Standard Knitting Mills, Inc.

1122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Standard Knitting Mills, Inc. and Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, Petitioner. Case 10-RC-6951 July 10, 1968 DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND ZAGORIA On November 20, 1967, the Acting Regional Director for Region 10 issued his Second Supple- mental Decision[ in the above-entitled proceeding' in which he adopted the Hearing Officer' s findings, conclusions, and recommendations, overruled Peti- tioner's sole unresolved objection2 to conduct af- fecting the results of the election, and certified the election, and certified the election results. Thereafter, Petitioner filed with the National Labor Relations Board certain papers styled "Exceptions" to the Acting Regional Director's Second Supple- mental Decision, which the Board treated as a request for review filed pursuant to Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations and State- ments of Procedure, Series 8, as amended. The Em- ployer submitted a brief in opposition to the Peti- tioner's request for review. On January 5, 1968, the Board by telegraphic Order granted the Petitioner's request for review. The Employer filed a brief on review. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. In the instant objection Petitioner alleges that the Employer coercively interrogated employees and threatened plant closure and loss of benefits if the Union won the election. The Acting Regional Director in his Second Supplemental Decision ' Not published in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. 2 Objection 13. ' The following conduct involving four employees was found to be unob- jectionable: 1. Dye Department Manager Manning, in mid January, threatened em- ployee Scalf at the latter's work station that if the Union won, employees would have lower wages, fewer paid holidays, and shorter vacations. At the same time he coercively interrogated Scalf as to why he was "still messing around with this Union." 2. Finishing Department Production Supervisor Foust threatened em- ployee Evans on the plant floor in late January or early February that he was sure the company would close if the Union got in. 3. A few days before the election Foust coercively interrogated em- ployee Cotter as she was leaving work as to how she was going to vote, and threatened that wages would be cut if the Union won. 4. Finishing Department Head Cardwell, less than 2 weeks before the election, told employee Arnold at her work station that wages would be cut if the Union won. Alleged misconduct involving three additional adopted the Hearing Officer's findings that four employees were in fact so threatened in various in- cidents involving three different supervisors between January 5. 1967, when the petition was filed, and April 6, 1967, when the election was held, and that certain incidents involving other em- ployees were not objectionable or did not occur as alleged.' The Acting Regional Director, in further agreement with the Hearing Officer, held that the misconduct involving the four employees was in ef- fect de minimis as the total employee complement was nearly 3,000 and the misconduct occurred at times too remote from the date of the election to have had any probable effect thereon. We disagree. The Board has traditionally held that misconduct of the foregoing type has a tendency to impair the freedom of choice by employees in representation elections and thus requires the holding of another election." While it is true that in some cases the Board has concluded that certain objectionable conduct was too isolated in reference to the total circumstances to warrant an inference that it sub- stantially affected the election results, we, unlike the Regional Director, do not believe that such a finding is warranted here. As indicated above, some of the misconduct here occurred shortly before the election and included outright threats of plant closure and loss of benefits as a penalty for unionization-coercion of a most serious nature. Further, the authors of these threats, as well as the unlawful interrogation, were not minor supervisors but rather occupied positions of substantial authority.' While only four employees were directly involved in these incidents, the im- pact of such incidents was not necessarily limited to those four employees. Experience has shown that statements made during election campaigns are the subject of discussion and repetition among the elec- torate.6 employees was found to be objectionable or not to have occurred as alleged. Allied Plywood Corp., 122 NLRB 959, 961. s For example, one of the supervisors who engaged in the misconduct was Cardwell, the head of the finishing department which has 350 em- ployees. " E.g., Intercontinental Manufacturing Company, Inc., 167 NLRB 769. In addition to the likelihood that word of the incidents was broadcast, there is a direct indication in the record that such was the case. The Hearing Of- ficer rejected, as hearsay, an offer to prove by employee McKinyen that employee Evans told her about supervisor Foust's threatening conversa- tion. To the extent that McKinyen sought to testify to the fact that Evans made the statement to her, the testimony clearly would not have been hear- say, and should have been admitted into evidence. The Petitioner then re- called Evans and offered to prove the conversation by her. This offer was rejected by the Hearing Officer as not material, with which ruling we also disagree. 172 NLRB No. 114 STANDARD KNITTING MILLS, INC. 1123 Moreover, we cannot view the Employer's misconduct as isolated in view of additional circum- stances of this case. Although there were approxi- mately 3,000 employees in the unit, the Petitioner lost the election by only 17 votes, or 21 votes if it can be assumed that the challenged ballots were against the Petitioner. In essence, therefore, the im- pact of the misconduct is the same as if the entire unit consisted of, at most, 21 employees.' In the light of all the foregoing and in view of the record as a whole, we sustain the Petitioner's Ob- jection 13, and we shall set the election aside and direct a new one." ORDER It is hereby ordered that the election conducted herein on April 6, 1967, be, and it hereby is, set aside. [Direction of Second Election" omitted from publication. ] ' Cf N L R B v Ben Duthler, Inc , 395 F 2d 28 (C A 6), Cohen Bros Fruit Conipanv, 166 NLRB 88, Galbreath Bakery, Inc , 163 NLRB 408 " See The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co, Inc, 140 NLRB 133, Con- solidated Rendering Company, 161 NLRB I Cf Alitr-Chalmers Mfg Co v N L R B, 261 F 2d 613 (C A 7), Celanese Corporation of America v N L R B , 279 F 2d 204 (C A 7), cert granted and case remanded 365 U S 297, reaffirmed on remand 291 F 2d 224 (C A 7), cert denied 368 U S 925, Graphic Arts Finishing Company v N L R B, 380 F 2d 893 (C A 4), and Collins & Adman Corp v N L R.B, 383 F 2d 722 (C A 4) " An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 10 within 7 days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordina- ry circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall b 2 grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed Excel- sior Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236