Allen-Morrison Sign Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 9, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 73 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

ALLEN-MORRISON SIGN CO., INC. 73
Allen-Morrison Sign Co., Inc. and Textile Workers Union of
America, AFL-CIO, CLC. Case No. 5-RC-3509. August 9, 1962
DECISION ON REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION
OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Regional Director for the Fifth Region on June 30, 1961, an election
by secret ballot was conducted on July 21, 1961, under his direction
and supervision in an appropriate unit. Upon the conclusion of the
balloting, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which
showed that of approximately 161 eligible voters, 68 cast ballots for,,
and 91 against, the Petitioner and 6 cast challenged ballots. The
number of challenged ballots was insufficient to affect the election
results. Thereafter the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election.
After an investigation the Regional Director issued a supplemental
decision on September 1, 1961, overruling objection No. 2 and reserv-
ing decision on objection No. 1. Thereafter, on October 10, 1961, the'
Regional Director issued a second supplemental decision and certifi-
cation of results of election in which he overruled objection No. 1 and
certified that the Union was not the exclusive representative of the
employees in the unit. The Petitioner meanwhile, on October 2,
1961, had filed with the Board a request for review with respect to the
ruling on objection No. 2. This request, opposed by the Employer,
was granted on October 16, 1961, and is disposed of herein. No request
for review having been filed with respect to the Regional Director's
ruling of objection No. 1, that matter is not before us.
Objection No. 2 dealt with the Employer's alleged injection of "the
extraneous issue of race hatred into the representation proceedings.""
The facts giving rise to this allegation are as follows :
On July 13,1961, the Employer sent all employees a 51/2-page single-
spaced letter, dealing primarily with matters indisputably germane
to the election. Approximately a page of the letter reads as follows:
Another thing for you to consider is a problem which has ex-
isted in the South for many years to which there has been no good
answer. That is the question of racial segregation. Whether-
you believe in segregation or integration of white and colored
schools, swimming pools, plants and other places is a question for
you to decide and each person is entitled to his own view. The
Company considers this a matter for each individual to decide.
The national unions on the other hand have taken the view that
they are supposed to decide the question of segregation or inte-
gration and they have actively promoted integration.
138 NLRB No. 11.
74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A few years ago, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. which includes the Textile
Union was working hard to do away with segregation and using
dues they collected from members to try and promote integration,
without the members having any say-so as to whether their money
should be spent to mix the white and colored people in schools,
plants, and elsewhere. At that time in a case which was before
the United States Supreme Court, the C.I.O., now merged with
the A.F.L., and which included the Textile Union, filed an official
document in which it stated that the union "supports the elimina-
tion of racial segregation from every phase of American Life."
The union further urged that segregation should be ended "forth-
with" rather than by "gradual adjustment." This document
further stated that where the "unions have their way, there is
likewise no segregation in the use of plant eating places, locker
rooms, restrooms, etc." Several years ago, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.
gave $75,000.00 from the dues of its members to the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People which is the
organization working to wipe out all racial segregation, both in
schools, manufacturing plants and elsewhere. Since the unions
lost so many members in the South because of this, they now play
it down in the South and don't say very much about it, but their
national leaders still work for integration and use dues of mem-
bers to pay for it.
Our purpose in pointing these matters out to you is not to tell
you how you ought to feel on integration and segregation, but to
let you know how the unions, including the Textile Union, have
tried to force it down the throats of the people living in the South.
You might ask these people about what happened in Front
Royal, Virginia, last year when the court closed the schools and
Local 371 of this union voted to put up some money to operate
schools for white children. This same National Textile Union
came in and "fired" the officers of the local and froze its
assets ... .
On July 19, 1961, 2 days before the election, the Employer sent
another letter to all employees. This letter was two single-spaced
pages and made no mention of race relations. It concluded, however,
with the postscript : "You may be interested in the attached news-
paper clippings." The attachment thus referred to was a one-column
reprint from the September, 1960, issue of Militant Truth (a publi-
cation described in our decision in Sewell Manufacturing Company
[138 NLRB 66], issued today), which reads as follows:
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION (TWUA) Local 371, Front
Royal, Virginia, believes in the time-honored principle of racial
separation. In keeping with that principle, the local voted to
ALLEN-MORRISON SIGN CO., INC. 75
purchase $8,000 in bonds to help finance a segregated school in
the community.
The BIG BOSSES of TWUA, in the New York Office,
denounced the action of the local as being inconsistent with the
TWUA policy of racial integration, and demanded that the Front
Royal local rescind its action.
When the local refused to yield to pressure from the top union
radicals, an "administrator" was placed over its affairs, which
proves that the individual union member and the individual union
local have NO RIGHTS-"civil rights" or otherwise-they must
be puppets and stooges of the TOP UNION BOSSES or get
out. The funds of the Front Royal local were seized and the
local officials were suspended.
At the TWUA convention held in Chicago a few months ago,
WILLIAM POLLACK, president of the Textile Workers Union
of America, made the union's position clear :
"We cannot have a local union act for segregation. We as a
union must be able to hold our head high."
Union organizers frequently lie to the people they are attempt-
ing to organize, telling them that the policies of the international
unions are not important; that "the people" in the local run their
own business. Nothing is further from the truth. Labor unions
are operated as DICTATORSHIPS from the TOP."
The Regional Director considered that the propaganda in this case
was permissible within the rule of Sharnay Hosiery Mills, Inc., 120
NLRB 750.
Our general views as to whether elections should be set aside
because race issues are raised in campaign propaganda are set forth
in Sewell Manufacturing Company, supra, decided this date. Apply-
ing the principles there set forth to this case, we believe that this
election should not be set aside.' The Employer's own letter was
temperate in tone and advised the employees as to certain facts con-
cerning union expenditures to help eliminate segregation. The
excerpt from Militant Truth concerned action taken by the Union
in this case in a nearby city. We are not able to say that the
Employer in this case resorted to inflammatory propaganda on matters
in no way related to the choice before the voters, and we therefore
decline to set the election aside.
Upon consideration of the Regional Director's report, the Peti-
tioner's exceptions thereto, the petition for review, the brief in oppo-
sition thereto, the Employer's brief on the merits, and the entire
record, we find in accord with the Regional Director that there is
1 Member Brown dissents because in his view application of the criteria enunciated in
the Sewell case requires the conclusion that in the circumstances of this case the Employer
exceeded the limits of permissible campaigning.
76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
no sufficient basis for upsetting the election. In the circumstances,
-we shall adopt the recommendations of the Regional Director and
overrule the objections of Petitioner. As the Petitioner has failed to
.secure a majority of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify the results
,of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid votes was not cast
for Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO, CLC, and that
,said labor organization is not the exclusive representative of the
employees in the unit found appropriate.]
MEMBER BROWN took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision on Review and Certification of Results of Election.
The H . K. Ferguson Company and Herbert F. Roberts and
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, the Tuscaloosa and Vicinity District Council of
Tuscaloosa and Selma, Alabama, and Carpenters and Mill-
wrights Local Union No. 1337, Parties to the Contract
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, the Tuscaloosa and Vicinity District Council of
Tuscaloosa and Selma, Alabama, and Carpenters and Mill-
wrights Local Union No. 1337 and Herbert F. Roberts and
The H. K. Ferguson Company, Party to the Contract. Cases
Nos. 15-CA-1025 and 15-CB-195. August 10, 1962
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On May 9, 1962, the Board issued a Proposed Supplemental Deci-
sion and Order in the above-entitled proceeding,' proposing certain
modifications of the Decision and Order issued herein on August 18,
1959.1 Thereafter, Respondent Council and Respondent Local Union
'filed exceptions to the Proposed Supplemental Decision and Order.
The Board 3 has considered the exceptions and the entire record
herein and, finding no merit in the exceptions, concludes that the
Proposed Supplemental Decision and Order should be adopted. Ac-
cordingly, and pursuant to Section 10(c) and (d) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Proposed Supplemental Decision and
Order issued herein on May 9, 1962, be, and it hereby is, adopted.
1 Not published in NLRB volumes.
2124 NLRB 544.
'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 [ Members Rodgers , Leedom,
and Brown].
138 NLRB No. 13.