Frank Smith & Sons

144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I particularly find it difficult to understand my colleagues' reiterated conclusion that such housing has no substantial effect on the national defense in view of the liberality with which they have applied the new Maytag standard in other areas. Thus in Hospital Hato Tejas, 111 NLRB 155, they applied the Maytag standard to assert jurisdiction over a private, for-profit hospital in Puerto Rico, finding that because it treated veterans under a contract with the Veterans Administration, its operations were "directly related to the national defense." I The Board having held (and I agree) that the treatment of veterans of past wars should be considered an activity "directly related to the na- tional defense," I would think that a fortiori the provision of necessary housing to active military personnel at important military installa- tions would be deemed "directly related to the national defense." In. any event, I believe that the Armed Services and the Congress have clearly established their judgment that such activity is so related to the national defense and I propose to respect that judgment. Accordingly, I would assert jurisdiction herein on either or both the direct outflow standard or the national defense standard. MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above De- cision and Order. °I found it unnecessary to consider that question as I concurred in the assertion of jurisdiction in accordance with the rule of plenary jurisdiction in the Territories. Frank H. Smith, Claude L. Smith , Frank B. Smith, Howard P.. Smith, Morris M. Smith, and Billy J. Smith, d/b/a Frank Smith & Sons and Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 16-RC-1506. April 13, 1955 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on February 11, 1955, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region,. among the employees in the unit found appropriate in the above- mentioned Decision. Thereafter, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties showing that, out of 81 voters casting valid ballots, 45 voted for the Petitioner, 35 voted against the Petitioner, and 1 cast a challenged ballot. On February 17, 1955, the Employer filed objections to the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation of the Employer's objections and,. 1 111 NLRB 241. 112 NLRB No. 29. FRANK SMITH & SONS 145 on March 1, 1955, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections, in which he found that the objections raised no material and substantial issues with respect to the election and recommended that the objections be overruled. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the report on objections. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : In its objections, the Employer alleges that, during May and June 1954 and at various times since, the Petitioner obtained from em- ployees signatures on authorization cards which contained a pledge to vote for the Petitioner in the event that a Board election was con- ducted. The Employer argues therefrom that, as the Petitioner did not at any time release employees from the pledge, they were unable to make a free uncoerced choice in the election. The Regional Direc- tor found that, as the Employer did not submit any evidence that such cards were solicited after the date of the Decision and Direction of Election herein, the alleged conduct should not be considered on its merits under the F. V. Woolrworth Company case,' and recommended that the objections be overruled. In its exceptions, the Employer alleges that investigation would reveal that sigiatures to such cards were obtained up to within a few hours before the election and that, at any rate, unlike the conduct in the Woolworth case, the pledges ob- tained prior to the date of the Decision and Direction of Election con- tinue in their effect up to and including the date of the election. The Employer renews its contention that the use of such cards constitutes interference with the free election process. Assuming that the cards containing the pledge were solicited up to the time of the election, we find no merit in the Employer's objections. There is no contention that any coercion or illegal means were em- ployed in obtaining signatures to these cards. Nor is there any basis for concluding, as the Employer urges, that the signatories to the cards weie irrevocably committed to vote for the Petitioner.' Indeed, the freedom of the employees to vote according to their own desires was fully protected by the secret ballot in the Board election. We conclude, therefore, that the solicitation of the pledges herein was a permissible campaign tactic. Accordingly, as there were no other ob- jections, we will adopt the Regional Director's recommendations that the objections be overruled and will certify the Petitioner as the col- lective-bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.' [The Board certified Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Work- men of North America, AFL, as the designated collective-bargaining 2 109 NLRB 1446 3 Under the Act, whenever a question of representation is found to exist, the only means provided for resolving the question is a Board election , and pledge cards such as those here involved cannot be substituted for the election. 4 The challenged ballot does not affect the results of the election 146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate in the Decision and Direction of Election herein.] MEMBER LEEnoM took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives. Coats & Clark, Inc. (Acworth Plant ) and Textile Workers Union of America, CIO. Case No. 10-CA-1941. April 14, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER On September 10, 1954, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon 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 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. 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 brief, and the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recoinnlenda- tions of the Trial Examiner with the following addition.' We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Walker Glover. The Respondent con- tends that it discharged Glover because it had received numerous com- plaints concerning his frequent and inordinately long absences from his place of work, and because on the day of his discharge he disre- garded his instructions to stay on a specifically assigned job until it was completed. The record shows that Glover, a twister cleaner, had been a "pretty good hand," and that the Respondent had made no complaints about his work for a period of 6 years. Then, on August 20, 1953, he signed a union card and became active in the organization of the Respond- ent's employees. The Respondent knew of and disapproved Glover's union activities,2 and, significantly, its appraisal of him and his work performance began to deteriorate simultaneously with this knowledge. Furthermore, in the period that followed, it unlawfully interrogated Glover on 2 occasions, and on 5 other occasions, it either threatened I The Tiial Examiner incorrectly repotted that Dir . and Mrs Glover attended a u nion meeting on October 17, 1954 The co rest date is October 17, 1953 2 Although the Respondent denied knowledge of Glover 's union activities its witnesses admitted that they knew in August 1953, that Glover was talking to other employees about the Union. In November 1933, the Respondent 's second shift overseer told an employee that the union o•ganizen was not going to do his work for him, and if lie was lined up with the Glovers, "to hell" with him. 112 NLRB No. 27.