Pepperell Manufacturing Co.

PEPPERELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY 291 This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 746 Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38103, Telephone 534-3161. Pepperell Manufacturing Company and Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, Petitioner. Case 10-RC-69214. June 13, 1966 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION Pursuant to a stipulation- for certification upon consent election approved February 16, 1965, an election by secret ballot was con- ducted March 5, 1965, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 10 among the employees in the agreed unit. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 2,257 eligible voters, 2,192 cast ballots, of which 959 were for, and 1,155 were against, the Petitioner, 69 were challenged, and 9 were void. The challenged ballots were not sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director, conducted an investigation and, on May 14, 1965, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections in which he found that objection 1 raised credibility issues which could be best resolved by record testi- mony at a hearing; and that objections 2, 3, 4, and 5 be overruled. On June 7, 1965, the Employer and the Petitioner filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report on objections. The Employer urged that all of the objections be overruled and that a certification of results be issued. The Petitioner did not except to the recommendation for a hearing, but urged that the Board should sustain the remaining objections and direct a new election. The Board, by Order dated July 14, 1965, adopted the Regional Director's recommendation that a hearing be held with respect to objection 1; and deferred disposi- tion of objection 2, 3, 4, and 5. Pursuant to the Board's Order, a hearing was held September 1, 1965, before Hearing Officer Scott P. Watson. All parties partici- pated and were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. On Octo- ber 6, 1965, the Hearing Officer issued and duly served upon the 159 NLRB No. 9. 292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD parties his report in which he recommended that objection 1 be sus- tained; that the election held March 5, 1965, be set aside; and that a new election be directed. The Employer filed timely exceptions 'to the report and a brief in support thereof. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fan- ning, Brown, and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris- diction herein. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that all production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its Lindale, Georgia, plant, including all plant clerical employees, but excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, technical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Hearing Offi- cer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors was commit- ted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Hearing Officer's report, the Employer's' exceptions thereto, the Regional Director's report on objections and the exceptions thereto, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Hearing Officer's findings and, his conclusion that objection 1 be sustained. The Petitioner's objection 1 relates to alleged threats by super- visors to employees that the Employer would move out the plant machinery; that it would not bargain with the Union; and, that it would close down the plant before it would sign a contract. We adopt the Hearing Officer's recommendation that objection 1 be sus- tained. In addition to the reasons stated by the Hearing Officer for rejecting Employer's argument that these threats were isolated, we also rely on the overall impact of such conduct when viewed in the light of the Employer's antiunion campaign, discussed infra, empha- sizing the inevitability of a strike and the certainty of economic loss to the employees if they chose Petitioner as their collective- bargaining representative. LEECE-NEVILLE COMPANY 293 The Petitioner's objections 2, 3, 4, and 5 relate to statements by supervisors and literature distributed by the Employer during the election campaign . The Regional Director, in overruling these objec- tions, was of the opinion that with respect to objection 2 the Peti- tioner had adequately presented its policy with respect to strike bene- fits, in answer to alleged statements of supervisors , sufficiently for the employees to evaluate them. We agree. With respect to objec- tions 3, 4, and 5, the Regional Director was of the opinion that the literature could clearly be evaluated by the employees as partisan electioneering. We do not agree. Our careful review of the literature persuades us that its central theme was the inevitability of a strike if the Union won the election and collective bargaining were to ensue which would result in certain economic loss to the employees. We are of the opinion that the aforementioned threats coupled with the literature we have described impaired the freedom of the employees to make, an unfettered choice. Accordingly, we shall sustain the Hearing Officer's finding and conclusion with respect to objection 1, and, further, we shall sustain Petitioner's objections 3, 4, and 5. In the circumstances, the Employer has engaged in conduct which in our view interfered with the employees' free choice in the elec- tion; therefore, we shall set aside the election and direct that a second election be conducted. [The Board set aside the election.] [Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.] Leece-Neville Company and Communications Workers of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO. Cases 10-CA1-633 and 6?46. June 14, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On March 8, 1966, Trial Examiner Joseph I. Nachman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam- iner's Decision. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended dis- missal of these allegations of the complaint. Thereafter, the Respond- ent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief. 159 NLRB No. 29.