducted by an agent of the Petitioner. The Employer also alleges that no effort was made to check to see if the Petitioner was violating the "no electioneering" rule. In support of this allegation , it contends that the Board agent told the Employer 's attorney that he "could not police the electioneering limits." It further contends that its attorney and personnel director watched the polling area after reporting the alleged violations to the Board agent , and did not see either of the Board agents outside the polling place. We find it unnecessary in this case to determine whether or not any of the Petitioner's representatives did, in fact, drive employees up to the polling place. The Board has held that the mere presence of union representatives at or near the polling place, without any proof of electioneering or other improper conduct , is not prejudicial and insuf- ficient grounds for setting aside an election' The Board has also held that transporting voters to the polls is not objectionable , unless accompanied by other conduct clearly prejudicial to the freedom of the employees to choose their bargaining representative by secret bal- lot." As the Employer's exceptions do not advert to any evidence which indicates that there was any electioneering or other improper conduct on the part of the Petitioner 's representatives at the polling place, we do not believe that this objection raises any substantial issue with respect to the conduct of the election. Objection 2: The Regional Director's investigation revealed that approximately 2 weeks before the date of the election 2 employees, Smith and Robinson , were distributing literature for the Intervenor in front of 1 of the Employer's plants. At the same time Freeman, one of the Petitioner's organizers, was distributing literature for the Petitioner a few feet from the two employees . During the course of the distribution, Freeman asked Smith if she was not ashamed to Fruehauf Trailer Company, 106 NLRB 182 ; Darling Retail Shops Corp , 102 NLRB 464, 465; Moyer & Pratt, Inc., 100 NLRB 1147 ; Southwestern Electric Service Company, 90 NLRB 457, 458-459; Cities Service Ozl Co. of Pennsylvania (Marine Division), 87 NLRB 324, 330 ; Mutual Distributing Company, 83 NLRB 463, 464 ; Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation, 80 NLRB 1239. 6 Reidbord Bros Co , 99 NLRB 127, 130; Hoague-Sprague Corporation, 80 NLRB 1699, 1701 Cf Gong Bell Manufacturing Co, 108 NLRB 1314; Federal Silk Mills, 107 NLRB 876. 588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS POARD hand out AFL leaflets. After a brief discussion on this point, Free- man told Smith that she might as well join the Petitioner, that she would have to sooner or later or she would be looking for another job. After a brief argument, Smith and Robinson left. About a week later, Smith related the incident to her foreman and asked whether it would be possible for the Petitioner to get her discharged if it was suc- cessful in the forthcoming election. Her foreman laughed and ad- vised her not to pay any attention to it. The Regional Director found that this allegation did not raise substantial and material issues, and recommended that it be overruled. The Employer generally excepts to the Regional Director's find- ings of fact and conclusion of law as to this objection. The Employer, however, does not specify the grounds for its exception. We believe that this single coercive remark, made about 2 weeks before the election, is too isolated in nature to constitute substantial interference and thus warrant setting aside an election involving some 700 employees.' Under all the circumstances, we agree with the Regional Director's conclusion that the facts revealed by the entire investigation do not raise substantial or material issues respecting the outcome of the elec- tion so as to warrant setting it aside. Accordingly, no useful purpose would be served by holding a hearing on the objections, as the Em- ployer requests.7 The Employer's objections to conduct allegedly affecting the results of the election are therefore overruled. As the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified the Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the employ- ees of Gastonia Combed Yarn Corporation and Thread and Process- ing Departments of Jewel Cotton Mills, Inc., Gastonia, North Caro- lina, in the unit heretofore found appropriate.] MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives. 6 Morganton Full Fashioned Hosiery Company, Huffman Full Fashioned Hosiery Mills, Inc., 107 NLRB 1534; General Motors Coiporation, Central Foundry Division, 107 NLRB 1096 ; Poinsett Lumber and Manufacturing Company, 107 NLRB 234; E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Inc , Construction Division, Savannah River Plant, 105 NLRB 710. 7 Contrary to the Employer's assertion , the Board 's Rules and Regulations do not require that the Board order a hearing whenever there is conflicting evidence Section 102 61 of the Board 's Rules and Regulations provides that the Board "may decide the matter forth- with upon the record, or may make other disposition of the case ." Continuing, it states that the Board "may" direct a hearing if the exceptions appear to raise substantial and material issues