Sonoco Products Co.

SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY 637 Sonoco Products Company and Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and Warehouse, Processing and Allied Workers Local No. 6, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Joint. Petitioner Sonoco Products Company and Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and Warehousemen , Processing and Allied Workers Local No. 6, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union. Cases 20-RC-6773 and 20-CA-4336 November 18, 1969 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND Z,GORIA On February 3, 1966, the Unions herein filed a joint petition in Case 20-RC-6773 seeking to represent certain of Respondent's employees. An election was held on March 23, which the Unions lost. The Unions thereupon filed Objections to Conduct Affecting the Results of the Election. On July 13 the Regional Director sustained the objections, set aside the election, and ordered a new election. Respondent's Request for Review of the Regional Director's ruling was denied by the Board On August 17, 1966, a second election was conducted, which the Unions won. Respondent then filed timely objections to the election. On September 30, the Regional Director overruled the objections and certified the Unions as the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate in the aforesaid case. On or about October 5, Respondent filed a Request for Review of the Regional Director's Decision, which was denied by the Board On December 2, 1966, and thereafter, Respondent refused to bargain with the Unions. The Regional Director on February 16, 1967, issued a complaint in Case 20-CA-4336 alleging that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. On April 10, 1967, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On June 19, 1967, the Board granted the motion and issued the usual bargaining order. Thereafter, Respondent filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals' for the Ninth Circuit, and the Board's General Counsel filed a cross-petition for enforcement. The Court held' that the first election was properly set aside, but that Respondent's objections to the second election raised substantial and material issues of fact which should have been resolved at a hearing. The Court remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings to determine (1) whether threats had been made to Jack Mendonca, (2) whether threats or promises had been made to James Scroggins, (3) whether Ray Gonzales interfered with the election by conduct around the polling place on the day of the second election, and (4) whether, in view of all the circumstances, the election of August 17, 1966, was free and fair. In conformity with the Court's order, the Board, on October 1, 1968, remanded the case to the Regional Director for Region 20 for the purpose of conducting a hearing on the specified issues. On May 5, 1969, following a hearing, the duly designated Trial Examiner, Irving Rogosin, issued his Decision finding that (1) no threats were made to Jack Mendonca on the day of the first election of such a nature as to affect the results of the second election on August 17, 1966; (2) no threats were made to James Scroggins which interfered with or affected the results of the second election; (3) Ray Gonzales did not interfere with the second election by conduct in the vicinity of the polling place; and (4) in view of all the circumstances, the election held on August 17, 1966 was free and fair. Accordingly, the Trial Examiner recommended that the Employer's objections to the conduct of the election held on August 17, 1966, be overruled in their entirety. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and a supporting brief, and the Joint Petitioner filed a brief answering the Employer's exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as supplemented and modified below.2 'Sonoco Products Company v N L R B, 399 F 2d 835 (1968) The Court, in its remand, adverted to "telephone calls" made to Mendonca subsequent to the first election, and directed that they be considered in combination with the threats made to him on the day of that election Mendonca testified that about 3 days after the first election he learned that Nunes, one of the Union representatives who had threatened him on the day of the election, was trying to reach him on the phone, that although he was "kind of scared," he called Nunes, but that all Nunes wanted was to ask him why he was opposed to the Union According to Mendonca, "a few words were said That was it He didn't refer back to anything that had happened the first (election) day, or anything like that, so 1 just hung up and that was it " Mendonca reported this conversation to Hughes, the Respondent's plant manager and told him that "the matter of which was between him (Nunes) and me were cleared up " Mendonca did not testify to any other calls prior to the second election, or to any further contact with a union representative which might have tended to preserve or 179 NLRBNo. 101 638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Accordingly, the Board finds that the certification issued by the Board in Case 20-RC-6773 on revive any original feeling of intimidation We find that Mendonca's single telephone talk with Nunes was innocuous in itself, and when considered in combination with the threat, as the Court directed, adds nothing of coercive import The Trial Examiner, in evaluating the import on the second election of the threats on the day of the first election, noted, inter alia, that "after the episode Mendonca reported to Hughes that the matter had been cleared up by a telephone call and, presumably, the effects of the union remarks or conduct directed against him had been dissipated " In doing so, however, the Trial Examiner apparently overlooked Mendonca's later testimony that he was not referring to the threats themselves as having been cleared up, but only to his concern over -the subsequent telephone call In our own evaluation of this issue, we have taken the Trial Examiner's overstatement into account and have discounted it accordingly We are nevertheless persuaded on the basis of the Trial Examiner's other findings, which we find are fully supported by the record, that the "totality of circumstances" in this case does not justify a finding that the threats made to Mendonca on the day of the first election were such as to interfere with the fair and free conduct of the second election, held 5 months later September 30, 1966, was valid, that the Union has since that date been the' exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit therein described, and that Respondent, by refusing to bargain collectively with the Union on or about December 2, 1966, and at all times thereafter, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. ORDER 'Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board reaffirms in all respects its Order in Case 20-CA-4336, issued on June 19, 1967, which, inter alia, directs Respondent to recognize and bargain with the Union.