United Merchants & Manufacturers, Inc.

ARAGON MILLS, ETC. 859 within 12 months following the holding of a valid election, is unlawful regardless of its added informational character . As Respondent's activity during February 1961, found above, constituted such picketing I find that it has violated Section 8(b) (7) (B), as alleged. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in activities which violate Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action which I find necessary to remedy and to remove the effect of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Woodward Motors, Inc., is an employer within the meaning of Sections 2(2) and 8 (b)^(7) of the Act. 2 Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Sections 2(5) and 8 (b) (7) of the Act. 3. By picketing Woodward Motors, Inc., within a month following the conduct of a valid election under Section 9(c) of the Act, with the object of forcing or requiring Woodward Motors, Inc., to recognize and bargain as the collective -bargaining repre- sentative of the employees of Woodward Motors, Inc., Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice proscribed by Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act 4. The foregoing unfair labor practice, having occurred in connection with the operation of Woodward Motors, Inc.'s business as set forth in section I, above, has a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States and substantially affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Aragon Mills, a Unit of United Merchants & Manufacturers, Inc., Petitioner and Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 10-ROI-308. Februa y 5, 19693 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election entered into by the parties hereto an election by secret ballot was con- ducted on February 16, 1961, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region among the employees in the stipulated unit. Following the election, the Regional Director served upon the parties a tally of ballots which showed that of ap- proxiinately 493 eligible voters, 482 ballots were cast, of which 193 were for, and 262 were against, the Union, 24 ballots were challenged, and 3 ballots were void. The Petitioner filed timely objections to con- duct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation, and thereafter issued and duly served upon the parties reports on objections, in which he recom- mended that the objection be overruled. However, during the course of the investigation he uncovered other conduct not included in the objections which, in his opinion, raised material and substantial issues 135 NLRB No. 117. S60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with respect to conduct affecting the results of the election. Ac- cordingly, he recommended that the election be set aside and,a new election directed. Both the Employer-Petitioner and the Union filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's reports. As to the objections, the Board believed that certain material and substantial issues of fact had been raised in connection with objections 4 and 5, and that such questions could 'best be resolved by a hearing. Accordingly, on July 7, 1961, the Board issued an order directing hearing on the issues in question! Such hearing was held at Rome, Georgia, on July 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29, 1961, before Frank James Kruzich, hearing officer. All parties appeared and participated at the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. On September 11, 1961, the hearing officer issued and served upon the parties his report and recommendations, in which he recommended that objection No. 4 be overruled, objection No. 5 be sustained, and that the election be set aside. Both the Employer and the Union filed exceptions to the hearing officer's report and recommendations. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 ('b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the hearing officer's conduct of the hearing and the rulings made therein and finds no demonstration of bias or commission of prejudicial error .2 The Board has considered the ob- jections in question, the hearing officer's report, the exceptions of the parties, and the entire record in this case and hereby adopts the rec- ommendations of the hearing officer to the extent noted below. We agree with the findings of the hearing officer that the discus- sions of "company policy" with employees in the Employer's offices during the critical period were designed to influence the employees involved to reject the Union. We also adopt the findings of the hear- ing officer that at least 10 employees were specifically "requested" by various supervisory personnel to visit the Employer's offices during I In the absence of specific exceptions thereto, the Board adopted the Regional Director's recommendation that objections Nos 1 and 3 be overruled. As to the remaining objections and findings of the Regional Director, the Board reserved its decision until after its deter- mination of the issues involved in the above objections I In support of its contentions that it was denied a fair hearing, the Employer asserts that after the hearing opened, but before certain witnesses for the Union were called to testify. the hearing officer permitted such witnesses to examine statements previously given during the course of the investigation which were contained in the Board's informal files and that the Employer was denied the opportunity to examine such statements We find these contentions to be without merit, as it is clear that the Employer's representa- tives had full opportunity to examine the witnesses in question during the course of the hearing, and that the hearing officer in his report did not rely upon such statements, but based his findings upon the record testimony of the witnesses in question. ARAGON MILLS, ETC. 861 the critical period for the purpose of discussing such policy .3 As for other employees, it is uncontroverted that a substantial number had similar individual discussions with supervisors during the same period in the Employer's offices.' The record shows that such visitations were primarily the result of the activity of supervisors who pursuant to explicit company instructions notified the employees that copies of "company policy" would be made available and would be discussed with any employee who wished to visit the offices of various super- visors 5 We find under all the circumstances that such notification was calculated to induce the employees to come to the various offices for the purpose of being individually propagandized, and thereby,con- stituted the type of conduct our General Shoe doctrine (97 NLRB 499, 501) was, intended to proscribe.' Accordingly, we agree with the hearing officer that the Union's objection No. 5 relating to.such con- duct be sustained.' I Moreover, we are of' the opinion, contrary to the hearing officer, that the following statements and remarks made by various super- visors to the employees listed below, without regard to the loci of where they were made, went beyond the "bounds of permissible elec- tioneering and were coercive:' (1) Herbert Robertson was asked how he thought the election would come out and was told that the` reason the Company was "wanting to do away with the union was that the Yankees up North wouldn't let them fill no orders on account of it was a Union mill plant and they was afraid, they would strike"; (2) Sarah Lumpkin was told ". . . it could be mighty serious., It could mean every one of our jobs. Company policy was better than the union contract"; (3) Elizabeth Goss was asked "what the union had ever done for her," and her opinion as to which way she thought the election would go; '(4) Howard Streetman was told that the Company ought to have a chance to show what they could do without a union and the "good things" they had- in the "company policy"; (5) Wilma Formby (with (6) Dorothy Fagan) was told that the Company should have a year's trial; '(7), Bertie Hopper was urged to 3 We find that the Employer's exceptions as to the hearing officer's findings are in- sufficient to raise material and substantial issues thereto , 4 See Employer's Exhibit No. E-19, beginning with affidavit of Viola W. Haynie. s See testimony of General Superintendent Harold Richard Hoke, general overseer of the spinning department, Thomas Hamrick, and Manager C. T Reed 9 See Jasper Wood Products Co., Inc, 123 NLRB 28,,29-30 We find that the cases cited by the Employer in its brief that such conduct does not constitute a violation of the General Shoe doctrine inapposite. Q In agreeing with the hearing officer we are not, however, relying upon his finding,; based upon "inferences" that because an "unusual" or "large", number of employees were observed in various offices of the company during the critical period such employees were necessarily specifically requested to visit the offices to discuss "company policy " We find such inferences speculative, and unnecessary in view of our findings herein. B See United States Rubber Co, 86 NLRB 3, 5; Francheater Corporation, 110 NLRl: 1391, 1392; Lakefeld Manufacturing Co, 105 NLRB 952, 954-955 Cf. Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills, 89 NLRB 943, 944; The Liberal Market, Inc, 108 NLRB 1481, 1485-1486. 862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD change her mind about voting and that if the Union was voted out the mill would run better; (8) Nick Dawson was told that "company has spent a lot of money and made a lot of improvements ... they haven't made any they couldn't move"; and (9) Hugh Hagen (Board's Ex- hibit No. 13) was asked how he thought the election was going and to vote against, the Union. Accordingly, we find that such conduct inter- fered with the freedom of choice of the employees in the election, and we shall, therefore, also sustain the Union's objection No. 4.9 As we have sustained objections Nos. 4 and 5, we-shall, set the election aside and order a new one. [The Board set aside the election.] [Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.] 9As to objections Nos. 2 and 6, we find that the Petitioner 's exceptions 'do not raise material and substantial issues thereto, and we shall , therefore, adopt the Regional Director's recommendation that they be overruled. Contrary to the Regional Director, we find that the conduct uncovered during the course of the investigation regarding the posting of a ballot on the plant's bulletin boards was not violative of our Allied Electric Products rule ( 109 NLRB 1270 ), as we are satisfied that the ballot in question could not be reasonably construed by the employees as having any official governmental endorse- ment See, , e.g., Paula Shoe, Co., 121 NLRB 673, 675 ; The Glidden Co., 121 NLRB 752, 755-756; Reflector Hardware Corp., 121 NLRB 1544 , 1548. Cf. Custom Molders of P.R. & Shaw-Harrison Corporation, 121 NLRB 1007, 1009 . Accordingly, we shall over- rule the Regional Director's recommendation and findings based upon the ballot in question Blaw-Knox Company,' Petitioner and United ' Steelworkers of America, C10.2 Case No. 6-R-976. Febntary 6, 1962 DECISION AND CLARIFICATION OF UNIT On October 20,1944, following a Board-directed election,3 the Board certified United Steelworkers of America, CIO, as the collective- bargaining representative of, Continental Foundry & Machine Com- pany's Peninsula plant 4,production and maintenance employees, and, in„the same proceeding; certified .International, Association of Ma- chinists, AFL, herein called Machinists, as the collective-bargailing_ representative of'the'machine shop ' Unit 5 at'the'sanie plant. There- after the Employer entered into collective-bargaining agreements with the Unions covering their respective units. ' The parties stipulated that the Employer is the successor of Continental Foundry & Machine Co. 2 International Association of Machinists , AFL, intervened on the basis of an existing contract with the Employer. ' 58 NLRB 213, as amended on October 3, 1944. * This plant is presently known as the Wheeling, West Virginia , plant of the Employer. 8 "All Employees in the Machine Shop Department at the Peninsula plant, including blacksmiths, blacksmith helpers, chairmen, laborers, the gang leader , machine shop in- spectors, but excluding the machine shop estimator, shop clerks, the welghman , and the blacksmith foreman , the labor leader, ,and the supervisor." 135 NLRB No. 89.