Crompton-Shenandoah Co., Inc.

694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed employees by the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local 597 , Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employees , thereby dis- couraging membership in the above -named labor organization , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 3. All employees of the Respondent including drivers, warehousemen , checkers, and ticket girls at its two Burlington plants, exclusive of office clerical employees, guards, professional employees , and all supervisors as defined in the Act , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 4. On June 9, 1961, and at all times since that date , the above-named labor organization has been and now is the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the above -described unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of employment , and other terms and conditions of employment, by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 5. By refusing on June 9, 1961 , and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the aforesaid labor organization , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a),(5) of the Act. 6. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of Tights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean- ingof Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.) Crompton-Shenandoah Company, Inc. and District 50, United Mine Workers of America and Fibre Workers Associated, Party to the Contract. Case No. 5-CA-1951. January 30, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER Upon an unfair labor practice charge filed on June 28, 1961, by District 50, United Mine Workers of America, herein called District 50, against Crompton-Shenandoah Company, Inc., herein called Re- spondent, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region issued a complaint dated August 23, 1961, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the complaint, charge, and notice of hearing were served upon the Respondent and the Charging Party. On August 25, 1961, the Respondent filed both an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and a motion for a more particular statement with respect to certain allegations of the complaint. On August 28, 1961, the General Counsel filed a bill of particulars. 135 NLRB No. 79. CROMPTON-SHENANDOAH COMPANY, INC. 695 On various dates between November 2 and 13, 1961, the General Counsel, the Respondent, District 50, and Fibre Workers Associated signed a stipulation by which they waived a hearing before a Trial Examiner and the issuance of an Intermediate Report and Recom- mended Order, and agreed that the Board should make findings of fact and conclusions of law on the basis of the facts contained in the entire record as set out in the stipulation. On November 16, 1961, the Board approved the stipulation and transferred the case to, and continued it before, the Board. There- after, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed briefs. Upon the basis of the stipulation and the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is a Virginia corporation engaged in textile manufac- turing at its principal place of business in Waynesboro, Virginia. During the 12-month period preceding the stipulation agreement, the Respondent shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside the State of Virginia. During the same period, the Respond- ent received shipments valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of Virginia. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and we find that the Re- spondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED District 50, and Fibre Workers Associated, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE Since 1943, the Respondent's employees had been represented by an employees' committee under a series of 1-year collective-bargaining agreements which provided, inter alia, that in October of each year the employees covered by the contract would vote on whether to extend the contract for another year or to open the contract for negotiations. In October 1960 the employees voted to open the contract and negotia- tions began. After an extended period of unsuccessful bargaining, the employees' committee, in February 1961, decided to become a more formal organization and to that end employed Wallace R. Heatwole as its counsel. Fibre Workers Associated was formally established on May 26, 1961, and shortly thereafter requested recognition from the Respondent. The Respondent declined to do so unless it could establish that it represented a majority of the Respondent's employees. On or about May 1, District 50 began an organizational campaign 696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD among the Respondent's employees. Prior to May 23, the Respondent indirectly became aware of this organizational effort. Early in June, Heatwole asked Respondent for a list of the names and addresses of the employees in the bargaining unit. Such a list was prepared by Respondent from its addressograph plates and was given to Heatwole. A few days later, Heatwole contacted Mr. Austin, vice president of Respondent, and asked if he might borrow the 'addressograph plates to use in addressing letters to the plant em- ployees since he was short of secretarial help and it would be neces- sary to have a stenographer address each envelope individually from the list already supplied if the plates could not be made available. Austin would not permit the plates to be taken from Respondent's office, but he did agree that envelopes to be supplied by Heatwole could be run through the addressograph machine. Heatwole then delivered a sufficient quantity of prestamped envelopes to Respondent. These were imprinted with the names and addresses of the employees by running them through the addressograph machine and they were then returned to Heatwole. The following material was then inserted in the envelopes in Heatwole's office : A letter from Fibre Workers Associated soliciting authorizations for representation, an authoriza- tion card, and a prepaid return envelope addressed to Fibre Workers Associated post office box. The stipulation states that the Respondent was not told at the time the letters were addressed what the enclosures were to be. A majority of the employees in the unit returned signed authoriza- tion cards, and after Respondent verified the signatures, it volun- tarily agreed to recognize Fibre Workers Associated as the bargaining representative of its employees. The parties bargained thereafter, reached agreement, and signed a contract on August 1, 1961. As clarified by the bill of particulars, the complaint alleges that the Employer, in violation of Section 8(a) (2), interfered with the forma- tion or administration of Fibre Workers Associated and contributed financial support to it by furnishing it with a list of the names and addresses of the employees, and by subsequently permitting a union representative to use the Employer's premises and facilities to address and post literature to the employees in which they were urged to sign designation cards and/or to join Fibre Workers Associated. The complaint also alleges a violation of Section 8(a) (2) in that Respond- ent executed and is maintaining the collective-bargaining agreement dated August 1, 1961, with Fibre Workers Associated. We do not believe Respondent has committed any violation of the Act by any of the foregoing conduct. A violation in this case would have to be based solely on the Respondent's supplying the list of em- CROMPTON-SHENANDOAH COMPANY, INC. 697 ployees and the use of its addressograph machine and plates in the context of the circumstances present here. Nothing in the stipulation suggests that any other union made and was denied similar requests or that the Respondent discriminated in favor of one labor organiza- tion as against another. The mere fact that District 50 may also have been attempting to organize the same employees in its own fashion does not in itself justify an inference that Respondent was opposed to its organizational efforts or that it was determined to favor Fibre Workers Associated. Respondent's only contribution, financial or otherwise, was supplying Fibre Workers Associated with a list of the names and addresses of its employees and the one-time use of its addressograph machine and plates. The envelopes and postage were supplied by Fibre Workers Associated, and the additional effort and expense incurred in the mailing were borne by it without the assistance of Respondent. It appears to us that the acts alleged to constitute illegal inter- ference were trivial and isolated. If these instances of clerical aid had occurred in a context of other forms of assistance revealing an intent to aid Fibre Workers Associated in its quest for recognition, or to dis- criminate against another labor organization, they might then be con- sidered as illegal assistance by virtue of being part of an overall pat- tern of conduct.' However, standing alone as they do, we do not believe that these grants of clerical assistance warrant a finding of violation of Section 8 (a) (2).' Consequently, we also find that the majority status obtained by Fibre Workers Associated was not tainted and that the Respondent committed no violation by entering into a collective-bargaining agree- ment with it. CONCLUSIONS OF LAw 1. Crompton-Shenandoah Company, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and Fibre Work- ers Associated, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. Respondent has not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] ' Perry Coal Company, et al., 125 NLRB 1256 , and Wagner Iron Works, a corporation, 104 NLRB 445. 2 See Fender Electric Instrument Company,.Inc., 133 NLRB 676; Signal , Oil and Gas Company, 131 NLRB 1427; and Jolog Sportswear, Inc. and Jonathan Logan, Inc., 128 NLRB 886.