Lockwood-Dutchess, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 28, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 1089 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

LOCKWOOD-DUTCHESS, INC. 1089
no such workers are presently employed or contemplated in
the future, the Board finds such an exclusion unnecessary.
If a majority of the voting group vote for the Petitioner in
Case No. 33-RC-441, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the
Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is
instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the
Petitioner for the unit described in paragraph numbered 4,
which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event
a majority vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the
existing unit to be appropriate and the Regional Director will
issue a certification of results of election to such effect.
[The Board dismissed the petitions in Cases Nos . 33-RC-
440, 33-RC-442, 33-RC-443, 33-RC-446, and 33-RC-454.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Member Peterson concurring in part and dissenting in part:
The majority opinion in this case dismisses petitions for
separate units of boilermakers, pipefitters and welders,
machinists, station operators and boiler firemen, and directs
an election among the carpenters. I agree with my colleagues
that the first three groups are not skilled craftsmen and the
units sought are therefore inappropriate. However, with
respect to the station operators and boiler firemen, although
I concur with my colleagues in their conclusion that these
employees are not entitled to separate representation, I do
so only because of the substantial bargaining history on an
overall basis and the absence of other factors which would
warrant their severance from the established unit.' Further-
more, for these same reasons I disagree with the direction
of an election for the carpenters and also would dismiss
that petition.
Chairman Farmer and Member Rodgers took no part in the
consideration of the above Decision, Order, and Direction
of Election.
6See my dissenting opinion in W. C Hamilton & Sons, 104 NLRB 627.
LOCKWOOD-D UT CHESS, INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS UN-
ION OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 2-RC-5169.
August 28, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
On November 17, 1952, the Board issued a Decision and
Direction of Election in the above - entitled proceeding. Pur-
106 NLRB No. 166.
1 090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
suant thereto , the Regional Director for the Second Region,
on December 4, 1952, conducted an election by secret ballot
among the production and maintenance employees of the
Employer. At the close of the election the parties were
furnished a tally of ballots. A corrected tally of ballots was
issued on January 6, 1953, showing that of approximately 350
eligible voters, 133 voted for the Petitioner , and 173 against.
Two void ballots were cast and 13 ballots were challenged.
On December 11, 1952, the Petitioner filed timely objections
to conduct allegedly affecting the results of the election and
served a copy on the Employer. The objections alleged inter-
ference , discrimination , and coercion by the Employer's
supervisors and "an unexplained absence of nine ballots
unaccounted for."' On December 12, 1952, the Petitioner
mailed to the Regional Office a bill of particulars , detailing
the occurrences on which it relied in support of its objections
and served a copy on the Employer.
Thereafter the Regional Director investigated the objections
and on March 19, 1953, issued and duly served upon the
parties a report on objections , finding that the Petitioner's
objections did not raise substantial and material issues with
respect to the conduct of the election and recommending that
they be overruled. However , in the course of his investigation,
the Regional Director found that the superintendent of the
Employer's bleachery division had sent a preelection letter
to the employees containing some statements which, in his
opinion , created an atmosphere which prevented afreeexpres-
sion of the employees ' desires with respect to collective-
bargaining representation . Accordingly , the Regional Director
recommended that the election be set aside.
On March 30, 1953, the Petitioner filed exceptions to the
Regional Director ' s recommendations with respect to a num-
ber of its objections. The Board' agrees with the Regional
Director that the Petitioner' s objections do not raise sub-
stantial and material issues with respect to the election and
finds no merit in the Petitioner' s exceptions.
On March 31, 1953, the Employer filed exceptions to the
recommendation that the election be set aside, on the ground
that the conduct complained of was not coercive , and that,
in any event , the Regional Director was without power to
recommend setting aside the election on the basis of state-
ments contained in a letter not specifically referred to in
the Petitioner 's objections. The Board finds no merit in the
latter ground of exception.'
'Subsequent investigation revealed that 10 ballots cast against the Petitioner had been
overlooked in the original tally. The corrected tally includes these ballots.
2 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 [ Chairman Farmer and Members
Styles and Peterson].
3 Hobart Mfg. Co , 92 NLRB 203; J I. Case Company, 86 NLRB 12.
LOCKWOOD-DUTCHESS, INC. 1091
The Regional Director's recommendation that the election
be set aside is based on 2 statements in a letter signed by
A. Durfee Damon, superintendent of the bleachery division,
mailed to employees on December 1, 1952, 3 days before the
election. The first of these statements reads as follows:
Has the established policy of painting and maintenance
work during slack business been of any benefit to you?
With the Union in the plant, do you think the policy would
be continued or allowed? I think that you would be sent
home until business picked up.
The Regional Director interprets the statement as an
implied threat of economic reprisal by the Employer if the
Union won the election. In the light of the general tenor of the
letter from which this statement is extracted, we believe that
it should reasonably be interpreted as an expression of the
writer's view of the Union's probable policy on slack time
in the event of a union victory. This is the most probable
interpretation because it follows directly a statement with
regard to overtime policy which the Regional Director himself
interprets as being merely Damon's forecast of the Union's
probable future policy." In these circumstances, we cannot
find that Damon's statement with regard to slack time policy
was reasonably calculated to coerce the employees.
The second statement in Damon's letter on which the
Regional Director based his recommendation deals with the
Employer's water rights. To evaluate its possible impact
on the employees, it is necessary to consider the circum-
stances in which it was made.
The Regional Director finds that during the preelection
campaign there was a widespread rumor among the employees
that if the Union won, the Employer would discontinue its
operations at Wappingers Falls, New York, and carry them
on at some other location, probably in the South. The plant,
one of the largest in the vicinity, has been in operation at
the same site for about 140 years. It has provided a very
stable source of employment to residents of the area, which
is reflected in the fact that a substantial number of the rank-
and-file employees have worked for the Employer from 20
to 40 years. In these circumstances, the rumor that the
Employer would move if the Union won the election created
much concern among the employees. Recognizing this, the
4 The preceding paragraph of Damon's letter reads as follows:
How much does overtime at time-and-a-half rates mean to you? It means plenty to
most of you, I know. Do you think you would get as much or any overtime with the union
in the plant9 I don't know how it would work out actually, in our case, but judging from
what I understand has happened at other plants, I believe that the Union would clamor
for the hiring of additional workers, more dues payers for them. You should think about
that
322615 0 - 54 - 70
1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union made repeated attempts in letters and circulars to
reassure the employees by pointing out that the great natural
advantages of the location of the plant at the foot of the falls,
and the water rights enjoyed by the Employer at this location,
made it economically impracticable for the Employer to
relocate its plant., The Regional Director finds there is no
evidence that the Employer either initiated the rumor or was
responsible for its dissemination although it was aware that
it was widespread. Superintendent Damon, in his December 1
letter to the employees, made the following reference to the
"water rights":
Now what about these "magic" water rights that the
Union claims prevent this plant from closing down. Do
you really believe all this imaginary bunk? If you do,
stop a minute to think and you will realize that the only
place to utilize water power is at the bottom of the falls,
and the Bleachery is there, owns the ground there and
owns the pipe that carries the water down to the Power-
house, and even though the plant was shut down, they
could retain ownership of that ground and pipe and hang
on to these "magic" water rights.
The Regional Director reports that Superintendent Damon
denied that he had intended this statement as a threat and
explained that some union supporters had been saying that the
possession of the water rights imposed some legal obligation
on the Company to continue to operate the plant at Wappingers
Falls and his statement was intended to clarify the situation.
The language Damon used seems much more intelligible in
relation to this alleged union contention than as a rebuttal of
the Union's argument that it would be economically unfeasible
for the Employer to move its plant. We cannot agree that it
was reasonably calculated to produce the impression that in
the event of union victory the Employer would move its
operation. Accordingly, we reject the Regional Director's
recommendation that the election be set aside and we hereby
overrule the Petitioner's objections.
As we have overruled the objections to the election, and as
the corrected tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner lost
the election, we shall issue a certification of results of
election to this effect.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was
not cast for Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, and that
this labor organization is not the exclusive representative of
the production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Wappingers Falls, New York, plant.]