Marman Bag Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 456 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The strike and alleged interference thereafter
A substantial number of employees remained away from the plant on Monday,
September 17, in protest against the layoff, and 2 or 3 days later picket lines
were set up.
General Counsel introduced some evidence which, if credited, would show that
the Respondent interfered with the employees' rights to engage in collective
activities. Employee Elmer Beasley said that on the morning of September 17,
outside the plant gates, he heard Joe Neuhoff, one of the Neuhoff brothers, ask
all who had not signed a union card to come in to work, and that he heard Neu-
hoff tell another employee, Jewel Carpenter, "You know Christmas is coming."
That such a discriminatory request or implied threat was made by Neuhoff was
not only denied by the official himself, but by many employees, including Car-
penter, who, Beasley said , were also present at the time. The Trial Examiner
is unable to accept as true Beasley's unsupported claims.
As noted heretofore, General Counsel specifically stated that, absent a finding
of an unfair labor practice strike, he made no claim of discriminatory selection of
strikers for return to work. Nor does the record permit such a finding.
It will be recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the
Trial Examiner makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of the Respondent occur in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices, as alleged in the
complaint, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
MARMAN BAG COMPANY , INC. and STOVE MOUNTERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 10-RC-
?048. March 11, 1953
Decision and Certification of Representatives
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an
election by secret ballot was conducted among the employees in the
stipulated unit on November 3, 1952, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region. Thereafter,
a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally showed that
of approximately 53 eligible voters, 47 cast valid ballots, of which 29
were for, and 18 against, the Petitioner. There were neither void nor
challenged ballots.
On November 10, 1952, the Employer filed objections to the results
of the election. Thereafter, in accordance with the Board's Rules
and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation
103 NLRB No. 59.
MARMAN BAG COMPANY, INC. 457
and, on January 28, 1953, issued his report on election, objections to
election and recommendations to the Board, which he duly served
upon the parties. In his report, the Regional Director found that the
objections raised no substantial or material issues affecting the election
and recommended that the objections be overruled and that the
Petitioner be certified on the basis of the tally of ballots. On
February 9, 1953, the Employer filed exceptions to the report.
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 Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer, as the parties stipu-
lated, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production, maintenance, and shipping department employees
at the Employer's Nashville, Tennessee, plant, excluding office cleri-
cal employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
5. The Employer objected to the election on the ground that the
Petitioner coerced certain employees of the Employer by threats of
injury to them, their families, and their property, thereby materially
affecting the election results. In support of its objections, the Em-
ployer submitted affidavits of three employees alleging coercive acts
by employees Marino, Binkley, and Waggoner.' However, the Re-
gional Director found, upon investigation, that the alleged acts did
not in fact occur; that in some instances, even if they occurred, there
was no connection with the election; and that, in any event, the evi-
dence failed to establish that the alleged participants in these acts
were the Petitioner's agents. The Employer excepts to these conclu-
sions and requests a hearing on its exceptions.'
We find it unnecessary in this case to determine whether or not
the coercive conduct in issue occurred. As already noted, the Re-
I Employee Witcher alleged Marino threatened damage to her property. Another
employee claimed Witcher informed her of a physical attack by Marino, Binkley, and
Waggoner . Employee Alley alleged , among other things, that Marino warned him
several times not to park his car around the plant because the tires might be cut and
that Waggoner displayed a knife and said she used it to "keep people in line."
' The Employer also contends that the Regional Director failed to conduct an impartial
investigation . We find no evidence to support this contention , and accordingly it is
hereby rejected.
458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gional Director found there was no evidence that Marino, Binkley, or-
Waggoner, the alleged participants in the coercive conduct, were other
than rank-and-file employees, whose actions are not attributable to
the Petitioner. The Employer's exceptions, in our opinion, do not
advert to any specific, substantial evidence which controverts these
conclusions 3 Accordingly, we find, as did the Regional Director, that
the Employer's objections raise no substantial and material issues
with respect to the election, and we hereby overrule them.4
As the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner received a majority
of the valid votes cast in the election, we shall certify it as the exclusive-
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Stove Mounters International Union
of North America, AFL, has been designated and selected by a ma-
jority of the employees of Marman Bag Company, Inc., Nashville,
Tennessee, in the appropriate unit, described in the stipulation for
certification upon consent election herein, as their representative for
the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9
(a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of
all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining,.
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment.
S Aside from conclusionary and speculative allegations, the exceptions that relate to the
Petitioner 's responsibility for the alleged acts of Marino , Binkley, and Waggoner rest
on newspaper references to Waggoner as the "spokesman " for the Employer 's employees
during a strike in August 1952, the inception of which, at least, appears to have occurred
before the Petitioner ' s advent at the Employer 's plant.
4 J. J. Newberry Company, 100 NLRB 84; Benton's Cloak J Suit Company, 97
NLRB 1327.
CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION, METAL PROCESSING DIVISION and
OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No . 212 A. K
OF L., PETITIONER. Case No. 3-RC-1085. March 11, 1953
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hymen Dishner,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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-mein-
ber panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
103 NLRB No. 60.