Pillowtex Corp.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pillowtex Corporation and Warehouse, Mail Order, Office, Technical and Professional Employees Union, Local No. 743, affiliated with the Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petition- er. Case 13-RC-14298 January 30, 1978 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND MURPHY Pursuant to authority granted it by the National Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three- member panel has considered the objections to an election held on April 15, 1977,1 and the Hearing Officer's report 2 recommending disposition of same. The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the Hearing Officer's findings3 and recommendations, only to the extent consistent herewith. We find merit in Petitioner's exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Respondent did not interfere with the election by offering campaign buttons to the employees. Approximately 3 days before the election, Supervi- sor Alksnis distributed buttons to employees, im- printed "No Vote No." In one area, where the employees were sewing and "beating" pillows, Alk- snis placed a button on each sewing machine and then passed the box in front of each of the other employees. The Hearing Officer found that apparent- ly "every employee who was sewing or beating got a button," and concluded that "the Employer did not require the employees to announce their preference through the acceptance or rejection of the buttons." On the contrary, we find that is what the employees were required to do. When employees are ap- proached by a supervisor and offered buttons such as the ones in issue, they have only two alternatives: accept the buttons and thereby acknowledge opposi- tion to the Union; or reject them, and thereby indicate their support of the Union. 4 In either case, the fact that the employees must make an observable choice is a form of interrogation. Furthermore, should employees feel compelled to choose a button containing a message opposite to their views, that is coercion and it likewise interferes with the election. I The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election. The revised tally was 35 for, and 45 against, the Petitioner; there were 7 challenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect the results. 234 NLRB No. 89 Accordingly, for the reason stated above and the interrogations conducted by Alksnis, as fully set forth in the Hearing Officer's report, pertinent portions of which are attached hereto as an appen- dix, we hereby set aside the election and direct a second election. [Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot- note omitted from publication.] APPENDIX Meetings Conducted by Alksnis For almost two weeks in April 1977, Alksnis conducted about five meetings with three or four employees at a time, in the cafeteria. At the start of these meetings, Alksnis asked the employees why they wanted or thought they needed a union. As the employees brought up reasons, Alksnis presented the Employer's side of those issues. Thus, there is testimony that an employee asked about raises and Alksnis said the employees get two or three raises a year and the Employer couldn't give them now because of the pending election; that an employee asked about funeral leave and he answered that the most funeral leave he's heard of in union or work places was three days; that an employee asked about employees being fired and he assured him that employees were rarely fired by the Company and only for poor work. Dominguez was called to two meetings and was told by Alksnis, through Ortega, who translated for him, that the reason she was called down twice was that he did not think she was convinced (according to Dominguez) or she was confused (according to Ortega). Ortega had difficulty in recalling what she, in turn, said to Dominguez, whereas Dominguez specifically recalls that she was told that it seemed she was on the Union side. Meetings such as these are not to be considered as per se interference and their factors must be considered overall, on a case-to-case basis. Some of the factors to be consid- ered are the size of the groups interviewed, the locus of the interviews, the position of the interviewer in the Employer's hierarchy, and the tenor of his remarks. NVF Company, Hartwell Division, 210 NLRB 663 (1974). In this case, the location of the interviews was familiar to the employees, but away from their work stations, and there is no evidence that similar meetings for other purposes have ever been held there. Perhaps 15 to 20 employees out of 108 eligible voters were interviewed by Alksnis. Each group consisted of only three or four employees, a group small enough to allow one-on-one discussions where Alksnis and the em- ployees individually asked and answered questions. The interviewer was known by the employees as a supervisor of the Employer. The employees were asked why they wanted a union, a question which not only required the employees to reveal their preferences, thus destroying the secrecy of balloting, but also implied that the interviewer already knew those preferences, thereby creating a feeling of 2 We amend the report to indicate the correct citation of Allied Electric Products as 109 NLRB 1270(1954). s In view of our decision, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the Hearing Officer's finding regarding Respondent's use of the Board's sample ballot. 4 Macklanburg-Duncan Cormpany, 179 NLRB 848 (1969). 560 PILLOWTEX CORPORATION surveillance. This implication of surveillance was repeated when Dominguez was summoned a second time, particu- larly with the explanation that she was being interviewed twice because she did not seem convinced. I would credit Dominguez' version of what was stated to her as the more accurate since her testimony, while sometimes choppy or erratic due to the line of questioning, was quite definite that she was told it seemed (to Alksnis) that she was on the union side, while Ortega could not remember much of the incident. Considering all of these factors, I find these meetings constituted interference with the election. Peoples Drug Stores, Inc. and Peoples Service Drug Stores 119 NLRB 634 (1957). 561